Featured Do non-cals believe in omniscience?

There you go again, making unfounded and undocumented claims. Point to the thread and post where this happened?

I am supposed to close all threads that get to a certain page limit (as per the rules given to me), so to suggest I'm running from your baseless fallacies is laughable. I can be accused of many things, but running from a debate is not one of them. I like a good debate to a fault and would never intentionally leave one where the 'opponent' was making actual arguments...Something you rarely do, BTW.

And? What is the point? Make an argument.

 

My original questions:

"So when people get saved and God chooses himself he gets glory how? And when people don't get saved God rejects himself he gets glory how?"

If men can't really choose God then it is God choosing God. Likewise if God causes every decision, he also causes people to reject him which in effect means God is rejecting himself. It's hard to see how that glorifies God. Now if a son goes astray and then repents and his father receives him, that sounds more like God. Wait! That is God in the words of Jesus!

 

Your words are bitter and full of gall, preacher4truth. I'd watch it.

 

Strawman and nonsense. A needless and unfounded accusation.

What a ridiculous thought; "You're glorifying God at the expense of Scripture!" Unbelievable that one could even come up with such a ridiculous accusation. We glorify God at the expense of Scripture? That's a ludicrous and unfounded charge.

Prove it with quotes from Calvinists and scholars that state this succinctly.

 

jb,

Calvinists would never actually say God is choosing himself or rejecting himself. Granted, it ultimately is God's doing in their system, but they would never say that. They would say that God regenerates the heart causing them to have a new desire to come to Christ (i.e. God causing them to choose God) and they would say that God is just passing over those left in their natural rebellion so that they 'do what they were born wanting to do.' (i.e. God causing them to reject God)

The second one gets into the debate over double predestination, but personally I think its all semantics. Ultimately your assessment is right on. Calvinism, for all practical purposes, does make God at least appear to just be a puppet master who gets glory by causing puppets to do what he wants them to do, which is why many reject it.

 

Answer to OP:

YES!

 

There is a function called the "ignore list" for those who resort to such things. It makes for a much more pleasant experience here.

 

'I'd watch it?' Please. Don't threaten me, OK? It looks ridiculous.

Answer my direct reply to your direct question without attacking my person, dodging, and name calling. In other words stick to the facts and subject at hand.

OK?

Thanks.

You'll take note that I have presented and quoted your actual question and my answer, in which any person can see that; 1) You presented a direct question and the question is quite plain, and; 2) I answered your exact question concisely, and; 3) You desire afterwards to make as if you meant something else altogether since you were answered truthfully and you error is exposed.

Name calling is simply a path chosen by those who have lost the battle and proves they've lost. There's no need for it, so put it to an end.

That you have changed paths, and changed what you meant is apparent, and the reasons are obvious. When anyone does this, I will call them on it, and this is exactly what you have done.

Watch your name calling, it's not Christ like, and answer my questions, and admit that in God choosing us we glorify Him.

 

There was no resorting to any such thing. Know what you're talking about.

The fact is I addressed him, and he comes back with pejorative inflammatory remarks, and you offer support and ridicule as well. :thumbsup:

Next time look at the facts. I answered him, he dodged, then offers up pejoratives, and you take it hook line and sinker. Oh wait, he's a non-cal, nevermind.

 

If you play with a skunk its not likely you will come out smelling like roses.

 

Well, you kind of left during the middle of our 'hashing.' :smilewinkgrin:

I responded showing you why your argument is a fallacy and how it our 'problem' GREATLY differs from yours back on posts 122 and 125. You never replied...

 

Hey P4T,

Where did I refer to you with pejorative language? Please quote so I can be aware of it and offer my apology. I did say "Your words are bitter and full of gall," but that was in response to reading lots of your words that to me appeared unfriendly.

 

Now you need me to point you to where you used inflammatory pejoratives?

If you can't see that, well...then I cannot help you.

Nothing in my response to you was unfriendly. You were disingenuine and pretend after I answer that I didn't 'get' you. You in fact know that I did, but it's the game that is played here; one asks, is proven incorrect, then they play "What I meant was..."

I guess you expect that when one answers you and your exact question, that playing with them as if they hadn't, and then coming up with a new question altogether as if it is what you meant is supposed to be seen as genuine in intent?

Come on.

Don't you see how that comes across? It's condescending to say the least. It also portends that you knew the answer to your own question all along, one that you specifically say that you do not understand.

So with all of this did you expect me to 'play' along? I assume you know better than that.

There's no need to do such and act as if one isn't comprehending. The thing is you were answered and the rest is simply offered in order to ignore it.

You asked a question, a very specific question, so I take the time to address it and answered it concisely, and you go make another question as if the specific question was 'misunderstood.' That's ridiculous and you know it, so instead of staying on track and admitting what I presented as a response was accurate and showed answer to your question, you go down another road. Very uncool of you to do so, and quite disrespectful to pretend I didn't 'get' your up front question.

Quit dodging and blaming and try admitting and accepting.

Look, there is no need for the rabbit trailing. I answered you on how God gets glory when He chooses, which was your question, something you said you don't understand. Instead of addressing my direct answer, you dodge, then you come up with the pejorative response above which is unnecessary.

I explained how God gets glory from those He chose. Also, God is not rejecting Himself in rejecting of others.

Now, when you ask a question, I'll answer THAT question, and not play the game of "well what I meant was..." nor go down to your arena of pejorative accusations.

Stick to the facts without the other prattle. OK?

An admittance I answered you and that you know it, and that I didn't misunderstand you would be a thing a man of God would do. The rest of it was just plainly uncalled for avoidance.

 

:BangHead::tonofbricks::BangHead:

 

Need an excedrin Brother Quant? j/k

 

, just going to go teach some Riemann Sums leading to the definition of the Definite Integral. That should eliminate it.

 

Fellas....that would go good if animated by cartoon noises.