Free Will- Result of Emotional Handicap?

[Luke2427]

Very good point Webdog...and one I had not really considered...under the Calvinism position one has to believe that God moves from loving all children to then making some the objects of His wrath...

All of men are under the wrath of God at some point until they are saved.

There is no silly little transition.

The only transition is that most glorious one where we go from being under the wrath of God to becoming the children of God.

 

[Don]

Not a bad way to "shuck the corn". My answer is No.

I think you fall into the "Arminian" camp; if not, please feel free to correct me. It would be nice to get one of the Calvinists to respond, before I make my final comment.
-----
Well, it just occurred to me that there might be another question to ask (of both sides) before making my final comment.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think you fall into the "Arminian" camp; if not, please feel free to correct me. It would be nice to get one of the Calvinists to respond, before I make my final comment.

If the distinction is simply Calvinist or Arminian, then yes, but I personally have more of a tendency to molinism.

 

[GBC Pastor]

All of men are under the wrath of God at some point until they are saved.

I didn't say "under His wrath" I said the objects of His wrath...you know those "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" you Cals like to talk about. If that is the case that those vessels were already prepared then God cannot love all children because some of those children are those vessels.

There is no silly little transition.

The only transition is that most glorious one where we go from being under the wrath of God to becoming the children of God.

Well now make up your mind Luke...either there is no transition or there is one...

 

[Luke2427]

Me personally, in my own emotional, illogical way; I think there may be only one way to determine the "end all" of this conversation.

Do Calvinists believe Arminians are going to hell, because they believe incorrectly? Alternatively, do Arminians believe Calvinists are going to hell because they believe incorrectly?

I do not think all Arminians are going to hell and I do not think all Calvinists are going to heaven.

That is not what this is about.

It is about the glory of God and truth.

I think the Arminian has a lower view of God.

 

[Luke2427]

I didn't say "under His wrath" I said the objects of His wrath...you know those "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" you Cals like to talk about. If that is the case that those vessels were already prepared then God cannot love all children because some of those children are those vessels.



Well now make up your mind Luke...either there is no transition or there is one...

I was clear- you're just antagonizing.

 

[Don]

I do not think all Arminians are going to hell and I do not think all Calvinists are going to heaven.

That is not what this is about.

It is about the glory of God and truth.

I think the Arminian has a lower view of God.

That's exactly where my next question would have been heading.

So: what fruit has this discussion produced?

 

[Luke2427]

That's exactly where my next question would have been heading.

So: what fruit has this discussion produced?

I am not concerned with fruit. I plant and water- I assume you feel you do the same.

The fruit is up to God.

This is a debate site- we debate here.

 

[quantumfaith]

I do not think all Arminians are going to hell and I do not think all Calvinists are going to heaven.

That is not what this is about.

It is about the glory of God and truth.

I think the Arminian has a lower view of God.

This is simply UNTRUE, in the STRONGEST possible sense. You should refrain from making such statements. Arminius was no less a godly man than Mr. Calvin.

 

[Luke2427]

[/I][/B]

This is simply UNTRUE, in the STRONGEST possible sense. You should refrain from making such statements. Arminius was no less a godly man than Mr. Calvin.

I think the Arminian has a lower view of God.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think the Arminian has a lower view of God.

Thank you, at least for the qualification.

 

[GBC Pastor]

I was clear- you're just antagonizing.

And you're evading. Remember "this is a debate site...we debate here."

 

[Don]

I am not concerned with fruit. I plant and water- I assume you feel you do the same.

The fruit is up to God.

This is a debate site- we debate here.

Actually, there's a whole lot more "vain strivings" than there is debate....

 

[Luke2427]

Thank you, at least for the qualification.

:thumbs:

................

 

[Luke2427]

And you're evading. Remember "this is a debate site...we debate here."

Answering antagonizing remarks would be the opposite of debate.

 

[Luke2427]

Actually, there's a whole lot more "vain strivings" than there is debate....

So long as you understand the four fingers pointing back at you.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Answering antagonizing remarks would be the opposite of debate.

Actually the opposite of "debate" is "agreement". I don't think responding to my remarks would be agreement on your part at all.

 

[Gershom]

So long as you understand the four fingers pointing back at you.

How can there be four fingers pointing back? I only count three (unless I am doing a double point, then I count six).

 

[GBC Pastor]

How can there be four fingers pointing back? I only count three (unless I am doing a double point, then I count six).

:laugh:

Now that's funny!

 

[Luke2427]

Actually the opposite of "debate" is "agreement". I don't think responding to my remarks would be agreement on your part at all.

On that we agree! :laugh: :thumbs: