Search results

As many what? Individuals or people groups? Calvinists are known for pointing to the fact that scripture often refers to individuals from all nations, rather than 'all.' Well, the same type of application can be made here. You have to remember that the word "Gentiles" means 'the non-Jewish...

4 Questions: 1. Who, while on earth, was given to Christ by his Father to prepare to carry the Gospel of reconciliation to the world? (answer found in John 17) 2. What nation were they from? 3. What was happening to the rest of the people from that nation during this time? (Acts 28; Mark...

Or....God in his sovereignty allowed for freedom, but is well equipped to still accomplish His ultimate purposes in, through and despite the evil of independent creatures.

You need to also consider why God, in his sovereignty, has made it such that the vast majority of believers no longer accept your Calvinistic premise? It's not as if you can really blame them for their ignorance or rejection of these teachings, for it is all of 'God's doing' in your world view.

And you ought to consider, if your views are accurate, that we are only missing out on what the Lord has, for whatever reason, chosen not to reveal to us. Unless of course, you believe God has revealed it to us, desires for us to accept it, but that we are free to choose to reject his truth and...

Mine starts next week, so I have that to look forward to! :thumbsup: God determined what before hand? Only that Christ would be crucified, or man's intent to kill, or both? See the difference? Its as different as my merely hiding myself from my daughter to ensure she stole the cookie, versus...

Oh, good, well then we are in agreement. Glad to hear that! :wavey:

:thumbs: I couldn't agree more. In fact, this pretty much sums up the point I've been making all along. I believe those who conclude God must have created a deterministic world are guilty of 'believing they can out think God.'

Actually, it is a good practice to take on the other side of an issue in debate. We had to do that when I competed in HS and College. It is a very difficult skill to learn. People think they understand their opponents position until they actually have to debate in defense for it. It forces...

Open Theism, probably much like any thing sounding somewhat similar to Pelagianism, has been stereotyped into a oversimplified heretical view by which its opponents can label it and dismiss it without having to deal objectively with it actual merits. I've not found many (or really any notable...

I think we agree for the most part. I'd just say that I don't believe immutability and impassability requires stoic-ness if one views God from a triune perspective. God the father can, on the one hand, know the time of His return, while God to Son, doesn't. I don't understand that, but I...

This deals with the transcendence and imminence of God's nature. He is able to be both in time and outside of time (i.e. God the Father, God the Son). He is knowable and able to be related to in time, as a friend; but at the same time be omni-'attributes.' I can't possibly know how all that...

At this point I'm simply saying that those are mere 'theories' or speculations. A "theory" carries the premise that this information isn't fully knowable, which SOME here haven't seemed to accept. I could get into the weeds with you and talk about specifics of what I think could be the way it...

I'd argue that God's foreknowledge is much more like our actual experience of the event than a mere foreseeing of what is yet to happen. He is the Great "I AM," not the great "I WILL BE." How He experiences all things at all times outside of time is indeed mysterious and shouldn't be the...

I totally hear what you are saying, and I think I agree with the general premise. However, I might take a bit different approach. I do believe God's attributes are 'the greatest extreme' in that there is no attribute greater than that which is found in God. I don't think the problem is so...

Discussion with Luke continued: As my 'cookie jar' illustration from the last post explains, I don't believe your view of 'God can determine that men would commit the sin' and my view of 'God can hide his revelation to allow and ensure that sinful men to do what they already want to do,' is...

Okay, I understand. Now, I think we are getting somewhere. So, you believe God temporarily blinds people from the truth of who Christ was, as a means to deterministically cause THAT evil intent of man (the intent to kill Jesus)? There is a distinction between our views and I want to unpack...

Do what? 1. Temporarily blind people from the truth of who Christ was, so that they would kill him in order to provide redemption? (as I believe) or 2. Deterministically cause all things, even the evil intent of man? You seem to think that my affirmation of the first validates...

I agree to an extent. The scripture does speak of God's thoughts and choices, so while he may not think 'new' thoughts or make choices like you and I do, He still does these things somehow. That is mysterious and too high for us to grasp. What I reject is the concept that evil must have...

Or you surrender, give up, and admit you can't do anything...cry out for help and he has mercy on you. You seem to put surrendering to Christ in the same category as striving under the law. I don't see where Paul ever does that. Now, I agree, that there are many who make that mistake and...