God unchanging and unchangeable

[Iconoclast]

"Benjamin

You guys might want to know that nowadays I actually find it comical to hear the washed up and overused argument that I (and/or others who oppose the Determinist view) “don’t understand” your position especially in my case because I can typically find I’ve gone into greater depth into it and believe I could even argue “for” your position, including incorporating your own proof-texts into it, better than the vast majority out there espousing the Determinist’ view.

I did not hear anyone saying they needed to know this info you are sharing...We have not seen any evidence of you being able to do this, not even a cut and paste...lol

Some here don’t seem to understand or recognize a logical need to distinguish between Providential Divine Sovereignty and Deterministic Divine Sovereignty to maintain the logically necessary truth of human volition/free will to maintain an orthodox view of theology.

a logical need;
the logically necessary;

You are looking for a version of logic or whatever....we deal in scriptural truth. All this "logic' searching takes place in your head, but not in reality.

Scriptures are often read through Calvinist glasses to mean strict determinism

This is your continuous attack....no one believes the caricature you present.

and thereby are supposed to be scripturally based yet any rational theologian worth his salt will recognize the important issues behind maintaining a TRUE level of human volition in order to avoid theological fatalism

. CautiousCautious rambling aimlessly.

When it becomes extremely apparent of the logical necessity to attempt to claim free will the Determinist will certainly proclaim it, yet soon resort to double talk and fall back on the incompatible views of meticulous determinism to suit their systematic theology regarding “total inability”.

The false attack continuesThumbsdownThumbsdown

This then brings a host of problems by inescapably taking the hard core view of Determinism into the gutter of theological fatalism

No one here does that.....no one here believes this fatalism nonsense.Redface

while unavoidably logically attributing sin to God.

No Calvinist does this...not one. This is a wicked falsehood.

It’s hard to believe that Calvinists miss this issue of the mutually exclusiveness of free will and Determinism while they go about trying to reason human volition as both true and false whenever convenient to maintain their systematic theology.

Free will does not exist but in the minds of rebellious man who are not content to do the will of God.

Calvinists often don’t seem to be too concerned with limiting God’s ability to create volitional creatures or unavoidably logically pinning the truth of responsibility for sin to God![/QUOTE]
This evil thought belongs to you alone....you need to stop typing such evil thoughts

The Calvinists need to learn to recognize that there must be an element of “you” freely making a choice in order for free will to have true meaning! That is why “free will” should defined as “volition” to sustain the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose.

there is no free will

Although, I understand that not being able to rely on sematic ambiguity regarding “free will” – in order to avoid being pinned to theological fatalism is troublesome for their arguments - which causes them by logical necessity to constantly revert directly back to Hard Determinism as to hold on to even a shred of validity in their systematic theological arguments.

you are just avoiding scriptural interaction as usual...you quote deut32 over and over as if it is a magic charm that you can ascribe all manner of ideas to it.

I have a lot to do this weekend and really don't have time for the fun and games here, but before I go will quickly address the rest of your reasoning for Determinism given above which refers back to Ephesians 1:

Ever heard of corporate election “IN Christ”??? Do you realize that Paul mentions the phrases “In Him,” “In Christ,” “In the Beloved,” 11 times in the first 13 verses of Ephesians 1 denoting this predestination of election you speak of as being a corporate election “IN Christ”?

Your hero Leighton Flowers did not get very far with this idea ...when he was a no-show in the debate....he also avoided to really address bible truth and failed to enter into the debate as you fail to address scripture as RT has asked you to do.

Which takes us to the Biblical Order of Salvation for "individuals" ("YOU" being at the scriptural forefront of necessarily having to make a volitional decision) :

Hear the Gospel —> Believe the Gospel —> Be Sealed with the Spirit.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

So first it is "corporate, now individual"...interesting

To ignore or to change the inspired, divine order is false doctrine!

which is exactly what you suggest we do.

It is scripturally clear time and again throughout the Bible that human volition is a necessary condition upon which God always renders His judgment of grace, or not, in truth, for each individual.

There is no condition that is necessary...much less human volition...that obligates God.

(Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Good verse...however it does nothing to support your musings.

...and it also is scripturally clear that God is without sin (inequity) of any kind!

good...so stop posting it.

I can't believe I should have to defend the Divine attribute of Holiness against those on this board who would merely dodge the arguments against their suggestions of God being responsible for determining the evil of murderous cannibalistic pedophile nature of a human after unwittingly making that suggestion to support their views of strict Determinism - even though proclaiming that their theology does hold man has free will through the other side of their mouth when it is necessary to deter damning conclusions to their doctrines!

only in your mind.

 

[InTheLight]

Basically, it is the view that God in some manner extends a measure of grace to the person to allow that person of their "own free will" to place their own generated faith in Christ therefore claiming salvation.

You mean like this?

When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;

 

[InTheLight]

Typically when one blathers on and on and on after telling of his vast knowledge of a subject you know the outcome is going to end in error. The above is such a case.

Kind of like the Free Grace Theology thread you started.

 

[agedman]

You mean like this?

When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;

Not really.
The "preceding grace (prevenient grace)" is given before conversion.

It is supposedly used by God to allow the human of their own "free will" to engage with God to either choose salvation or reject that offer. Upon accepting salvation, by placing their faith in Christ, then the Holy Spirit takes His place in that "void" that only He can fill.

I have noticed that there is a key difference between the Arminian and the Calvinistic use of this "doctrine." The Arminian views this grace as being able to be resisted, and the Calvinistic view is that the grace is not resistible. (Irresistible Grace - the "I" of TULIP)

Imo, such grace is never seen in the Scriptures and especially as the Arminian would view the use. The Calvinistic view may have some traction, but again, the injection of some kind of "free will" into the mix destroys any real connection.

There is no room for "free will" prior to conversion.

 

[Benjamin]

Typically when one blathers on and on and on after telling of his vast knowledge of a subject you know the outcome is going to end in error. The above is such a case.

BTW, Hello Internet Theologian, thanks for your meaningful input into the discussion. Welcome to the board! Glad to meet you, although for some reason I get the sneaky suspicion we have possibly met before.

 

[Benjamin]

The "preceding grace (prevenient grace)" is given before conversion.

It is supposedly used by God to allow the human of their own "free will" to engage with God to either choose salvation or reject that offer. Upon accepting salvation, by placing their faith in Christ, then the Holy Spirit takes His place in that "void" that only He can fill.

I have noticed that there is a key difference between the Arminian and the Calvinistic use of this "doctrine."

...

There is no room for "free will" prior to conversion.

Maybe not so far a distance as some would like to believe when it comes to the logical necessity to uphold free will to meet the truth of biblical conditions of salvation rather than theological fatalism:


A Concise Description of Prevenient Grace from a Surprising Source

 

[Internet Theologian]

BTW, Hello Internet Theologian, thanks for your meaningful input into the discussion. Welcome to the board! Glad to meet you, although for some reason I get the sneaky suspicion we have possibly met before.

I'm on several forums. Hey I took a look at that forum you're advertising in your signature there and that place is dead, why advertise it on this board? Do you run that site?