Search results

Let's see who is really redefining Omniscience: I believe it is God knowing all things, but I claim not to know how that causally effects the free moral actions of creatures. You believe God knowing all things prior to creating all things is equal to predetermining all things. Thus, in your...

Ok, I'll accept that answer. Now, imagine the baby interpreting the 'cooing' as meaning that the poop coming out of his pants was put there by the parent. That is what I believe Calvinists are doing when they draw conclusions about God that are not revealed in the text. If we can't even...

Did God exist prior to knowing she would be or is His knowledge of her being necessary to God's very existence?

Why? If what God does isn't evil due to his pure motive then why go to the trouble of claiming He even uses secondary means? Untrue. In a system where God creates others with creative abilities, this is not a question. Satan created/originated his own evil motive. Dahmer created his own...

1. Aren't you the ones you argued that the 'few' are a great multitude? So, that is not a failure. He accomplished exactly what he wanted: To save all who freely come to Him. 2. It would only be a failure if God tried to irresistibly save them and couldn't. That is not our claim. Which...

Those are assumptions and speculations based upon finite linear cause/effect reasoning. It's all based on IF God knew X prior to doing Y then Z must be true, but these are man-made deductions not biblical revelation. For example, and please hear me out on this, the bible talks about God...

Determined through secondary means. For all practical purposes there is no differences. It is just the way determinists soften their view to subtly suggest God is not the 'author of evil.' How do you figure? God may have a general purpose for allowing evil to rule in this fallen world but to...

Does God want you to sin? No. Do you still sin? Yes. Does that mean God doesn't have power to carry out his will?

We aren't talking about man's ability or willingness to seek God. We are talking about his ability to willingly respond to a God actively seeking him.

Wrong. God disciplines his children, whom he does love and will ultimately adopt as his own, but that in no way suggests that God doesn't also express a love and desire for all mankind to come to faith and repentance. Even Calvinists have historically taught that God indeed does love all...

That is an admin/owner level question. I have no idea. :godisgood:

I started my answer with a "NO." And then went on to give you a very THOROUGH explaination as to what Hodge is arguing against. If you can't understand that then may I suggest you study up on it and then come back and try to have a rational discussion with me about how you (and Pink) disagree...

Its fine with him, or you, or Steve, or Luke, or Fredrick to be in disagreement with the Princeton Calvinistic scholars. The problem is when they pretend to know more than they do on the matter and attack me as 'twisting,' 'misrepresenting,' or just being too stupid to understand, when I am the...

I don't remember providing you my interpretation of those verses. :confused:

No. Nothing impedes his entering heaven, save ONLY his own unbelief. I'm saying that it is a FALSE ASSUMPTION to think that Calvinists (like Hodge) have historically taught that the satisfaction of Christ on the cross was comparable to the payment of a debt for individuals, as if he...

But you admittedly disagree with Hodge's (et al) interpretation of scriptures regarding this particular point and yet have the audacity to suggest I can't even read road signs because I'm the one that brings it to your attention. Put up or hush up. General unfounded accusations serve no one...

Even Calvinistic scholars are known to say that Christ died for all, but not equally. Some are discussing the manner in which Christ did die for the non-elect. There are many various views on the atonement even within the two soteriological camps, so it may not be quite as simple as you seem...

Forest, please try to stay on topic. You comments seem completely unrelated to the context of the thread or the quotes to which you are responding. Thank you.

Oh, I also thought it would be a good reminder for those following along with us that Aaron already admitted to not being in agreement with Hodge and the other Princeton Theologians. You can see that HERE>>>>> Remember that Aaron? So, just curious, do you have a driver's license? :laugh:

Looking past your ad hominem attacks, lets consider the FACTS: You said, "He did not satisfy the law for them. The law, which is against them, still pronounces them guilty and imposes a curse upon them." In contrast Hodge says, And other Princeton Scholars of the same ilk as Hodge say even...