His determinate counsel

[skypair]

Men make choices.

Non-elect cannot choose anything but sin, right? And the elect cannot choose anything but salvation at some point in their lives, correct?

God does not make man choose, he chooses according to his nature and the circumstances of his environment.

My point is, do the elect, then, have a "nature" to choose God? I mean, you claim that grace is irresistible, don't you? Is Calvinism irresistible?

Wouldn't it follow that if God "forces" the elect to receive grace --- and He apparently does in order to overcome their nature to not choose -- that it is just as logical that it is "all of God" that they are Calvinists?

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

Non-elect cannot choose anything but sin, right? And the elect cannot choose anything but salvation at some point in their lives, correct?

My point is, do the elect, then, have a "nature" to choose God? I mean, you claim that grace is irresistible, don't you? Is Calvinism irresistible?

Wouldn't it follow that if God "forces" the elect to receive grace --- and He apparently does in order to overcome their nature to not choose -- that it is just as logical that it is "all of God" that they are Calvinists?

skypair

Jarthur was right in his reply;

Now why would you ask if he flies??

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

See, thats where you do not (or more likely misrepresent or being dishonest) know what Calvinism teaches. Men make choices. God does not make man choose, he chooses according to his nature and the circumstances of his environment. God's providence causes the circumstances, or allows them. Sometimes God acts directly to cause His plan to go according to His perfect will, sometimes He indirectly causes.

If there is truly a misperception of what folks of the reformed theology believe it most likely is due to the way it is communicated by them. While I agree with your position on mens choices as you have articluated it here it is in direct conflict with iresistable grace.

 

[npetreley]

If there is truly a misperception of what folks of the reformed theology believe it most likely is due to the way it is communicated by them. While I agree with your position on mens choices as you have articluated it here it is in direct conflict with iresistable grace.

It does not contradict irresistible grace at all. I think the problem is that you are only thinking in terms of, "Resistance is futile! You will obey!" In terms of Calvinism, it's more like, "That is so desirable, I can't resist!" In the former case, the person is forced to do something. In the latter, the option is so appealing, the person does not WANT to resist.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It does not contradict irresistible grace at all. I think the problem is that you are only thinking in terms of, "Resistance is futile! You will obey!" In terms of Calvinism, it's more like, "That is so desirable, I can't resist!" In the former case, the person is forced to do something. In the latter, the option is so appealing, the person does not WANT to resist.

Scipture please.

 

[npetreley]

Scipture please.

Huh? What are you talking about? You had a problem with the way people communicated reformed theology, and I communicated "irresistible" to you in a way that you should understand. Is this your way of saying you refuse to accept the fact that irresistible grace doesn't have to be force?

What's the problem? Does it totally defeat your arguments, so now you have to resort to "scripture please?" Okay -- show me the scripture that says it MUST be force. Or show me the scripture that says our will is free in the libertarian sense. Good luck.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Huh? What are you talking about? You had a problem with the way people communicated reformed theology, and I communicated "irresistible" to you in a way that you should understand. Is this your way of saying you refuse to accept the fact that irresistible grace doesn't have to be force?

I view true doctrine as coming from scipture. If we are going to comminicate God to others this should not be a problem.

What's the problem? Does it totally defeat your arguments, so now you have to resort to "scripture please?"

Wanting a view justified by scripture is not something one "resorts" to as a result of defeat in a debate. It is asking for a scriptual basis for your clarification of the subject.

Okay -- show me the scripture that says it MUST be force.

Since scripture does not communicate this and neither have I I can say there is no scripture to support this.

Or show me the scripture that says our will is free in the libertarian sense. Good luck.

I do not support Libertarian free will as I have expressed.

 

[npetreley]

If there is truly a misperception of what folks of the reformed theology believe it most likely is due to the way it is communicated by them. While I agree with your position on mens choices as you have articluated it here it is in direct conflict with iresistable grace.

Scripture please. Show me from scripture why you believe irresistible grace conflicts with the choices he described.
.
Yeah, I thought so.
.

 

[reformedbeliever]

If there is truly a misperception of what folks of the reformed theology believe it most likely is due to the way it is communicated by them. While I agree with your position on mens choices as you have articluated it here it is in direct conflict with iresistable grace.

How? Your opinion does not make it in direct conflict. Did you want me to just say "ok, sorry about it being in direct conflict with irresistable grace."

Try showing me how my statement is in conflict... Its your assertion, now show proof.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Scripture please. Show me from scripture why you believe irresistible grace conflicts with the choices he described.
.

It is a shame that you are resisting an opportunity to support your assertion with scripture. However I will be glad to do so for mine.


Genesis 3
John 1;12,13
John 3:16
Luke 9:5
Acts 7:51
2 Tim 3:8


Now its your turn.

 

[npetreley]

Try showing me how my statement is in conflict... Its your assertion, now show proof.

Good luck. I see a pattern of making outrageous statements and then finding an excuse to drop out of the conversation when challenged.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Good luck. I see a pattern of making outrageous statements and then finding an excuse to drop out of the conversation when challenged.

No sir. you seem to get upset with any ooposition and begin your attacks. Of course you have avoided backing up your point with scripture.

 

[npetreley]

No sir. you seem to get upset with any ooposition and begin your attacks. Of course you have avoided backing up your point with scripture.

When you back yours up with scripture, I'll do mine. If you're having trouble doing so, maybe that will help you understand why the request was inappropriate.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

When you back yours up with scripture, I'll do mine. If you're having trouble doing so, maybe that will help you understand why the request was inappropriate.

I have done so. I am not dure why you insist I havent.

 

[npetreley]

I have done so. I am not dure why you insist I havent.

You have not. Here is the statement to which I responded:

If there is truly a misperception of what folks of the reformed theology believe it most likely is due to the way it is communicated by them. While I agree with your position on mens choices as you have articluated it here it is in direct conflict with iresistable grace.

You want scripture for my response? Give scripture for your statement, first. Then I'll respond with scripture and we can compare scripture to scripture. Now, show from scripture, why his statement about choice is in direct conflict with irresisitible grace. Then we can continue. If you refuse, then I rest my case.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

You have not. Here is the statement to which I responded:



You want scripture for my response? Give scripture for your statement, first. Then I'll respond with scripture and we can compare scripture to scripture. Now, show from scripture, why his statement about choice is in direct conflict with irresisitible grace. Then we can continue. If you refuse, then I rest my case.

this is the childish back and forth I do not want to be involved in. I suggest you look back through the thread. Outside of that it is apparent you have none. I am done with you on this thread.

 

[npetreley]

this is the childish back and forth I do not want to be involved in. I suggest you look back through the thread. Outside of that it is apparent you have none. I am done with you on this thread.

I rest my case. You make these outrageous statements and then, when challenged, find an excuse to stop participating.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

How? Your opinion does not make it in direct conflict. Did you want me to just say "ok, sorry about it being in direct conflict with irresistable grace."

Try showing me how my statement is in conflict... Its your assertion, now show proof.

My scriptual support has been shown in post # 130

 

[npetreley]

My scriptual support has been shown in post # 130

Genesis 3
John 1;12,13
John 3:16
Luke 9:5
Acts 7:51
2 Tim 3:8

Okay, as promised, here's my counter to your scriptural support:

Genesis 3
Deuteronomy 28, 29, 30, 31
Romans 8
Romans 9
John 6
John 12
Acts 13
Ephesians 2

What? You were looking for some explanation as to why these scriptures support a view? That's funny. So was I.

.

 

[npetreley]

I guess you're left speechless by my bullet-proof scriptural argument.