Calvinism and Free Will

[npetreley]

Indeed you are right. I have seen it all before. but no one can read this thread and not see this.

THEY WILL NOT ANSWER

the end

True. I couldn't help but see this quote in your post:

Well your school of self-inflicting theological injury isn't surprising but your eagerness to embrace such truncating handicaps will certainly keep you in your current mode of limited, if not completely absent, discovery.

I nearly broke a rib reading this. I think I'm going to print this on a gas-filled balloon, mount it on the wall and watch it deflate over the days. Have you ever seen one of those postmodernist essay/letter generators? I bet I could create a auto-bloviator program based on Q's posts alone. Just punch in the number of lines you want it to generate, and it will crank out condescending-sounding brain farts like this one.

 

[Amy.G]

I was just going to ask if people actually talk like that. I've wondered what Bill O'Reilly meant when he said "no bloviating". Now I know. :laugh:

You could always start a new thread with those 3 questions posed by James.

 

[Allan]

Indeed you are right. I have seen it all before. but no one can read this thread and not see this.

THEY WILL NOT ANSWER

the end

Tell you what James, I will try to articulate in more elementary terms.

Go back and read the thread. They have ALREADY been discussed (maybe not in you specific order but each has been addressed in various ways through various arguments). Why should we re-do the majority of the thread, when the time has ALREADY been taken to answer these previously.

Therefore they HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, you just don't like the answers given

 

[Allan]

No doubt he's waiting for the thread to be closed so he'll have an excuse not to answer. They've been clueless for 30 pages already. Gutless free-willers.

And you sir, have been answered point for point, but you either 'ignored' them or couldn't comprehend them. But in either case you could not dispove them, period.
Gutless? I have not seen anyone in here yet back down. I but I did watch you bow out :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

I see i speak over your head.

Arena of play...let me help you understand

Dr Ware and Dr winter calls this full spectrum of Gods sovereign

John Murray says..Gods sovereign sphere

Pink calls it the conciliation of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

There are a half a dozen phrases you could use. All mean the same. Let me know if you need more help.

James, in another thread you tried to use this phrase and even confused the Calvinists there :laugh: . You know it makes no sense to anyone but you when you use it because you even had to explain yourself there

 

[Rippon]

Shorten Your Sentences !

Q , you obviously have not encountered the meaning of words such as 'concise' and 'brief ' . And you have not met up with 'succinct' or 'pithy' either . I've run into 'redundant' in case you were wondering . However , I don't think you have been getting the hint that your posts are too wordy and ungrammatical . When someone looks at your posts they see a guy who is trying very hard to impress others . Yet you have become a court jester with your verbose ramblings . You get yourself in particular trouble with your attempted sentences of 20 or more words . You don't speak the way you write -- simplify your sentences . We may still disagree with you but your time on the BB will be more profitable .

 

[Allan]

And the game goes on and on and on. sad.

You play this game more than anyone.

But in all fairness, you made an accusation about 'them' (plural' dodging Npet 'pointed' questions', and he answered you accordingly to see where these 'dodges' were and the points to which they were attached. You sited one posting where he DOES answer the question but does not answer it to your liking. That is NOT dodging a pointed question because he might not be aware you didn't get his point. That is not his fault, but it is simply there needs to be more clarification for the other person.

The other was one not specifically answered, and agian in all fairness, even you miss postings and do not address them. And when people call you out on them (like I have done with me and you discussing something), you state you merely overlooked it. That is not dodging in the assumed reference you place it because you make the accusation of "..by them dodging your pointed questions." Notice both of these (them, and questions) are in the plural but I'm sure you are awared of that since you wrote it. So it begs the question, who are 'them' you are refering to, and the so-called pointed questionS which were dodged or not answered.


Now there were only two who were specifically dealing with Npet and about two others who came in here and there. I personally would like the know who the 'them' were you are refering to, since Alex and myself were the main commentors and the other two were not directly involved often. Maybe you were refering to them?

Anyway I personally just wanted clarification from you on that and your support of such claims. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

You could always start a new thread with those 3 questions posed by James.

Why? They have been addressed and answered here in.

 

[J.D.]

Two notes:

You are correct that God did not cause them to sin and they were created able to sin. But the adjustment from the position addressing the cause of sin in human history (the negative exercise of Adam's volition toward God) to the motive of the decree by God to permit sin errs is cause for issue.

Never minding the lack of transitional cause for the change in categorical considerations I have yet to find any discovery or presentation of apologetical or exegetical argument forwarding that God INTENDED sin to happen (which is a description of an efficacious cause of sin and not a permissive).

The intent of sin was on Adam's part. The permission of its occurrence was God's in his Sovereign decree. God did indeed use the negative intent of Adam and incorporate it into His plan for mankind's redemption but ascribing an INTENT to God for SIN to enter into the world again places God as the cause or the one that desired sin (again it makes it an efficacious cause and not a permissive one).

