Search results

And...that would be more or less accurate Yeshua....but it is not the same thing as saying: It's the word "authority"...that is not accurate in a non-Cal or Arminian Theology....but the former statement is correct enough. The "authority" is, and remains, within the purview of God's...

Seconded...

Not really....to say "Past" is to assume time (if we think of it as what would make sense of a sequence of events) ....But to say "Eternity" is not to assume time..."Eternity" is understood by most who would view the subject as I would, to be a state rather of "time less ness". Thus to say...

They refuse to "aknowledge" that because it isn't true. No non-Cal would consider man's "will" as the final "authority" about anything. Indeed the word "will" and "authority" don't even make sense to any sane non-Cal when used in the same sentence. This may make sense to you...but, I would...

I have become intrigued a lot recently about the notions and teachings of "Divine Simplicity". Recently, many of us have thrown around many statements (maybe even somewhat carelessly sometimes) about what God "Can" or "Cannot" do. I am quite un-commital (unless it serves my own P.O.V...

Very True....Nice reference to the "Kalaam!" :thumbsup: Ultimately...Time, as an actual infinite would be logically absurd, as are all actual infinites. Better to adopt the more Orthodox P.O.V. about time's possesing a beginning. Otherwise.....We have not yet arrived at the point wherein God...

There is much truth to these historical statements...Sometimes, with respect to secular historians (who usually agree with the above) one can't always get carried away with their observations...This is to say many of them do not have the Theological background to truly differentiate between...

And you!... batting 1,000 when you discuss such topics :wavey:

:wavey::thumbs: Indeed!!! Great Post: especially: :laugh::laugh:

Initially, yes, actually :laugh:...but I saw it afterward and adjusted my post somewhat. You are indeed correct that Joshua stated that: 19And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your...

As should you: Jos 24:31 And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel. This was, in fact, the "choice" he was calling them to make....and they made...

I think it is a return to the objection many non-Calvinists level that a Calvinist cannot know or prove inescapably that they are personally indeed one of the "elect" themselves.....Many non-Cals think that ultimately, no Calvinist could (consistent with their Theology) know whether they were...

It isn't either/or....it's both. Jacob would not have stated: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. If he did not already assume the truth of: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Let them have their fun Ben...It took exactly 4 posts to go from: To: Maybe, if no one responds...It will take about 12-13 more posts to devolve into: "Non-Cals here are holding Satanic seances...I saw them do it...." "Really! I knew it all along! blah blah...and didn't Winman...

No such assumption is being made....Even plenty of Arms know that full well. Nonetheless, Joshua is literally commanding people to choose. Not really, some may make that mistake...but I don't, and I doubt most non-Cals here do. True Right....and...JOSHUA...a man, was commanding...

With respect to the OP: Deu 30:15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; Deu 30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and...

That doesn't follow O.R. It is perfectly consistent with Calvinism....but also perfectly consistent with an Arminian or non-Cal POV....It would be a non-sequitor to say that that passage puts to "sleep" a foreknowledge view...taken alone..it simply doesn't.

I would have to disagree with you here: More and more, I feel people are increasingly beginning to take umbrage at the term. I know personally places (outside of BB) where this miffs people. To argue AGAINST Calvinism automatically places one in the position of arguing AGAINST "Grace"....You...

R.B. I should not have posted as I did...I was in the wrong. Please accept my apology. There are other ways I might have reasonably discussed it. My initial post was rude and un-called for and not germaine to the thread.