How long have you studied election?

I started a new thread over freedom/foreknowledge to explain my issues with Ockahmism.

regards,
BJ

 

So are you saying that if there's a primary cause then there can be no secondary cause, or that any secondary cause isn't really a cause? I think that is easily disproven. If you turn the key and your car starts is it because you turned the key? Or is it because an electrical connection is made to your starter? Or is it because your spark plugs ignited the gas and air in your engine? Or is it because of all of these, plus other events that are taking place at the same time? All of these are causes, even if in most of these cases there was no choice exercised. My spark plugs cannot decide whether to spark, but they do cause combustion.

Also, I think this is worth pointing out. A person's choices are fixed in the sense that God knows what those choices will be, and they cannot be anything other than what God knows that they will be. That doesn't mean that the choices are not real choices, or that there are not any real alternatives, though. God ordained what the circumstances and the alternatives would be as well as what free choices will be made.

 

I'm thinking of cause in a semi-libertarian sense--what caused something to happen because of choice. I see that my definition was not as clear as it should have been. I apologize.

I'm not denying secondary causes, but when I'm speaking of "what caused something," I'm not talking about a chain of events. I'm interested in the start of the chain.

I don't have a problem with your last statement. The choice still is free, but only one choice can be made, and this choice is fixed. The alternatives were there but not chosen.

I don't have a problem with this because the ordaining of the action is contingent on the foreknowledge of its existence.

 

This group is not Calvinist.

 

I don't remember saying that ...

Even if he did predetermine all things, he is still not the author of sin, or the direct cause of it. That is very clear from Scripture.

No, we have answered that many times.

Apparently, since God decreed Christ to be crucified before Adam sinned. Why would he need to unless Adam's sin was a part of his plan?

No.

A lot ... but in this particular case, you are missing the fact that God's foreknowledge renders the future certain, regardless of his cause or not. Therefore, no one can do anything except what God knows. They cannot choose to do otherwise.

 

Yes.

Why? Surely you don't think God inspired the English. We need to appealing to biblical meanings.

Loaded question. You assume your conclusion (which is the only way you can win). I showed you a very clear case where foreknowledge has to mean choice. It cannot mean simply knowing ahead of time. Why do you not accept that? You haven't even addressed it.

I am not aware of anyone who does.

I think we have all learned not to listen when you talk about what Calvinists believe. You have yet to get it right, though you have been told many times what we believe.

Yes ... Great idea ... Did you miss this line: Yet we deny that God is the author of them. You see, you refute your own point and show you have no idea what you are talking about. Most people leave it to others to argue them. Rarely do people make it so easy ... But thanks for showing us that Machen, like others, does not make God the author of sin.

So now your logic is the test of truth? Pardon us if we reject that. We believe God is the test of truth.

You are wrongly convinced, as you have shown many times.

Very bad theology, refuted by Machen and many others. Learn; stop talking.

We haven't. You are not using words the way Calvinists use them. You are trying to redefine them to fit your own preconceived conclusions. And all you keep doing is showing us just how much you do not know. And you really have no excuse. You have been taught. It is absolutely unexcusable for you to continue this line of reasoning. It has been refuted many times. You are simply unwilling to learn what we believe.

 

Larry, when will your arrogant replies stop?

 

It is impossible that answer that question. I have made no arrogant replies and therefore cannot stop something I never started.

The problem is that you don't listen to what people say they believe. You continually read your own position onto their words and thus distort their meanings. As I have said many times, you don't have to agree with our position, but at least talk about our position, not some position you made up.

 

Icthus,
You must be a farmer.... you need ALOT of hay for all of those strawmen you like to take down!