God intended for Adam to exercise His volition and God intended to use both the positive and negative volitional exercises of Adam to accomplish His will, which does include Adam's choice to sin.

Second note:

You seem to be (correct me if what I perceive is wrong) to be under the impression that if one is not Calvinist they are left with only 3 theological options regarding the construct of the Decree(s) of God, Pelagian/Arminian/Open. If this is true allow me to encourage you to avoid labels that debilitate people theologically and apologetically. There are an extensive number of views apart from these mere 3, none of which are even properly consider modifications of the 3 (for those tempted to such reductionist labeling). At best one can refer to them as non-Calvinist views but then even among Calvinists there is argument concerning the order of decrees.

1. So, I can mark you down as a infralapsarian?

2. It IS my intention to "debilitate" non-biblical schemes of decrees. If I have misrepresented your particular views, please forgive, and enlighten me.

 

[J.D.]

Skypair said:

JD,

I think you are beginning to realize that, as an "independent agency," angels and man were permitted to do many things most of which would be within the will of God without being directed or decreed by Him, right?

Absolutely wrong! My position is that NOTHING happens that has not been decreed by God.

Calvinists merely reject the independent aspect of man's will, isn't that so?

No, that's not quite it. Calvinists reject the freedom of man's will. That's what we mean when we say that man does not have "libertarian" (akin to liberated) will.

Basically, you can't choose to be eternally lost like you can choose to be eternally saved.

Fallen man "chooses" to sin by his own will. He willingly sins. He can not choose to be eternally saved because it is against his nature to do so. He loves sin and hates God. How can he choose to love that which he hates. He must be born again. Then he will choose to believe in Christ whom he loves with his new heart.

I'm sure you've heard all this before.

 

[Jarthur001]

Tell you what James, I will try to articulate in more elementary terms.

Go back and read the thread. They have ALREADY been discussed (maybe not in you specific order but each has been addressed in various ways through various arguments). Why should we re-do the majority of the thread, when the time has ALREADY been taken to answer these previously.

Therefore they HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, you just don't like the answers given

if that be the case, there is no harm to answer them again.

to this point...still NOTHING!!

Sure very simple.

1) Who desired to place the tree in the garden?

2) when this was placed in the garden, was God aware what would happen?

3) what happened to man in the garden?

Answer and be done with it

 

[Jarthur001]

James, in another thread you tried to use this phrase and even confused the Calvinists there :laugh: . You know it makes no sense to anyone but you when you use it because you even had to explain yourself there

That however does not make it wrong. Now that you know you no longer need it explained. So it it would help you please use...
John Murrays.....Gods sovereign sphere
:BangHead: :BangHead:

 

[Jarthur001]

You play this game more than anyone.

But in all fairness, you made an accusation about 'them' (plural' dodging Npet 'pointed' questions', and he answered you accordingly to see where these 'dodges' were and the points to which they were attached. You sited one posting where he DOES answer the question but does not answer it to your liking. That is NOT dodging a pointed question because he might not be aware you didn't get his point. That is not his fault, but it is simply there needs to be more clarification for the other person.

The other was one not specifically answered, and agian in all fairness, even you miss postings and do not address them. And when people call you out on them (like I have done with me and you discussing something), you state you merely overlooked it. That is not dodging in the assumed reference you place it because you make the accusation of "..by them dodging your pointed questions." Notice both of these (them, and questions) are in the plural but I'm sure you are awared of that since you wrote it. So it begs the question, who are 'them' you are refering to, and the so-called pointed questionS which were dodged or not answered.


Now there were only two who were specifically dealing with Npet and about two others who came in here and there. I personally would like the know who the 'them' were you are refering to, since Alex and myself were the main commentors and the other two were not directly involved often. Maybe you were refering to them?

Anyway I personally just wanted clarification from you on that and your support of such claims. :thumbs:

Lots of words....but no answers.

I have a idea...answer this...

Sure very simple.

1) Who desired to place the tree in the garden?

2) when this was placed in the garden, was God aware what would happen?

3) what happened to man in the garden?

I cannot believe it has gone on this long. Dodge after dodge.....

have you no shame?

The best way to end me asking ...is for you or someone to answer. come now..you can do it.

 

[Allan]

if that be the case, there is no harm to answer them again.

to this point...still NOTHING!!



Answer and be done with it

It has been, READ THE THREAD and YOU answer the posts ARLEADY given.

If YOU want answers, then address the already posted responces. If you wont it proves your insincere desire to actaully hear anything.

 

[Rippon]

And the non-Cals continue to bob & weave :laugh: .

 

[Jarthur001]

Not that it matters for this is but a plow to dodge again...but I will address this post.

