Yea, but several people HAVE changed

[Skandelon]

Man is free but he always uses this freedom to sin and not to turn to God.

Why?

Because God decreed that all man from the time of Adam would be born unable to do otherwise?

Who, if not God, decided that the nature of fallen man would be such that it COULD not willingly respond even to God's own appeals for reconciliation? I can't remember where anyone has answered that question thus far.

He has a will but his will is bent to do evil.

Do you mean that his will has been determined by someone other than himself prior to his being born? That even if God himself appeals to the sinner to repent that God likewise has decreed him unable to respond to that appeal?

Man's will is held captive by his nature.

Who made his nature such that it would not contain the ability to either accept or reject God's appeals for reconcilation?

You can throw out a steak to a cow to eat in the pasture of lush green grass. The cow has a freedom of will to eat the steak or eat the grass, but the cow will choose the grass every time because the cows will is taken captive by it's nature.

So, you believe men are bound by something similar to animal instinct, where by instead of making deliberation, reasoning and coming to a individual conclusion of his own choosing, he is simply reflexive and responsive to stimuli determined by his inborn instinct? Is that your argument?

 

[Skandelon]

To Brother Skan: Yes, I have jumped ship and went to the other side of the debate.

Funny how you were 'free' to do that? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

To Brother Skan: Yes, I have jumped ship and went to the other side of the debate...I studied through the free will perspective and it caused me to see things through free will. When I begged God to allow me to read w/o any slant one way or t'other, it seemed that the DoG's just leaped out at me. I have become fully convinced of all five points, and even pre-faith regeneration, something I fought so hard against for over six years. But, I consider those on the other side of the debate my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, just like I did the DoG's when I was in the free will camp.

Willis,

Keep on studying brother, and God bless. Your testimony on this issue is similar to mine.

 

[Inspector Javert]

(Skandelon)...Is that your argument?

Yes, that's precisely his argument...and the argument of essentially every Calvinist on B.B.....They have no other recourse than to affirm precisely that.

I, for one, would like for Salzer to answer every one of your questions directly and simply and with honesty....I won't hold my breath though.

There were Calvinist Divines in the past who would, and quite a few now who would. But none of the "Pop" Calvinists who are informing the ressurgence of Calvinism in this generation will address them directly and honestly. I fear that you will receive nothing but obfuscation....Luke might answer directly, but not Salzer I fear....maybe. I'd like to see that though.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That may be your individual perspective, but depending on what you mean by ' the ability to exercise free will,' I contend that many of the Reformed types would disagree. Determinists deny the concept of contra-causal freedom (i.e. the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from an action).

That would be the interpertation of most Hard Shell Baptists.

 

[psalms109:31]

I am a Calvinist that believes regeneration before faith is ridiculous.

It is easy for me to believe that person in Africa that never heard the Gospel of their salvation could have life already. It is good emotionally to believe that. So if the message never reaches them it is O.K.

The truth of the matter they are dead and have no life in them. They will not be saved if they do not hear the Gospel of their salvation having believed.

Faith without deeds is dead, even more dead without that faith. Faith without love is useless.

All the good I do before the message is either to point people to myself to tell them how good I am or because I feel sorry for someone and it makes us feel better when we have it better than them. We have personal agendas.All the good before Christ does not make you good it is dirty rags.

When we know Jesus we do things for Jesus not our self to make ourselves feel better or get people to look at me, but what we do is to get people to look at Jesus.

We were not regenerated by faith, but faith regenerated you to do for God not yourself.

That person in Africa needs to hear the Gospel to be regenerated or he will face condemnation no matter what your emotions want to get you to believe.

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

I don't care for a pat on my back I want to know the truth, Jesus.

 

[Luke2427]

Doesn't it have to be all God rather than rigorous heated debate?

God uses means.

 

[Luke2427]

The statement "the fact of the matter is that they absolutely do", is an example of why debate rarely helps. You have no idea how illiterate you sound.

Enlighten a poor moron then, genius.

 

[Luke2427]

Very few people are swayed by a debate while in the moment. Change often takes time. It is a process. It was that way for me. I read, listened to preachers, and participated on message boards. By the time I admitted that I had changed I really had changed long before that.

This is exactly right. I have a paper that's about 15 pages typed that I wrote about 8 years ago BLASTING the DoG.

I did not yield in any one particular debate but the truths of the DoG articulated in numerous debates broke me down little by little until one day, outside of a debate, I yielded.

 

[Luke2427]

Threads like this just prove everything I have ever said.

99% of which has been nothing but meaningless drive-by posts just like this one you post above.

 

[Luke2427]

I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't. I was making commentary on what has been my typical experience with Calvinists who claim to once have been 'Arminian.' And that has been that they are not aware of the scholarly non-Calvinistic Baptist approach...but have reduced it to what is known as the 'foresight faith view'....A view I find as equally unsatisfactory as the Calvinists do.

Yea, but Skandelon what is even WORSE than the "foreseeing faith view" is the open theistic view that pretends that God does not know exactly what future is going to unfold.

It is your view that God CANNOT see the future in the way we do. Oh, you like to pretend that we Calvinists limit God to only being able to SEE the future the way humans do, but the fact is that you limit God to seeing the future ONLY in some mysterious way which most certinaly excludes him having the ability to see the future linearly.

That's WORSE than the "foreseeing our faith and choosing us based on that view."

It's illogical and UTTERLY undermines omniscience.

