Search results

You believe they are better too Aaron. Its just whether they are made to be better by irresistible force or enabled to be better by free will in response to God's gracious provision. The latter at least makes some common sense, where as the former has God rewarding himself, not the morally...

When lucifer was in heaven sin hadn't yet been defeated, so I'd say no, he didn't have that nature. He had a mutable nature, which is able to be corrupted by sin. We were made in the image of God, the scripture never indicates that the angels were also, so I suspect things are different for...

I don't think he "takes freedom away" I think he defeats sin once and for all. Once redeemed we will have a nature like that of Christ, who would not sin...not because he is not 'free' to do so, but because he is not willing to do so.

Yeah, it's like the difference between a dog and a wife. If you lock them both in the trunk of your car and leave them there for a couple hours then let them out only one of them is going to be happy to see you. :) Some may be satisfied surrounding themselves with dogs alone, but I prefer a...

I agree, there is no perfect answer and we are all still learning. But, when you speak of 'free will" as simply being 'according to what one wants" but then you refuse to discuss why it is they want what they want (because God determined it) all the while denying the possibility of...

I wouldn't say they don't have the ability, I'd say wouldn't have the desire. What do you believe that purpose is? You affirm 'free' human will, so what do you believe its purpose is? So you affirm human will but you deny its necessity? Did God mess up? Please explain. What is the purpose of...

I said 'according to my view.' I wasn't saying that is what you believed. I know what you are arguing. I've heard it many times before. We are saying true freedom is needed for true love/worship and you are countering that by suggesting that because we will not have freedom to rebel in...

I would say an average of a couple posts a day which range in different subject of soteriology and some in politics etc, is pretty occasional, but if you wish to put yourself as my judge go right ahead. You average more posts here than I do so I guess that makes you qualified. :laugh: Oh, good...

Yes, of course I have, but not much on this debate forum. Most of us, as baptists, are in agreement with all those subjects. Surely you're not suggesting that all my doctrinal interests are reflected in this one forum, are you? Is this really necessary? If you don't want to discuss this...

Correct. Even compatibilistic Calvinists affirm that men make some kind of a quasi 'choice.' But why? If God has determined man nature/desire in such a manner that he must choose one option over the other then (1) can you really even call that a choice, and (2) what is accomplished by it...

Sure. I average about 2 posts a day here and I have a very full life outside this forum, very little of which involves theological discourse. Here, on the theology debate forum, much of the debate centers around the doctrines of soteriology (study of salvation), which is more than just free...

But sin and rebellion would have already served its purpose in bringing God true worshippers, so what is your point? You are trying to argue that according to my view for those in heaven to be true worshippers then they must still be able to rebel, but that is not the case because once redeemed...

According to that logic there are no unbelievers who understand the gospel. Is that your contention? That only believers understand the claims of the gospel? Or are you one of those people who mistakenly equates the word 'understand' with the word 'accept?' The Word is wrought by the Holy...

Sure, if God wanted to make the rocks cry out he could, but clearly that is not what he wants. He is pleased by those who freely choose to humble themselves, repent of their rebellion, believe in Him and worship him...the scripture says he "SEEKS" those who worship him. So we aren't talking...

They can reject it in both of our systems, but that doesn't mean it failed to accomplish its purpose in enabling a response. In your system it accomplishes nothing for most of those who hear it, but in my system it always succeeds in accomplish the purpose for which it was sent...to make an...

Once the rebellion has been experience and defeated then its purpose has been served, but that doesn't mean it wasn't needed to teach us that truth. Once fully conformed and redeemed rebellion will be fully eradicated. A 'robot' never experienced such freedom in order to learn such lessons and...

Why don't unbelievers want to come even after being invited? Because that was their free unhindered choice in the face of God gracious love and provision. They COULD have willingly come but freely (contra-causally) decided to 'trade the truth in for a lie' and will suffer the consequences...

So man's fallen nature is more powerful than the gospel appeal according to your view? Why? Most Calvinists would affirm that God's salvific love is effectual and thus is reserved for the elect alone. Some Cals affirm a common/general love of God for all creation, but that is why I said...

Icons answer is just to once again say 'they don't want to,' but I'm asking "Why can't they want to?" That is their excuse. If you drugged someone to make them not want to do something then who is really at fault for their desire? That is the issue you refuse to address here.

Here is how I would answer them (abbreviated of course): It is your fault because according to Paul in Romans 5, "all have sinned." Have you sinned? Do you realize that your sin is an offense against the eternally and infinitely Holy God and since sin seriousness is not measured by the nature...