Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

[Skandelon]

This is fun. :laugh:

It's kind of like taunting an octopus to see his ink cloud. You're ejecting flak in an attempt to confuse the missile lock.

You really think your repeated question begging fallacy of presuming determinism must be accepted is a 'missile lock?' That's cute.

Don't you see? You're left with making God either a respecter of persons or an elector. You don't get both.

False Dichotomy. There is another option which you've yet to actually engage in a debate.

 

[Skandelon]

The pride and arrogance is a bit overwhelming, but pride cannot bear to be mocked.

Takes one to know one... :smilewinkgrin:

Oh, and at least in my system the pride and arrogance of this thread is our doing, not God's doing through secondary causes...

 

[webdog]

The pride and arrogance is a bit overwhelming, but pride cannot bear to be mocked. He got squeezed and this is what came out.

:laugh: This is great given Error'ins signature. You have been thoroughly schooled by "Scandal" and now decide to launch the personal attacks :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Nothing was presumed.

Really? You aren't presuming the premise of determinism should be accepted as if it were 2+2=4? Sure sounds like it...

This is what you do. You want someone to prove that two plus two is four. So when he lays out two marbles on one side of the desk, and two on the other side, brings them together and counts them out 1, 2, 3, 4, you reject it saying, he just used Math. Math is the topic of for debate. No, Math is not the topic up for debate.

Yep. Just like I thought. You equate the Deterministic premise is just a clear and accepted as a simple math equation. That is question begging bro. In fact I can't think of a better example of question begging than this.

Still waiting for you to define why God determined to save you rather than someone else. Willy nilly or random?

 

[Skandelon]

For those following along, the deterministic premise assumes that the all powerful God couldn't possibly have created free autonomous creatures with the ability of first cause determinations. They ASSUME this is a logical impossibility simply because it can't be fully comprehended or defined by our limited finite understanding. They conclude instead that the creator must have created contingent creatures who act in accordance with their predetermined nature in response to their predetermined outward stimuli in a manner that they could not have done otherwise (aka animal instinct - the lion will alway desire meat over salad because that was the way he was made).

They are fine to conclude that God is a free and autonomous person who makes fully self-determined choices, and they accept the mystery of such choices, but somehow think any appeal to mystery regarding the choices of those He created in His image is unwarranted.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And anyone wanting the CORRECT view of election IN SCRIPTURE should read here:

http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2006/10/arminian-perspective-on-election-gods.html

Interesting. I notice that Mr Schooley couldn't being himself to quote or reference a single verse of SCRIPTURE in support of his views which makes me wonder if he really is CORRECT.

Steve

 

[Skandelon]

Interesting. I notice that Mr Schooley couldn't being himself to quote or reference a single verse of SCRIPTURE in support of his views which makes me wonder if he really is CORRECT.

Steve

What? You're not already aware of the passages which speak of election? Without even looking I know that would be Romans 9-11, Eph 1 and 1 Peter 2. I think he is probably assuming his readers are already aware of what these passage say.

 

[Aaron]

For those following along, the deterministic premise assumes that the all powerful God couldn't possibly have created free autonomous creatures with the ability of first cause determinations. They ASSUME this is a logical impossibility simply because it can't be fully comprehended or defined by our limited finite understanding. They conclude instead that the creator must have created contingent creatures who act in accordance with their predetermined nature in response to their predetermined outward stimuli in a manner that they could not have done otherwise (aka animal instinct - the lion will alway desire meat over salad because that was the way he was made).

Holy freaking cow. You are just nuts. I mean totally cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

This is not the assumption at all. Besides, the question isn't about what is assume, but what is stated.

Your argument is with Paul, Christ and Moses.

 

[Skandelon]

Holy freaking cow. You are just nuts. I mean totally cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Mature.

This is not the assumption at all. Besides, the question isn't about what is assume, but what is stated.

Actually it is statements based upon assumptions and you assume Determinism is a given (like math or gravity) which is the fallacy of Question Begging. Just do a little study on the subject of debate fallacies and I think you will see your error.

Your argument is with Paul, Christ and Moses.

And there you go again. This presumes Paul, Christ and Moses were deterministic just like you which IS the point up for debate.

Let me help you out. If I could simply repeat what you just said as my rebuttal it is probably question begging. Kind of like when a kid is arguing and says, "Nuh-huh! You're stupid," and his opponent just repeats him. It really is the lowest form of debate and I think you can do better.

 

[Aaron]

Basically your assumption is that folks of middle-eastern descent are wiser than say, Europeans.

 

[Skandelon]

Basically your assumption is that folks of middle-eastern descent are wiser than say, Europeans.

Translation: I, Aaron, can't debate using the actual terms and claims of my opponent, so I'll make up outrageous, unfounded, and unrelated accusations so as to distract from my deficiencies.

 

[Aaron]

Translation: I, Aaron, can't debate using the actual terms and claims of my opponent, so I'll make up outrageous, unfounded, and unrelated accusations so as to distract from my deficiencies.

