Featured Free Will Proves The Sovereignty of God

I believe it has to do with the theology of the Baptist faith don't you?
MB

 

It is primarily a cal thing.

 

All of scripture is primarily a"cal thing".An artificial fence is not going to contain the all inclusive truths that are found in calvinistic teaching.
The scriptures contain and teach these things.

 

inspjavet-


http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=47783849&alert=1

you and luke can play on here if you sign up....

 

No your presuppositions teach these things.

 

Rev is just trying to feel superior....he's already demonstrated that that's his primary concern here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2014274&postcount=13
Meh....it just makes him feel good about himself to be so "above the fray" of us fools who seek to hash-out these issues.
He's too cool for school, Icon.

 

Thanks...!!!!and if you are in for it...I'd like to play you too:wavey: the wife is working on details as well....if ya don't like chess...maybe I'll have to let you pummel me in Scrabble....(I totally suk at Scrabble).

 

You know even if Calvinist do not accept the truth of how we believe it's still seems to me it is our responsibility to show it to them. It seems we must refute Calvinism every time we get a chance. This way none of them can say they have never heard the truth.
Some just cannot accept the fact that Salvation is as simple as Repenting of our sins, believing and trusting in Jesus Christ.
MB

 

Oh but we do believe that as we beleive the means of salvation is chosen as much as the persons - 2 Thes 2:13-14.

 

If you want to have fun with scrabble.....play 15 minute games using a chess clock...lol....live on the edge......:laugh::laugh: i have almost a sinful weakness for chess and scrabble....I had signed up and played between 300-500 speed games in a matter of weeks.....sometimes even lawful activities can become sinful if they spiral out of control...:thumbs::wavey:

The site lets you play ppl from around the world...many from india,and europe

 

Calvinism is an absurdity. Thus a Calvinist would claim God is not really angry, why that is just an anthropomorphism and thus we can nullify any action of God that differs from the Calvinist paradigm.

I am still waiting for any Calvinist to explain if God not declaring what He foreknew means the future is not fixed. I am pretty sure no Calvinist on this forum has any idea what the folks authoring the WCF were trying to say.

Have you been able to find any published commentary on that topic?

 

Van

It is not...WHAT ....he did foreknow......

it is WHOM He did foreknow.....

 

I agree with that actually, I wouldn't have the expertise to claim it from the necessity of the original language, since I don't know a thing about Greek, and don't think that it is profitable to do so....

But, the Calvinist (as it were) was always correct in the assessment that it was individuals....it is people whom God "foreknew"...not merely "whats".

I agree with you 100%

 

I agree.

No wonder Augustine had to set him up, he certainly couldn't debate him.

 

In Augustine's defense....it wasn't HE -Himself who bribed the Emperor of Rome with 80 Numidian Stallions.... it was a friend of his....:laugh::laugh:

If Augustine had debated Pelagius Personally, and publically, the difference would be between a man who was UNIVERSALLY RESPECTED as having lived an impeccable lifestyle....vs....a pervert who's life attested to the truth of NONE of his Theology.

Whatever is falsely alleged about Pelagius...his life and witness was ABSOLUTELY impeccable....and Augustine was a known pervert and persecutor, who relished the use of physical force in "convincing" the "church" to adhere to his views....

NO one....NNE....can say ANYTHING...about Pelagius' personal lifestyle as an impeccable witness.

 

Inasmuch as my wife and I have read all of his works personally.....

You (and even Dr. Bob <--who uses the term but has never read him) may call us "Pelagians" any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Here's my view...I wouldn't call myself "Dr." anything...and then throw around terms like "Pelagian" or "Semi-Pelagian" as some do....if I'd never even READ ONE WORD from the man's own pen...

But, that's what Calvinsts do...I'm a "Dr." of nothing...but I HAVE spent the 60 $ necessary to actually read Pelagius from his own pen...I'm pretty sure no Calvinist "DR." has spent that much before they irresponsibly throw around terms like "Pelagian"....

 

Oh yeah, I have been called a Pelagian by the Calvinists here probably a hundred times. Not having read Pelagius, I really don't know if I am a Pelagian or not, but I am not afraid of their name-calling. When folks have to call you names, it just proves they are losing the debate. :thumbs:

I tell you what, I would rather be called a Pelagian than an Augustinian or Calvinist any day of the week. I don't know much about Pelagius, but I know enough about Augustine and Calvin that I would NEVER want to be associated with either.

 

Yes, God cannot act inconsistent with His own nature and neither can fallen man. Nature dictates His choices and actions as it does in fallen man.

But your whole argument rests upon justice and that is not a good basis to start from when we are dealing with fallen man as justice has but one verdict and it is not mercy. Mercy is something that justice knows nothing about.

Justice would demand "there is none righteous no not one" and justice would find nothing as a ground of mercy in any fallen human being but condemn all equally and justly and that is not merely God's perogative but that is what justice would demand for all sinners equally. Justice is without partiality in regard to sinners and it has only one just outcome - eternal wrath.

Thus all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and justice has but one outcome equally for all without respect of persons.

Now, what is there in any sinner above another that would cause God to have respect of persons of one over another??? There is NOTHING.

Here is where election enters into view. Election is "to salvation" and "salvation" presupposes a fallen and justly condemned condition. That election is "of grace" and thus an act of "mercy" as the very term "mercy" presuppose just condemnation of all sinners equally without respect of persons then election must be based upon something other JUSTICE. This proper order grounded upon mercy instead of justice is significant to grasp as no one can call upon justice to demand mercy, but that is precisely the Arminian presumptive basis for their charge against unconditional election which is based upon mercy not justice and therefore God can be just in discriminating upon whom he will have mercy, just as long as He satisfies the just demands of His law against them. Therefore the non-elect get pure justice while the elect are saved purely upon the grounds of grace, meaning there is nothing in them that deserves salvation over the non-elect. The cause is found in God's own purpose of grace without violating His justice whatsoever.

Therefore, He can have mercy upon whom he will have mercy and he can hardeneth whom he will hardneth - without violating His justice in the least beacuse ALL EQUALLY deserve condemnation and NONE can demand mercy. Jesus came into the world NOT TO CONDEMN the world BECAUSE IT WAS CONDEMNED ALREADY. He came to save all that the Father gave him (Jn. 17:2; Jn. 6:37-39) to give eternal life unto without violating any justice toward those "condemned ALREADY" as the rest of mankind (non-elect) get precisely what they deserve - Justice! And so who can cry foul on the basis of justice? None! So who is it that charges God with being unfair because of unconditional election? Just Arminians who do not understand the justice of God.