Featured Liberal Kirsten Powers Converted

No it's not a resistance based on external influences. That flies against the very face of compatibilist freedom. The only external involved is that which imposed a predetermined will CAUSING an internal reaction that can not do otherwise (according to compatibilist freedom) which still makes God the author of sin, not potentially the author of it.

Compatibilist freedom by definition is man acting upon an internal will that was predetermined-programmed-by God, so ultimately it IS an INTERNAL rejection.

Paul clearly stated that those whom he spoke to RESISTED THE HOLY GHOST. Yet the way you describe resistance is that the NEW NATURE doesn't resist the Holy Ghost, but Paul wasn't talking to anyone with a new nature obviously. It was their SIN NATURE THAT RESISTED THE HOLY GHOST. Yet you would claim that a person can not resist based upon a nature they have NOT YET BEEN GIVEN.

You CAN NOT POSSIBLY reconcile that explicit contradiction.

 

Do you beleive Adam and Eve were created with Free will? May I presume that you do? What is essential to have "free will"? Is it not alternative choices? Therefore, who created Free Will if not God? Is this not the creation of POTENTIAL to make the wrong choice - sin? Who therefore created that POTENTIAL?


Now, to answer your second objection. Did not God create man as a RESPONSIBLE being for how he used "free will"? Did not God make it clear that Adam was accountable for his choices? Therefore God is the author of SIN POTENTIAL as he created the very ability for alternative choice but he is not the responsible agent for that choice/action. He created free moral agents capable of choosing sin without being accountable for their actions.

Do you recognize secondary causes? The primary Cause is God who created the POTENTIAL for choosing evil. The secondary cause and immedate responsible cause is Adam's actual choice of evil.

You are arguing from a superlapsarian Calvinistic view point which I reject and do not accept as Biblical. There is no scripture that ever uses "elect" or "election" or "chosen" in regard to damnation - NADA. Election is always in regard to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) and vessels of "mercy."

Second, even as an Arminian you believe that omnsicience denies your very argument. Even from your perspective God infallibly knew by omniscience what would be the choice and created man anyway in full knowledge he would choose sin. Right?

From my perspective he determined sin through secondary causes without personal accountability for the sin.

 

:tonofbricks: Facepalm

 

oi vei alright lets go through this.

"Could not but believe"

After examining the evidence she could not but believe... I can make the same point for her making a decision after weighing the options in her heart.

False; If that was all Calvinism was the book written on it would have been a brochure. Calvinism has more tenents to it. Your forgetting that you are saying she is elect then. As only the 'elect' as defined by calvin will be saved, there are more points to Calvinism. The conversation gets bigger than just "she felt compelled".

Oh?

what? I don't choose.. I am persuaded? persuasion involves an internal change of decision.

Good grief - nice comparison.

lets say before gravity a group of people thought they were held to the ground by the mystical hands of the dead so that they could live their lives. Then Science comes around and shows how gravity works. Science people would need to convince or "persuade" the group of people that they are wrong and that the science community is right.

Who does the deciding who believes?
-God does?
So those who don't believe God didn't want to believe
-naturally
So God doesn't want everyone to become saved?
-it would appear so


I thought Calvinism was people just coming to faith... apparently there's more to it than that.

"Belief is not a choice, it something that happens to us" I disagree it is a choice, someone told you santa wasn't real, you decided they were right and you agreed, making a mental choice. If the solution seems so obvious perhaps you may not notice any big "Decision" but one is being made.

Thats just mean, first you say that Calvinism is only a pamphlet and now your not properly stating what non-cals believe. Grace alone, by faith alone, through Jesus Christ alone. Don't be silly and say we dont believe that.

Again we agree with Grace by Faith Alone, We believe faith is a response to the gospel

Blah blah, Rally that argument back "no im right! Im saying what the bible teaches about salvation". Quantify your argument, dont try and bully your position.

Just gunna let you know you shot yourself in the foot on this one

"persuaded past participle, past tense of per·suade (Verb)
Verb

Cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.
Cause (someone) to believe something, esp. after a sustained effort; convince."

Persuation is to convince someone of an argument so that they change to conform to your position. They would need to change their opinion.


