Featured What UNIQUELY sets apart a 'work of God' from every other common event in history?

Yes, it is this simple. We who distinguish between divine foreknowledge and divine predetermination hold to either/or not both/and. We believe that God either permits it or he actively determined it. You believe that God both determines it and permits it. The distinction is very clear and it has been the mark of distinction between determinists and indeterminists for generations. There is nothing new here.

As if proof that you have contradicted every scholar within your Calvinistic camp by denying "Total Depravity" and "Irresistible Grace" isn't enough. :laugh:

That is true and yet you choose to continue on the personal attack rather than handle the substance of the debate, which is the clear departure you have taken from orthodox reformed views. That is the most revealing truth of all.

Can you summons even one other Calvinist on this forum to support your newly finagled dogma? You seem so desperate to get people on your side you are trying to adopt Willis into your camp, which is quite humorous to watch actually.

This from the guy who just attempted to twist Willis' quote into support for hard determinism? :tonofbricks:

You have yet to reply to the evidence I presented proving otherwise.

Funny how passages become 'obscure' all of the sudden when they fail to support your premise, huh? To bad for you that the same 'obscure' point is repeated in Acts 28, Mark 4, Matt. 13, John 12, Rom 11, etc.

How? Be denying that they are actually totally depraved? You said the NATURAL MAN might have believed and repented by hearing the gospel (apart from it being hidden in parables). If that is not a denial of Total Depravity, what is?

Do you feel better? Now debate the points, and stop making this personal. You can do better than this Luke. You promised me you would.

Do I need to go get the direct quotes from the other thread to repost here, Luke? We went round and round about how they 'might' repent if they clearly heard the gospel. I'll gladly start a new thread contrasting what you were saying then and what you are saying now if I need to.

That totally depraved, non-elect, non-atoned, and not irresistibly called men can be regenerated by hearing the clear gospel is not contradictory to Calvinism? You just violated all 4 points.

Yes, its when someone ignores the content or subject in order to focus on the motives or personal attributes of their opponent.

For example:
1. "You can't stand being beaten in a debate..." (implication of an impure motive)
2. "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." (implication of an impure motive)
3. "anything to make it seem you are a very superior debater." (implication of an impure motive)
4. "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" (implication of an impure feelings and responses)
5. "We have to keep covering the same ground because your memory is failing." (implication that I can't remember things)

If Mondale said of Reagan, "You'll say anything to make yourself appear to be a superior candidate," or any of the other comments listed above that would have most certainly been personal. Granted I fed it back to you a few times, but I'm really trying to keep us on topic and not allow things to get personal. Suppose Mondale pretended to win the election while saying all the things you have said to me? That is what these posts sound like. You have contradicted yourself and the views of those who hold to your theological position and I have pointed that out sufficiently.

SO WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU PRETENDING WILLIS AGREES WITH YOU (which if you remember was what started this)???? Go back to post 56 and read it carefully along side these statements and I think you will understand why I was calling you out.

 

1. What's weird (but expected) is that you address the personal issues but not the substance of the theological disagreement.

2. Quotes were taken from both posts, where you carried the same 'you lose, but can't handle it' mantra, instead of addressing the content of our disagreement (i.e. your attempt to claim Willis' consistently Arminian comment (of either/or) supports your hard deterministic views of (both/and).

3. In your last post you conceded your hard deterministic view (as in contrast with Willis) and yet have not admitted that you were wrong and I was right about the contrast of your views with his comment. The very thing that started this particular discussion.

Weird that you wouldn't just admit that and move on?

 

Are you implying my view hasn't been consistent? Would you care to substantiate that accusation or are you the typical drive by insulter?

 

Oh, it was a joke? I didn't pick up on that. Being called a politician, an blatant implication of double speak, doesn't strike me as humorous. Maybe insulting others comes across as funny to you but don't be surprised if the recipient feels differently, okay?

I actually have a very good sense of humor according to my psychotherapist. :laugh:

If the former comment were an actual joke one might expect an apology for the offense rather than a continuation of personal insult.

 

Ad hom...

More ad hom...

Yet, thus far that is what you are doing....

To say that I expected you to do exactly what you currently are doing, which is to focus on ad hom instead of the substance? You got me.

Both the posts contained ad hom, and it continues...expectedly

Willis already told us he was in agreement with my evaluation of his view (either/or) and you already told us you were still in support of hard determinism (both/and). That point has been long since made and you have yet to admit your error.

You equate foreknowledge with predetermination, Willis and I do not. He and I may differ on our nuanced explanations regarding infinite omniscience, but we are in agreement on the point being discussed in this thread. Even he said so. Move on. You are a hard determinists. Own it and be happy.

What problem is that? I've never had a problem with that. I just don't limit God to a finite linear world view like you do. I appeal to mystery before drawing unbiblical conclusions about God.

You are the only person I know who will continue to debate a man's intent who has already told you that he disagrees with your assessment. Amazing.

 

The last quote was from the previous post, so you simply are incorrect. And saying that you don't engage in ad hom in the same post that you are engaging in it doesn't help your case much, especially when it continues afterward as well.

I expect it based on the facts (precedence), not based on what I believe your character to be. I actually believe you are better than you are acting in those posts which is why I called you out on it.

What purpose does it serve except one of pride, arrogance and attempt at one ups manship? Let's just stick to the topic and speak truth in love.

We both obviously believe that we are soundly defeating the other, so restating that serves no purpose except a sinful one.

Read posts 63, 65 and then post 70

He affirms 'bare permission,' as I do. You are a hard determinists Luke. We have been over this enough times for anyone to see it. Just admit that you misunderstood Willis' comment and be done with it. Why do you dig in like this and fight to make him say things he never would actually say or believe?

I've never said this nor is that the point Willis, you or I were addressing regarding God's permissive will and I think you know that.

No, that is never what I claimed. He and I probably have different views on several matters, but the point was THAT particular quote (either/or), where you affirm (both/and). You are a hard determinist. He isn't even a a soft determinist, Luke and you are trying to twist what he said to be in agreement with you.

You just misunderstood. That's all. No big deal, move on.

 

I've never said God cannot see time in a linear fashion. Please don't even try to restate my views. Quote directly from me or link to my post, but don't attempt to restate it, PLEASE. I really don't want people thinking I believe the things you say I believe.

Which is the view of 'bare permission' which you and I went around and around about before, remember? You reject bare permission, Willis accepts it. (either/or vs. both/and) I laid that out very clearly from the very beginning of this discussion yet you still want to attempt to make Willis, who wouldn't even affirm soft determinism, into someone who supports your views of hard determinism. I even sent you the post where he told you he wouldn't accept your view of determinism. What else do we need to do?

Because you seem to think Willis agrees with you and he is NOT a hard determinist, a self-evident truth but one you have been digging your heals in with me over for the last 20 posts, for whatever reason.

Right, and Willis disagrees. Point made, case closed. Thank you for finally admitting that your 'high five' of his "either/or" quote was in error. We can now move on.