Search results

I understand, that is why I asked the question. I wanted to see HOW calvinistic you had become... Welcome. There are fellowship forums here too. This particular forum is a Theology debate forum, so don't be surprised if that theme continues....but some of us are nice too. :) So do...

Very mature. Yes, that is one of my many problems with Calvinism, but its far from being my "whole case." I can't think of a better excuse for the reprobate at judgement than the one Calvinistic dogma gives them, can you? Seriously, is there any better excuse than, "God was against me from...

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Amen!

Who is 'us?' Us refers to those who believe, thus Paul has simply said that God has predetermined to adopt all who believe. We, as believers, eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies, which God has predestined will happen. Nothing is said about God predestining some to believe...

This thread seems to need a study on the distinction between God's transcendence and his immanence. It just seems to me that God is able to be both without compromising anything and we just have to admit we can't quite comprehend such matters.

In addition to what Webdog and Ben already pointed out, allow me to ask why this offends? Isn't it a relative few who are selected by God for salvation in the Calvinistic system? When you compare those who are elect with those who are not wouldn't you say the elect are "few" in comparison...

I just asked a question...one you failed to answer by the way. :) If you are insinuating that all non-Calvinists rely completely upon emotional manipulations tactics, then you could not be more mistaken. Non-Calvinists, like myself, believe salvation is a work of God, we would just take issue...

Not necessarily. The bible is not perfectly clear on this point, so I do believe there isn't a perfect answer. However, it does seem to reveal that there is some level of "blood on the hands" of messengers who are disobedient, which seems to indicate that disobedience might be the cause of why...

It relates to both in that both have received revelation from God which is "clearly seen" and "understood" thus making them without excuse. They are held accountable to the level of that revelation. As I've quoted before: God has revealed Himself in creation ( Romans 1:18-20 ) and in human...

Doesn't that sound like a really good excuse for those who aren't saved to you? Why not just submit to the clear revelation of the text and admit that God has provided all that is needed for them to clearly know, understand and accept God's revelation but they freely choose to rebel and thus...

You are ignoring my point to argue you own, as has become typical with you. Is it fun debating yourself? There are two different objections being made, whether or not your acknowledge the distinction is irrelevant. It only reveals your own lack of understanding or objectivity in the matter...

The comment made in this context seemed to suggest that those who believe as you do (Calvinistically) credit Salvation as a work of God while those who are not Calvinists must believe it is a work of man. That is a debate fallacy called "false dichotomy." (Google has some good dictionaries. :)...

Relatively speaking there will be a "few," even the Bible says so, as Webdog pointed out.

This is what we call a false dichotomy. Salvation can certainly be a work of God without being "irresistibly" applied to a select few.

I now understand the misunderstanding. Yes, Paul was addressing all the people in Rome, but as I clarified in my question, I was asking about WHO was being addressed as being "hardened" or chosen for "ignoble purpose," not who the letter was addressing. If you go back and read my post with...

God has provided "enough" (sufficient) for someone to accept or reject his appeal to be reconciled, thus they are without excuse.

With all due respect, that doesn't answer the question I posed. How is it sufficient for someone who is non-elect and thus "totally unable" to willingly believe from birth? Jesus' death clearly isn't "enough" for the non-elect to be saved. Do you mean His death is enough to save the...

You can't equate "sin nature" with "total inability" without biblical support for doing so.

"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Clearly in this diatribe Paul anticipates the objection of "us" or "me"...

Honest question: How is his death sufficient for the non-elect when it doesn't sufficiently change their nature so as to make them willing? Doesn't "sufficient" mean "enough" for salvation? How has his death provided "enough for salvation" if indeed it doesn't overcome the "Total inability"...