Some Scripture to demonstrate God's purpose in election:
I fail to see how cherry picking out a few verses that you suppose demonstates your "Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace" addresses "your" Op???
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Some Scripture to demonstrate God's purpose in election:
Sadly we will see endless posts that address not the Doctrines of Grace but endless application of human logic?? in a futile attempt to make the Word of God of "none effect".
You either falsify the defeater by explaining how his argument or "defeater" is in fact invalid, or you pose a "counter-defeater" (philosophers call it a "defeater-defeater", and yes, it's an ungainly word). which is designed to "defeat" his "defeating objection"....
The second thing involved in debate is a "Positive" argument.
The "Positive" arguments are designed to support your propositions, and the "defeaters" are designed to "defeat" them.
Now...please pose a real and intelligent argument against Skandelon's legitimate and informed defeating argument, or walk away.
Skan has never posted a valid argument.he avoids scriptural and theological language,substitutes the language of failed human philosophical terms, then wonders why he does not get most of us to take the bait...sadly like Benjamin just posted....when solid bible verses are offered he says that OR is cherry picking verses. If he understood the verses and the clear implications of the verses he would not make such a foolish post:thumbsup:
Benjamin...if OR needs to light a light...without batteries....he will call upon you and your super charged AURA:laugh: but until you are willing to deal scripturally with God's electing grace he will not look your way.
Yes...they offer futile speculations and fallible human logic...instead of biblically based teaching which is perfectly logical.
You confuse them when you offer scripture....which they cannot begin to grasp:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Yes, we can see how giving logical reasoning for your scriptural interpetations, which vitally hinges on force fitted principles of TULIP to support carnal man-made deterministic doctrines, would be considered a unfair challenge for you to present. Its aight...we understand the difficulties you would and must face in giving up your question begging and actually stepping out of your box to give logical reasoning in a debate and how it would be overbearing on those who feel they've been specially enlightened to "freely" use their own God given brain to reason with.
:thumbs:
I do not believe this {Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace} was force fit:
Why must ....
Calvinist=arrogance
???
They just seem to go hand in hand. Not only on this forum, but almost every other forum where Calvinists debate. They definitely have a condescending attitude, and "roll their eyes" at us non-Calvinists who just aren't as "enlightened" as they think themselves to be.
Perhaps they should add a "6th point".....arrogance?
Nice! Always one to take the high road I see.
Sorry, but that IS my experience with Calvinists.
He did not cherry pick, he just shook the grace tree and that's what fell out.I fail to see how cherry picking out a few verses that you suppose demonstates your "Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace" addresses "your" Op???
Personally I see much here of your kind that I find to be both crude & rude.
Is it your place to speak for him?
Why must ....
Calvinist=arrogance
???
They just seem to go hand in hand. Not only on this forum, but almost every other forum where Calvinists debate. They definitely have a condescending attitude, and "roll their eyes" at us non-Calvinists who just aren't as "enlightened" as they think themselves to be.
Perhaps they should add a "6th point".....arrogance?
I saw it referenced in some posts but I fail to see it in this thread. Is it in another thread?
UUUHHH..........In this respect..............uuuhhh.........yah, it is.........you see, I understand logical debate, and Skan does likewise, and his arguments were logical and sound. he didn't conjure them out of whole-cloth, it's a version of an argument which Arminians have been levelling for YEARS...probably centuries actually. I have heard his argument before.....MANY times, and in numerous forms. It isn't "novel" really. I understand his argument it's existed for ages, so, yes, I don't speak for "HIM" per-se........(he wouldn't like that)....but would I speak for his argument?????????????? Yes I would.....I will because I confidently KNOW something about the whole Cal/Arm debate. Most Calvinists on this board know FAR less about their own Theology than I do.....or Skan does. Often, the MOST ignorant ones are simultaneously the most dogmatic as well. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but, I do..........and I consider myself qualified to speak on the topic.
DUH