Omniscience means God sees and knows all things and is thus able to see and know however anything is seeable and knowable INCLUDING but not limited to the way we human beings see and know.

You limit him to ONLY being able to see some mysterious way which nobody knows.

We Calvinists say, "Sure, God may see things a thousand ways outside of the way we see them, but he SURELY at LEAST sees them as we see them."

Do you mean that you used to believe you can lose your salvation? Because even non-Calvinistic baptists typically don't hold to that view either. I know I don't.

Historically, before the conglomeration of the two perspectives about a hundred years ago, Baptists were largely either committed Arminians or committed Calvinists.

Modern IFB and SBC people who deny predestination while embracing eternal security are a weird new breed so far as the history of Baptists goes.

 

[Luke2427]

You're correct in the context of which we speak, although we've all had more than one blessing.

The fact remains that those who haven't experienced that to which we speak of, specifically being enlightened to the doctrines of grace, said will remain clueless to what it actually means and to its experience.

To fight against it day and night, or, to repudiate these teachings when they come up, or to bring them up unremittingly only to mock them? Well, that in itself is another issue altogether.

It really is true. Coming to the DoG is like getting saved all over again. It really is.

That's also how Spurgeon described it.

 

[Luke2427]

To Brother Skan: Yes, I have jumped ship and went to the other side of the debate.

To Brother Webdog: It's always good to defend your position and I commend you for backing up your beliefs. I don't jump into these debates much because I have come to the conclusion that there's more grief than grace being brought to the forefront of them.

To all the others: I know that there are DoG's/Hard Shells who were once Arminians, and there are Arminians who were once DoG's/Hard Shells. One should never study with a closed mind. I studied through the free will perspective and it caused me to see things through free will. When I begged God to allow me to read w/o any slant one way or t'other, it seemed that the DoG's just leaped out at me. I have become fully convinced of all five points, and even pre-faith regeneration, something I fought so hard against for over six years. But, I consider those on the other side of the debate my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, just like I did the DoG's when I was in the free will camp.

This is a man who is committed to TRUTH no matter how it rubs the cat.

I appreciate it.

It takes character to say, "God I want to know the truth even if it is the OPPOSITE of what I so passionately want it to be."

 

[Luke2427]

That may be your individual perspective, but depending on what you mean by ' the ability to exercise free will,' I contend that many of the Reformed types would disagree. Determinists deny the concept of contra-causal freedom (i.e. the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from an action).

Yea, and so do all people who give TWO CENTS worth of a HOOT for logic.

Contra-causal...

That's just a word like "dry water".

It relieves you from the responsibility to abide by logical parameters in debate.

The Calvinist has to answer the WHY question.

You deliver yourself from it by saying this nonsensical term "CONTRA-CAUSAL, CONTRA-CAUSAL!"

 

[Luke2427]

Why?

Because God decreed that all man from the time of Adam would be born unable to do otherwise?

Who, if not God, decided that the nature of fallen man would be such that it COULD not willingly respond even to God's own appeals for reconciliation? I can't remember where anyone has answered that question thus far.

That's not true. I've answered it many times.

Do you mean that his will has been determined by someone other than himself prior to his being born? That even if God himself appeals to the sinner to repent that God likewise has decreed him unable to respond to that appeal?

Yes.

Who made his nature such that it would not contain the ability to either accept or reject God's appeals for reconcilation?

Ultimately God... but in a secondary fashion. Just like I make cold when I turn off the heat or I make darkness when I turn off the light. I do not DIRECTLY make them but I intend for them to exist and bring their existence to pass, not by actively creating them, but by withdrawing the thing that is their opposite.

Evil is nothing but the absence of good. God does not directly create evil- he just removes good and the vacuum is evil.

So, you believe men are bound by something similar to animal instinct, where by instead of making deliberation, reasoning and coming to a individual conclusion of his own choosing, he is simply reflexive and responsive to stimuli determined by his inborn instinct? Is that your argument?

No, it's worse.

He DOES have animal instinct but he also has the moral law of God in his conscience and he STILL disobeys.

He never does any true good because true good is unselfish and God-centered. Even when he helps an old lady across the street he does not do it for God's glory thus what he does is evil- ALL of what he does.

Even the PLOWING of the wicked is sin.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yea, and so do all people who give TWO CENTS worth of a HOOT for logic.

Contra-causal...

That's just a word like "dry water".

It relieves you from the responsibility to abide by logical parameters in debate.

The Calvinist has to answer the WHY question.

You deliver yourself from it by saying this nonsensical term "CONTRA-CAUSAL, CONTRA-CAUSAL!"

When you abandon scripture....you have to say something so carnal logic and human speculations and philosophy rush in to fill the void.:thumbs:

 

[prophet]

Enlighten a poor moron then, genius.

You don't have to be a genius to recognize the misuse of the word 'absolutely'. Then to say, immediately prior to that misuse: 'the fact of the matter is', makes the untrue statement following it two-fold more egregious.
The fact is ....it is possible to sway people with debate.

 

[webdog]

When you abandon scripture....you have to say something so carnal logic and human speculations and philosophy rush in to fill the void.:thumbs:

Your entire doctrine is carnal, built on the backs of men. :thumbs:

What purpose does your backhanded post serve, IC? Another passive, aggressive calvinist ...talk sweetly about the 'doctrines of GRACE'...while showing very little of it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Once more, a thread has degenerated into who can throw the most gasoline on the fire. So, it's getting closed.