Again, us non-cals, dont disagree that grace is by faith alone, we disagree on how one obtains faith.

Calvinism is not as cut and dry as you stated.

 

According to his over in the other thread he believes that to be mysticism doesn't he?

 

Internal coercion does not violate the will as the will itself is the consequential expression of internal coercion by thought and feelings. The will has no indepent existence from mind and emotions but is the servant of expression for mind and emotions. Only external coercion violates freedom of the will.

The Biblie explicitly states that the will in action or the internal dispositon of the lost man is at war with God and resists the will of God (law of God) as it is not subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE (Rom. 8:7). "Can" refers to ability. This is a clear and explcit and direct statement that confirms Acts 7:51 that the lost Jews "do always resist" the Holy Spirit as it defines the reasons for that resistance.

My beliefs are based upon scriptural statements and principles not some kind of philosophy. Romans 8:7 does not support your philosphical statement here. Neither does the Bible attribute the conditions described in Romans 8:7 to God. Again, I have already answered your accusation that my position makes God the author of sin.

I don't know whose ideas your are referring to but they are not mine as I have never said any such thing. These lost men have a spiritual condition as described in Romans 8:7-9 which all lost men have and it is incapatible with God and the things of God and that demands resistance. The word "enmity" demands resistance. The words "not subject to" demands resistance. They have no "new heart" as that would be something INTERNAL and all who have a NEW heart are not lost people. Hence, their resistance is to something EXTERNAL to that nature explicitly described and defined in Romans 8:7-9.

You are fighting with yourself as my position has no part in your logic. Of course it is their sin nature resisting the Holy Ghost as that is the only nature they possess. That is my point.

 

For someone who sticks "Dr" in front of their name, you'd think they could use an English dictionary and see the difference between "determine" and "author". :laugh:

 

Luke said:

Kirsten Powers said:

Then Luke said:

Anyone else see the inconsistency?

 

If we were Elect then we could fully grasp Calvinism and understand. :1_grouphug: itll be ok...

 

Galatians 1:15-16 is a personal testimonty like unto Kristen's and it is Bible. "When it Pleased.......'" Who? Who "revealed" what in where?????? That is Bible and that is personal experience right down the same avenue as Kristens.

 

You missed the point. Old Luke said no experience only Bible over in the mysticism thread. However you just proved my point about Lukes inconsistent position and calling personal experience "mysticism".

 

I see... Kristen was thrown from a horse as that is the salvation experience of all Calvinists.

Those poor chaps in verses 6-9 who were given this gospel, accepted it, and were determined to turn from it by God.

 

You pervert her stated experinence of salvation by reducing it to being thrown from a horse, which I can only assume is your repudation of her salvation experience as she does not attribute salvation to the horse.

You pervert Pauls experience by quoting verse 6-9 which says nothing about anyone's personal experience of salvation.

If you have a rational point then I failed to see it.

 

Do you just grab any verses for some shallow refutation?

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
​

Did Paul even come close to stating that God determined that some would turn away?

Nope.

Paul stated that if someone comes along preaching a different message than salvation through God's unmerited mercy, that some would distort - be it a Satanic force from heaven (for no true angel of God would pervert the Word) or some modernist - let that person be accursed.

Will some chase after teachers because they like the delivery, the sensual, the easy believing system, or some other enticement(s) and away from the true Gospel? Certainly.

Some will love this present world and embrace it. Paul states, he couldn't be a bond-servant and hang to the world. (see verse 10) He NEVER questioned the salvation of a person who turned to other doctrine, accept that God (who knows the true heart conditions) will handle such in His own way(s).

God is faithful even in our unfaithfulness.

 

All this tit for tat and other rediculous assertions certainly don't help the discussion or harmonize with this paritcular OP which is all about the personal experience of Kristen Powers.

 

And again you make my point. Thanks

 

[attack snipped]

 

on cue, you missed the point completely. If the message was as irresistible as the op claims, just a few verses prior where Paul explained his conversion we see a host who had resisted it.

 

No, I perverted your comparison of her experience and Paul's.

To say you fail to see rational points is quite the understatement.