Featured Preceding Grace & Divine Providence - the Truth, “within a hairs breadth of Calvinism

Icon, anyone with half a brain can click on the link in post 13 and see that you have not posted there! They can also see how obnoxious you are in pursuing to argue here about that.

 

You know what, it isn’t so much about understand all the logical principles with me as it is about having some simple ethics geared to draw out the truth in debate. I would be glad to explain as best I could how I come to logical conclusions if one didn’t see it, but in reality it isn’t that difficult to see and people here merely avoid it for the sake of meaningless argument or avoid altogether working toward coming to any conclusions which may go against them through childish tactics and that is a very poor goal to have on a debate board.

As per Dr. R.C. Sproul, he’d probably try to pull out his Elitist card with me right off the bat and I’d call him out on that fallacy in a heartbeat~! After that he’d have a lot of explaining to do about how his views logically add up and I’d inescapably take him the mat on every issue that came up or call him on his avoidance of them. If he could demonstrate logically true conclusions that proved his Determinist System to be true while at the same time not violating the true attributes of God, His righteous judgment, and His loving plan of salvation for all His creatures who He designed with a mind to reason and held accountable thereby I would honestly be willing to reconsider my position. But, I can tell you that I have thought these things through and I wouldn’t be holding my breath for any such result
.
(a) every man is born with a little light within himself that just needs to be fanned into flame with a little help from God, (Strawman, I’d say everyman that is born into the world will have sufficient light shined upon them by which they will be held accountable through God’s righteous judgment for their response to that light - hence Prevenient Grace.) or (b) when the Bible says we were dead in sins it doesn't really mean that. (Mean what??? Question beggar! :smilewinkgrin

 

Meaningless rhetoric, once again demonstrating the truth about the typical contributions from Calvinists on this board who claim to argue logically in debate.

 

Just checked it, still open. You serious needed a second chance anyway to try to address that reasoning of yours and show how in any way it could be concluded as logically true and not false: I’ll give you clue where you need begin your argument - first you need to start by actually using your two premises that the argument is about…good luck…focus man, focus, you can do this!!!
:thumbs:

 

The one who does, is.

I'd leave my card in my wallet where it belongs.

BTW, you might note, you brought up the appeal to authority issue, I didn't. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Hello again Van, thanks for the reply but you'll soon see we have a problem here about you wanting to go over this pint by point from your perspective.

Romans 10:9 demonstrates a condition that calls for a response from the person. I assume no such thing that a person is so dead that he is unable to do what the Bible says he must do! If you’re saying can person can seek God as so often commanded I agree with you, but if you’re saying this happens without the influences of God (His Prevenient Grace) in all the world and to all humankind within it by which He initiates (Providentially) the creatures volitional response to seek Him, I would have to disagree with you.

I’m not into Pelagianistic beliefs and have no need to attempt to fit that man can seek God completely apart from His influences in the world. I have my way of dealing with this assumption and you have yours. I differ from the Deterministic view concerning the ability to respond volitionally and hold to libertarian free will in the matter, but other than that, yes, we/I am within a hair’s breadth of agreeing with Calvinism on a view of Divine Sovereignty (control in the world), only I see it and defend it as Providential controlled grace not Deterministic controlled grace (read post #6) – BUT as per your view I differ greatly from any doctrines that would proclaim man looks for salvation completely apart from God’s sufficient influences or from God first enabling him.

I assume no such thing as total spiritual inability, again, I am a card carrying LFWer. What you’re calling an “unstated assumption” concerns your reasoning that the spirit of man must apparently be “overridden” if he is influenced by “prevenient grace” by any way? –this influence and the following response goes to the glory and credit of God, period. Otherwise a doctrine has serious problems about the creature earning his own way - the Open Theist typical has a view of LFW to be so apart from God concerning the issues of: - IF Divine Foreknowledge, then Determinism - that their view of LFW attempts to completely wrap itself into a view of the creature being so free he can act completely independently from God.


I know where you’re coming from with these questions. I’ve had this discussion with both, you and HT concerning the Molinist view and how I view these things (DF and LFW) work together – you out of hand object my view simply because it disagrees wioth the conclusions OT comes to - I tried to point out the problems of OT thinking – either void DF or Determinism – and I’m fully aware your view is closely associated with a view of free will that goes overboard. My opinion of your evasion of the issues I raised while you refused coming to conclusions which would condemn Open Theism in those debates is not very high – and I’m not going down that circular road again with you here.

NOW LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR, the topic of the thread is Prevenient Grace in contrast to Deterministic Grace and Providential Sovereignty in contrast to Deterministic Sovereignty - NOT – the views associated with Open Theism on these issues!

I disagree, it may redefine OTs necessary view of creaturely freedoms, including a freedom to love first, which goes beyond orthodoxy in my opinion, but I do not neglect that we love God because he loved us first – hence Prevenient Grace and my view which will hold that we freely return love to God. YOU don't believe this can be done without the OT perspective - I see that it can, whether you are willing to accept my view as an alternative to OT or not!

I see you simply and adamantly attempting to object to the creature being enabled in any sense because of your view of overboard absolute freedom of the will which falls backs to Open Theism thoughts for the reasons already mentioned. I really don’t have the time to break down all your inconsistencies, untwist your scriptural interpretations and pin them back to OT thought along with the pitfalls therein to demonstrate to you why your interpretations fail and my line up much better. Once more, my interest here is not to contrast Prevenient Grace to some twisted OT view of Justifying Grace.

Peace

 

Icon, GO - to - the - post - where - the - link - is - and - click - on - it - for - A BIG SURPRISE!!!

:laugh:

 

Here you make my point, you think no other view exists that "logically" deal with the false doctrines of Determinism other than Open Theism. You are wrong, we been here, and you best just get it into your head that I've wasted enough time trying to deal with this desperate belief of yours.

If I wanted to debate with locked-in OTs I go to another board and try to find some that wanted to discuss it rationally.