Featured Why does Calvinism vs. Armianism dominate every thread?

You really should watch it, because Walls is an excellent speaker and teacher, and he can explain it much better than I.

But, to put it in my own words.

Compatibilism basically put means you do what you want to do. If you are doing what you want to do, according to a Compatibilist you are FREE.

For a sinner, this means he cannot repent or believe the gospel, because he has a sin nature, and that sin nature will ALWAYS will to sin. The sinner is free, he could repent and believe if he wanted to, but he will NEVER want to. Nevertheless, he is absolutely free, he is doing exactly what he wants to do.

For the elect, God uses Irresistible Grace to alter or change a sinners mindset, desires, feelings, etc... so that he will necessarily choose to repent and believe. He could choose to rebel and not believe if he wanted to, but he will never want to do this, because of God's grace. He will ALWAYS will to repent and believe. But he is absolutely free, because he is doing exactly what he wants to do.

Basicially put, sinners want to sin and so they will, and the elect will want to repent and believe, and so they will. They cannot possibly do differently. Yet, they are absolutely free, because they are doing exactly what they want to do.

So, God can determine that you choose to repent and believe, but you are free, because that is exactly what you want to do.

The sinner can only sin, but he is also free, he is doing exactly what he wants to do.

 

I answered your Sophomoric questions already child....

Here:
Here's my short version....

All actions are necessitated by pre-existing stimuli in much the same way as Atheistic Naturalism...

Not for the same reasons of course...but in largely the same way.
Instinct/ sin-nature/desires are necessary stimuli to perfectly predict the actions of any individual....

I get that in your churlishly childish mind that doesn't mean anything to you...
but with people like you...
nothing is worth discussing.

Grow up boy.

 

Sorry but I didnt ask you.....I asked Rippon. And Rippon is perceptive enough to understand just why I asked that question.

 

A significant point Walls makes in that video is this.

If Compatibilism is true, then God could determine that all men everywhere would do nothing but good 100% of the time, yet they would be completely free, because that is what they would want to do.

Therefore, if men sin (and they do), then obviously God does not want all men to do good 100% of the time.

God could determine that all men believe and be saved, yet they would do it MOST FREELY. Therefore, if all men do not believe and are saved, this is not what God wants.

And we have Calvinists here like Iconoclast that openly say God does not want to save all men. This is being a consistent Calvinist and Compatibilist.

 

Now was that necessary?

 

Thank you for answering. Now I understand the connection to Reformed thinking...sin nature...God's grace.

I tend to agree with that understanding of the human condition, with the exception that the "freedom" is simply an illusion. We are slaves to our sin nature and act accordingly unless and until God intervenes by His Spirit to convict us of sin and draw us into a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ.

From prior discussion with you, I know you don't agree, but I do appreciate your willingness to honestly define the terms.

You have evidenced a gentle Christian character and I appreciate it.

Thanks again.

 

Yes.

Because Canady is intellectually LAZY...
Intellectually LAZY...

Intellectually LAZY..

That's why.

 

You are welcome.

But again, the REAL issue is that according to Compatibilism, God could DETERMINE that all men everywhere repent and believe the gospel and not violate their free will. He would alter their mind and heart so they would most freely always choose to repent and believe.

Therefore, if men do not believe and be saved, then obviously God does not want all men to believe and be saved.

Do you agree with that?

 

Winman...he's lying to you...

He wants you to break it down in "your own words" only because he thinks he can twist them in such a way that your position is compromised...
That's why he doesn't respond to direct statements by Walls or anyone else....and he always want's "YOUR WORDS"....

It's because he is lying in wait to take issue with some minor turn of phraseology and twist it to his own ends...don't fall for it.

Calvies know their Philosophical pre-suppositions and so does he......

He wants to debate YOU...and not Walls, because he thinks you are an easier target inasmuch as you might have a less perfectly nuanced command of the English Language as Walls does...and he'll use it to get you caught up...

He's trying to trick you.

 

[offensive language edited] do you know that? What do you know about this person anyway.......you know nothing except a few innocuous little posts asking questions. For all you know this could be a 12 yr old asking (or trying to ask grown up questions). Or for all you this could be a grown up person who has been a non believer and is now attempting to ask some really serious questions. Again, you dont know for certain so knock it off. Try to have some gentility & some grace......class would also help.

 

Yes, it's silly to say men are enslaved by a sin nature and free at the same time.

Truth is, men are not enslaved by a sin nature. The Philipian jailer was not regenerated, he had not believed and been born again, yet he desired to be saved.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The Philipian jailer could not have been regenerated, because he had not believed yet. He didn't even know he had to believe. Yet he desired to be saved.

This proves sinners are not enslaved by a sin nature.

 

I'd like to offer another answer to the original posters question

Could it be that the swift-handed moderator of the Cal/Arm debate section has run everyone from that forum to here?

That debate section is like a ghost town, with every thread disappearing quicker than a rebuttal can be typed.

Good for that mod, I suppose. He's got a lot less work to do now, but the trashy diatribes have moved here.

 

Ahhhhh so the light dawns.......a crafty Calvinist no doubt. Evil creature, spon of the devil. You probably have a current copy of the Institutes & the 1689 Confessions under your bed. for shame attempting to trip up the Arminians & Pelagians on this board. Thats a troll & that aint nice.

 

That's part of it...
Squire got quick control of it by simply shutting down the argument altogether...

It's funny, but everyone debates the "Cal-Arm" thing...anywhere other than where they're supposed to.

He regulated it by shutting it down altogether. :laugh:
So...they debate it here.

 

Huh???

This isn't about YOU E.W.F....

This is about someone else entirely...
I would not EVER accuse you of trying to catch someone up in their own words or shifting the conversation in such a way as to debate the statements of another person in lieu of yours...

Canady is capable of such underhandedness...but not you...

You are both too high and too drunk to do either.

 

Scripture tells us that God desires all men (and women) everywhere to repent and believe, so I must agree with scripture that God desires all men (and women) to believe.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us not all are going to be saved.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us no one can come unless God draws him.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us that only Christ's sheep, which He calls by name, will come.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us that those who don't believe are in that state of being because they are not Christ's sheep.

All these teachings are difficult to reconcile, but must be held in some tension because they are taught by God in His Word.

I have found that Reformed theology, though not a perfect understanding by any stretch, does the best job of reconciling the various teachings of scripture concerning these issues.

Such is where I stand

 

Ouch.do you think he has been enjoying the pub fellowship too much?

 

AH yes ...the good squire has not found a thread that can remain open....

he has professed several times that he thinks it is a waste of computer space and that no one will change.....that sounds like unbelief in the work of the Spirit.

 

Yea you should know everything there is about being a drunk, right Scotty?

 

Well...the situation is kinda weird....
Squire is BENT on ensuring it doesn't get out of hand (as it were)...
In so doing...

I think the poor man has simply elected to shut down nearly every time any Arminian disagrees with a Calvinist..

It's kinda funny. But it might take one Heckuva smart cat to REALLY moderate discussions betwixt Cals and Arms... that's not an easy job....

Squire's answer???

Just shut down every thread before it go to page three :laugh:
But....I hardly blame the poor guy...
he he...