No. I just summarized your position as accurately as you summarize that of the Calvinists. Good day. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Ok Aaron, which part of this is not accurate. Let's take it point by point:

For those following along, the deterministic premise assumes that the all powerful God couldn't possibly have created free autonomous creatures with the ability of first cause determinations.

Have you and others here not argued that libertarian freedom is a logical impossibility and God could no more have created libertarian free creatures than he could have made a rock so big that he couldn't move it? Are you now saying that God could have created free autonomous creatures with the ability of first cause choices? Or was it something else you objected to? Let's continue...

They ASSUME this is a logical impossibility simply because it can't be fully comprehended or defined by our limited finite understanding.

Do you not claim that libertarian freedom is illogical and thus must be dismissed, or has that changed too? Or maybe it was something else I wrote?

They conclude instead that the creator must have created contingent creatures who act in accordance with their predetermined nature in response to their predetermined outward stimuli in a manner that they could not have done otherwise (aka animal instinct - the lion will alway desire meat over salad because that was the way he was made).

Is mankind not created with a nature by God? Do you not believe that nature determines what choices he will make? Do you not agree that his choice will alway be according to his God given nature/desire and God preordained plan? Do you not also agree that God is in full control over the circumstances (stimuli)? Or have you changed your views?

They are fine to conclude that God is a free and autonomous person who makes fully self-determined choices, and they accept the mystery of such choices, but somehow think any appeal to mystery regarding the choices of those He created in His image is unwarranted.

You don't believe God is a free and autonomous person who makes fully self-detremined choices?

What is it exactly that is not correctly representing what you have argued? Try actually forming a real argument for once.

 

[preacher4truth]

Translation: I, Aaron, can't debate using the actual terms and claims of my opponent, so I'll make up outrageous, unfounded, and unrelated accusations so as to distract from my deficiencies.

This is untrue. He's actually won this long ago.

 

[webdog]

Basically your assumption is that folks of middle-eastern descent are wiser than say, Europeans.

You need to stop, you are embarassing yourself at this point...

 

[Amy.G]

Basically your assumption is that folks of middle-eastern descent are wiser than say, Europeans.

Uh, what??

 

[Aaron]

Uh, what??

It's meaningless and pulled out right out of the air—my derrier, that is, which is where Scandal finds his arguments. (In his own, not mine! ) But for all it's nonsense, both he and and dawg thought I was being serious. :laugh:

Anyway. Done here. Once all the gas has vented two views remain, Calvinism, which is the Gospel, which says God is an elector of persons, and noncalvinsm, which says God is a respecter of persons.

 

[Skandelon]

It's meaningless and pulled out right out of the air—my derrier, that is, which is where Scandal finds his arguments. (In his own, not mine! ) But for all it's nonsense, both he and and dawg thought I was being serious. :laugh:

And yet every arguement I've made can be substantiated with similar published arguments made by non-Calvinistic scholars, so we all know where you are pulling this from too. :thumbs:

Anyway. Done here.

Good idea.

Once all the gas has vented two views remain, Calvinism, which is the Gospel, which says God is an elector of persons, and noncalvinsm, which says God is a respecter of persons.

Ironic how the one who holds the view that claims God picks some over others is accusing us, the view that believes God loves and provides for all mankind, of believing God is 'respecter of persons.' Just because you don't know the reason for God's choosing you over someone else doesn't excuse the fact that he does the "respecting of persons" in your system.

BTW, you never answered the question as to what determines God choice to pick you and not someone else? Oh, yeah. You are leaving now....figures.

 

[OldRegular]

For those following along, the deterministic premise assumes that the all powerful God couldn't possibly have created free autonomous creatures with the ability of first cause determinations. They ASSUME this is a logical impossibility simply because it can't be fully comprehended or defined by our limited finite understanding. They conclude instead that the creator must have created contingent creatures who act in accordance with their predetermined nature in response to their predetermined outward stimuli in a manner that they could not have done otherwise (aka animal instinct - the lion will alway desire meat over salad because that was the way he was made).

I believe that all the above is incorrect Skandelon. God created only two persons, Adam and Eve, and only those two. I would not say they were autonomous but both had the ability to choose good or evil, obedience to God or disobedience to God.

Genesis 2:16-17, KJV
16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ecclesiastes 7:29, KJV
29. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Sadly they chose evil, disobedience to God. As a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve their progeny lost the ability to choose between good and evil.

Romans 3:10-18, KJV
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Skandelon I would say the belief that any person is autonomous, that is, subject to their own laws only, is irrational! I realize that many people act as if they were autonomous but they are not. I believe that is called humanism or is it SIN! All of us are subject to God whether we like it or not.

 

[Iconoclast]

What a well thought out and thorough argument.

Thank you.

I could have posted links to Adam Clarke, AW Tozer, or some other known old dead scholar that speaks in Old English so as to make their concepts sound more intelligent, but I figured this link would be more likely read and understood.

Their concepts sound intelligent..because they are...
Schooley could learn much truth from either of these men....instead of starting on a wrong foundation,and going down hill.



Cals often refer to the verse "Many are called but few are chosen" in support of their view of election. Do you deny this?

The verse is speaking of Israels rejection of Jesus.....not God's overall elective purpose.