You play this game more than anyone.

ok

But in all fairness, you made an accusation about 'them' (plural' dodging Npet 'pointed' questions',

yes

and he answered you accordingly to see where these 'dodges' were

he...meaning Q...yes

and the points to which they were attached.

not attach...just facts..but yes

You sited one posting where he DOES answer the question but does not answer it to your liking.

wrong....i gave two post...but still one is all that is needed

That is NOT dodging a pointed question because he might not be aware you didn't get his point.

and he still has not answer me or any other. :laugh:

That is not his fault, but it is simply there needs to be more clarification for the other person.

aaaaaw. maybe he cannot read. I never thought of that. But now that I pointed it out...STILL NO ANSWER

The other was one not specifically answered, and agian in all fairness, even you miss postings and do not address them.

ok...but if asked again i do. but in this case...NO ANSWER

And when people call you out on them (like I have done with me and you discussing something), you state you merely overlooked it

.
indeed. But in this case...NO ANSWER

That is not dodging in the assumed reference you place it because you make the accusation of "

is too

..by them dodging your pointed questions."

indeed...for they were.

Notice both of these (them, and questions) are in the plural but I'm sure you are awared of that since you wrote it.

yes

So it begs the question, who are 'them' you are refering to, and the so-called pointed questionS which were dodged or not answered.

well..at 1st it was WB only....for he had "overlooked" a few. But Q stepped in...thinking it was he i was talking about(guilt)...and so i happen to find a quote or two he did not address. And guess what? After I posted them...STILL NO ANSWER

Now there were only two who were specifically dealing with Npet and about two others who came in here and there.

Thanks for sharing

I personally would like the know who the 'them' were you are refering to, since Alex and myself were the main commentors and the other two were not directly involved often.

Give yourself a break and stop thinking so highly of yourself. It is my guess your post numbers on this thread are not in the top 5. But you can prove me wrong...if you choose to count. But I could care less. Once again..you jump in no knowing what you are taking about.

Maybe you were refering to them?

whatever...please notice...NO ANSWER!!!

Anyway I personally just wanted clarification from you on that and your support of such claims. :thumbs:

ok..to be clear..and maybe I have not been to this point.

Please answer this...

Sure very simple.

1) Who desired to place the tree in the garden?

2) when this was placed in the garden, was God aware what would happen?

3) what happened to man in the garden?

Thanks..

 

[Jarthur001]

And the non-Cals continue to bob & weave :laugh: .

this has to be the best thread ever!!!

haha

this is going on my blog

 

[Jarthur001]

this all begain back on page 26 I think it was...

with my giving a "good job" to another brother. This made them so mad, they could no longer see. This shows in the logic of their post. Note I said right after Q stated on his wrath and rage in something fitting to behold like no other, that I asked Q..what makes you think I'm talking about you???? or something like that. PLEASE DON"T MAKE A BIG DEAL IF ITS NOT WORD FOR WORD!! yet another side step

So what really happened? I read the thread and read a few lines by npetreley

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1125046&postcount=21
Please finish the sentence, and you'll see that you're wrong.


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1125156&postcount=39
You free-willers are all alike. The moment you get stumped you cry, "hostility!" and run away.


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1125210&postcount=43
Really? Then why is it you guys never answer the questions? Don't bother answering that one, it's a rhetorical question.

and now we are on page 32

all I did was say...good job

Hats off to you npetreley, for defending the faith in such a well showing in manner of articulation of the truth. Don't be discouraged by them dodging your pointed questions. Keep-up the good work.

Then Allan comes in to save the day....not knowing what he is talking about.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

still mad??

BTW...

Sure very simple.

1) Who desired to place the tree in the garden?

2) when this was placed in the garden, was God aware what would happen?

3) what happened to man in the garden?

 

[Allan]

well..at 1st it was WB only....for he had "overlooked" a few. But Q stepped in...thinking it was he i was talking about(guilt)...and so i happen to find a quote or two he did not address. And guess what? After I posted them...STILL NO ANSWER

See, that wasn't as bad as you thought. Thank you.

Give yourself a break and stop thinking so highly of yourself. It is my guess your post numbers on this thread are not in the top 5. But you can prove me wrong...if you choose to count. But I could care less. Once again..you jump in no knowing what you are taking about.

You made the 'Hats of off' comment shortly after npet annoucment that he was putting me on ignore just as he has with WD and Alex. I made the assumption your comment was refering to the conversation when I entered the conversation and for him to coninue in the truth (so to speak). If it extended further back than that, it was my misunderstanding and acknowledge it as such. It has nothing to do with thinking of myself so highly.

 

[Jarthur001]

See, that wasn't as bad as you thought. Thank you.

what no answer?

You made the 'Hats of off' comment shortly after npet annoucment that he was putting my on ignore just as he has with WD and Alex. I made the assumption you were refering to when I entered the conversation. If it extended further back than that, it was my misunderstanding and acknowledge it as such. It has nothing to do with thinking of myself so highly.

Not the 1st time you jump in like that. Not for sure on this...but till you started posting to me on this thread...I cannot remember reading a post of yours. I may have....but I do not recall.

But this I know..it was not to you...and..STILL NO ANSWER