Search results

I like much of what you have said here. You are very articulate. The only point I may take issue is the parenthetical statement "it's not a thing to be created." A wound is indeed real only in relation to the arm, but something created that wound, unless you are arguing the arm was created...

You make a valid point. I do agree that we are to understand God within time, what other option do we have really? But, I think you would agree, that understanding must be firmly rooted in His revelation, not our logical constructs. I've been arguing the 'appeal to mystery' from the beginning...

Luke, you said you agree with JonC yet did you notice the first line of his post? He wrote, "I think that our understanding of God’s omniscience is by nature anthropomorphic." Yet, you are basing your entire premise on your understanding of God's full knowledge of all things, his choices of...

:thumbs: I can't believe it but we actually agree on this point. The point you bring up regarding this being 'from a human standpoint' is paramount because that is the basis for this dilemma. Notice Luke's basis of reasoning when he writes, "God has always known all there is to ever know...

Luke?????????

I may be mistaken but don't I remember you defending Compatibilism before? I thought you affirmed it?

To someone not educated on the terms I suppose it appears that way. Provide the quote. They actually say that there are no legal impediment for any man to be saved. Thus making unbelief the ONLY condition to be fulfilled. Hodge even goes in detail to explain that condition. Right. They do...

Show specifically what he said that doesn't correctly represent compatibilism. Make an actual argument.

Van, Your whole argument is based on linear finite logic. You have to use words like "before" and "prior" as it relates to 'cause and effect' within time and space while talking about an infinite God who is not limited by linear ways of thinking. The Cals and Openists premise is that if God...

He said 'Compatibilism' not Calvinism. And can you tell us specifically what he said that was misrepresentative of that philosophical system's claims? It sounded pretty accurate to me. Give specifics, otherwise you risk coming over like a "ignorant nincompoop." (as you say)

Van, I totally agree on your assessment of compatibilism. I often compare it to animal instinct because it appears to be almost identical. A Lion chooses steak over salad because he was created to desire steak and could not willingly do otherwise. Regarding Arminianism, I don't know that...

And here is why I suggested you study the distinction between the modern understanding of the word 'atonement' and the word 'satisfaction' as used by Hodge and others. If you go back and read my responses to your posts it was taking issue with your view that Christ's work 'didn't satisfy divine...

Luke, Since Christ has died, do you believe that what impedes a non-elect man from being saved is: 1. His totally depraved nature 2. His need to have his sins atoned 3. All of the above

:laugh: My kids say that all the time and when I read it just now I almost fell out of my chair. I think JonC nailed this problem on the head when he said... It would do some well to study the difference in the more 'modern' understanding of the word 'atonement' as it relates to the...

If non-Calvinists really believe that men could repent on their own, as we are so often accused of believing, then why aren't we also accused of being anti-evangelistic? After all, apparently we believe they can repent and believe in Christ all by themselves so what is the use in spreading the...

I only know of one of your threads that was closed and it reached 20 pages. Admins tell us to close them when they get to 10 pages but I've been fighting to keep the open longer, but I can't stretch them too far... You are always welcome to start a new thread once one is closed. :)

Luke, I know what you are saying and I'm trying to explain how you still are presuming your premise upon me. You said, "I am saying that God knew what would happen in this world before he built it and he went ahead and built it any way." I don't accept THAT premise. Ok? I can't possibly...

And it DOES. IF..IF...IFFFFFFF you don't ASSUME the deterministic premise that "if God fully knew everything before creating everything then he must have determined it to be." But you assume this is true and then argue against my view as if I must accept your premise (the fallacy of 'question...

I'm sorry Aaron, but this is just factually incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It is a matter of fact. Hodge states: "He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." and...

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Is the Gospel a gracious, powerful work of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No and why?