Search results

Ok, then I change my analogy to this: Calvinism: God is like a shepherd seeking to find the lost sheep that he casually determined to desire to get lost in the first place. Calvinism: God is like a hen longing to gather his chicks who are unwilling because he made them to be unwilling by...

I said that in response to the statement, "those who receive Christ do so because they aren't as fallen as those who don't," so I take this respond to mean that you believe God's sense of justice is to make some more fallen than others due to the sin of Adam? I think you may be objecting to the...

It was more that that Luke. I've explained that one can say that God killed Job's kids but really mean that he permitted Satan to kill them, but just not say that clearly. We only really know when we press them on their intent. In our discussion we originally talked about Dahmer's intent to...

You can address comments and views as being "infantile" without personally attacking an individual (i.e. "you are a liar" "you are a baby" etc) And to call someone "incapable of being corrected" when countless attempts to correct them has been fruitless is more of an observation than an...

You mean like how you can't answer why Satan freely chose to rebel against God? We both appeal to mystery on some level Luke. No, I teach the reason for the choice IS the chooser. The reason for the act is the actor. The reason for a determination is the determiner. To speculate as to how...

Answer my question regarding the difference between Jack and John the Christian Arminian and the Christian Calvinist and you will have your answer regarding the difference between Jack and John the believer and the unbeliever.

We've been down this road before Luke, remember? Suppose Jack and John are both followers of Christ and John is a Arminian while Jack is a Calvinist and they both die believing this doctrine. Why does one believe "correct" doctrine and one doesn't? Is Jack less depraved than John?

Wrong. That would be an excuse for those who rejected Christ. They freely chose to trade the truth that was clearly known and understood in for a lie. Wrong again. That would be an excuse for those who rejected. You seem to presume that the only reason someone can choose one option over...

It was more of an inside joke for P4T. When being called out for his many personal attacks the only one he could produce from me was that I called his post "blatantly false." You both tend to get a little personal in your discussions.

I took his words head on and you have left them unanswered under the guise of being 'too offended' by my accusation that you sometimes overstep the mainstream Calvinistic view...something even other Calvinists here have pointed out both publicly and privately. Revealing. And I didn't deny...

Of course not. I was using the chess game as an analogy. We would see God as taking on a real opponent with his own independent will and strategy, where as your view would have God playing both sides of the board in the sense that is what would be required for your perception of "Sovereignty."...

As I explained to you several times, it's also about the INTENT of the one saying "God did it," which is in question and can only be determined when pressed in a discussion or through a direct quote responding to that specific question. As I explained, though we know Satan did the afflicting...

"Faith, generally, is the assent given to truth; and divine faith is that which is given to truth divinely revealed." -Arminius This quote from Jacobus Arminius may help our discussion because it helps show the difference in a "general faith," which is faith in something true (i.e. Washington...

You'd like it to be because you know by answering the question you expose the weakness of your argument. You know full well that God doesn't have to give something irresistibly to be given the glory as the giver, yet that is the crux of your argument. Who gets the credit? Flesh or Spirit...

That would depend on how one wants to view what is really "sovereign?" Some think sovereignty must mean having complete and utter control of every thought, desire, action, movement, event, will etc. This view has God needing to play both sides of the chess board to guarantee victory. He has...

Out of curiosity: 1. How does one explain the virgin giving birth to a child using only 'natural' means? 2. How does one explain the resurrection (any of them) using only 'natural' means? 3. WHY would you feel to need to go to such great lengths to do so?

Again, why must a gift be irresistibly "endowed" for the giver to be given glory for giving it? That is the real point of contention here. You wrongly insist that for the gift to be credited to the giver that the means of giving must be irresistible, which is biblically unfounded and gives...

Ok, lets look that the options you have presented: 1. Faith is an operation of human nature 2. Faith is endowed supernaturally by the Holy Spirit. I would call this a false dichotomy, because you present them as if they are the only two available options. Yet, Scripture doesn't use...

Don't worry about it. I told him I didn't mind. A "Scandal" is when the truth of a mistake is brought into the light and I can't think of a better word to discribe what I do here daily as I reveal the mistakes of well intended brethren like Aaron. I consider it a compliment. :smilewinkgrin:

Do you mean how can an enemy of God be reconciled to God? How about through the powerful gospel appeal of God inviting us to be reconciled to him?