Search results

You added this after I responded... What is there to refute? It supports exactly what I've been saying. Look at why these people are 'without excuse.' They have 'clearly perceived' God's revelation according to this verse, some translations say they have "clearly seen" and "understood."...

No excuse for what? His choice? Or for being condemned? Or both?

I know you don't believe that your view gives men an excuse. And I know you don't believe the bible teaches that, but my argument is that your view DOES indeed give men an excuse and I've clearly laid out the argument as to why that is: Question: "Why didn't you have faith?" Answer: "You...

Maybe Wesley quoted him and didn't give him credit, because I see that quote attributed to Wesley all over the web???

Again with the accusations and no substantiation? Why doesn't that surprise me. What argument do you suppose I'm attempting to avoid exactly? Quote it, because a simple survey of the previous posts shows that I have willingly and thoroughly responded to each argument line by line...something...

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I do like the food at FreeBirds. :) When an unbeliever chooses to reject Christ gracious provision they will suffer the consequences of that choice. They perish because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved.

When someone says something like, "Your view is just wrong..." Or "Scripture supports our view..." Or "My view is truth..." they are begging the question. They are presuming that the point up for debate has been settled and it is the lowest form of debate. It is like children on the play...

John Wesley made a similar point when he wrote: Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be accountable either for his thoughts, word, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either...

Which is tantamount to the claiming the boy of the analogy I presented earlier has an excuse for not sitting and eating his meal because the father didn't force him to sit down. It's ridiculous because it assumes God hasn't given the men the contra-casual freedom to respond and thus can't bare...

Say it with me, "Question Begging."

You have your cause and effect turned around: John 20:31: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. There are many texts like this one which clearly show that life comes through faith and not the...

Right, and 'death' according to Calvinism is interpreted as 'total inability.' Thus, God's determination was to punish all mankind for Adam's sin by making them all to be born totally unable to respond to His appeal to be reconciled. That is your view plain and simple. You can sugar coat it...

No, it would be libertarian free will or irresistible grace. If you want to use the word 'coercive' fine, but its your word, not mine. As the NOTE at the bottom said, the 'force' wasn't the point of the analogy. The child being forced in the chair was merely representative of 'irresistible'...

I'm not denying that you believe that. I'm just saying that it was God's choice to punish them by making them born totally depraved and thus UNABLE to willingly repent of their sin...according to your system. In your view, Adam's fall resulted in all mankind being punished by God and that...

So, you don't believe God is the one who decided that all men would be born totally depraved as a result of the fall? Was that an accident? Chance? I really don't understand what you do with this question? Do you just pretend it doesn't exist? And, in your system, he chose to punish them by...

jbh, I consider you a reasonable and object brother, for the most part, but this is just factually incorrect. 1. Your view has sinners that don't want to believe the gospel because they were born totally unable to willingly believe the gospel due to God's choice to judge mankind for the Fall...

Calvinists don't want to engage at this point because it undercuts the very foundation of their system. If the GOSPEL is God's means to enable every man to be reconciled, which clearly the bible teaches it is, then their whole house of cards comes tumbling down. They need for the gospel to...

By that reasoning then everyone who refuses God's appeal to be reconciled has a perfect excuse for their "choice" to refuse. It wasn't a free choice. It was God's choice. God didn't grant them what they needed to respond to that appeal. You give every unbeliever the perfect excuse for their...

Me too. :thumbs: John 20:31: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

As Webdog requested, could you supply my actual quote where I 'exalt choice above God?' I simply refer you back to the Tozer quote, which you affirmed. "Man’s will is [contra-causually] free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow [contra-causual] moral freedom...