I believe that too Luke, and if that is all you ever said about what you believe we wouldn't be having this discussion, but alas we all can read what you actually said.
Yes, but Willis ALSO believes that God knew for certain before time began every sin that would ever be committed, every travesty (including the acts of Dalmer)- AND he believes that God went ahead and made the world knowing exactly what would take place if he did.
Is THAT what you believe?
As enunciated above, it is not that simple, is it?
It's all I need with the lack of substance you are providing.
No sir. If you HAD anything else you would employ it.
This very post of yours is proof enough of that.
You can't stand being beaten in a debate- that's why you posted this impassioned post here.
It is of immense importance to you on a deep personal level that you get the last word and/or appear to come out on top.
If you had it- you'd come with it guns blazing- anything to make it seem you are a very superior debater.
You'd use it, if you had it.
But all you have is an appeal to emotions (i.e. GOD WOULD NEVER!!!!) and an appeal to authorities (How many scholars ya got?)
Luke, if you think I feel defeated by your new found, unsubstantiated, undocumented small minded fledging of a dogma, which you honestly appeared to be coming up with on the spot, you are only fooling yourself...
Invincible proof of what I said above.
and doubtfully even doing that very well because you are smart enough to know there is not a scholarly Calvinist in the world who has made the claims you have made (I know because you would have quoted them and gloated about it by now).
You don't accept quotes- you spin them.
That's what others have tried to get you to see in the past as well.
Calvin did say it.
But who cares?
It is an obscure passage that has been addressed very little by Calvinists.
YOU brought it up. YOU were trying to use this obscure passage to prove that Calvinists are wrong about Total Depravity.
The only burden thus placed upon me was to give a fair interpretation of that passage that allows for men to be totally depraved.
I did.
You lose. I know that is UNTHINKABLY hard for you to accept. I know that NOTHING ON EARTH shakes you to your core any more than that- but it is what it is.:thumbsup:
You deny Calvinism's doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace by suggesting that the gospel, if not hidden by parables, might bring a non-elect man to saving faith.
There IS no "might".
It is not possible so it does not even TOUCH Total Depravity.
That totally depraved men can be regenerated is no mark against total depravity.
I point out in great detail that other scholars from your Reformed camp don't approach these texts in the manner you have or in such a way as to contradict two of their foundational doctrines.
So? (And I don't even concede that point)
Jacobus Arminius was not an Open Theist Skan.
MOST Arminians have NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER embracing the classical view of the omniscience of God.
You might VERY WELL BE ALL ALONE on this board (except for fringe folks like Winman and VAN) in your total inability to affirm the fact that God has always known all there is to ever know about everything and not just what would potentially happen but what would actually happen thus God built this world intending for this very world to exist for a time.
So who cares if ON ONE OBSCURE PASSAGE the only Calvinist I have produced is Calvin himself?? Especially when you are given to spinning Calvinist's quotes when they are given to you.
You come across as a cornered animal trying to claw his way out of the corner he has backed himself into and I've tried to graciously let you walk out several times.
This is ironic. I think it is clearly the other way around.
I've backed off a few times and given you outs, just like in this misapplication of Willis' post. But will you take them? No, you dig your heels in and attack me personally and try to demean me instead of just dealing with the facts.
We had an agreement that we would not resort to ad hominem, so lets stick to that, okay?
I have not attacked you personally.
Do you not know what ad hom IS?
Saying that you have been thoroughly defeated is not a personal attack, Skan. Saying Reagan trounced Mondale in the 84 election is not a personal attack against Mondale. It is a statement of fact TOTALLY UNRELATED to his person. If I said Modale was defeated because Mondale is stupid- THAT would be ad hom. Same applies to what I said here.
But it is VERY telling that you take it as a personal attack. Very telling.
You are a hard determinist. In your system God determines everything that comes to pass, sinful or otherwise, but its not sinful when He does it because it is for the right motives.
Good enough.
Thus, in your worldview, God doesn't ever rely on 'bare permission' but he always determines everything and allows what he has determined (both/and).
Right. Which is in line with the Westminster and London Baptist Confession of Faith... and Scripture.