Not at all.
This is a ligament question often posed even in scholarly debates on the subject.
It brings into light the difficulty surrounding the concept that contra-causal free will is somehow a logical impossibility.
It also helps Calvinists to consider that God may have "put us non-Calvinists" in their lives for a reason. :smilewinkgrin:
Ive said this before but its to have competition because that puts each side to its mettle, cautions each to tolerance & gives to our frail minds other ideas to contemplate. All in all we serve a very intelligent God. :godisgood::laugh::thumbs:
I apologize for responding in shrillness.
I will say I personally get frustrated at times because it "seems to me" that you often respond to posts tangentially not reading the meaning and intent of a post.
Then it just seems as if everyone wants to
"duke it out".
This is not where I or you or anyone should be.
Seeing that P4T seems to have answered Skan's questions in the affirmative I believe this justifies Skan asking these questions.
If Skan would have thought what you suggested then we might never have been able to know how P4T thinks about that topic.
Would you prefer that we all not know how P4T thought about those questions?
Did you already know that P4T felt that way and just didn't want him to come out and admit such a thing?
Would you or any calvinist on this BB agree with P4T?
Obviously you overlook where I am misrepresented. This is why, and the only reason why, I am duking it out.
I have a brother misrepresenting me, adding to what I've said, and accusing me of calling others salvation "works based."
Re-read and see that I never once claimed, nor hinted at claiming in my stating what others say, that they are in fact representing Arminianism. This is how I am erroneously misrepresented in one way, and this is a strawman argument, completely out of context and unnecessary.
Secondly, take time to read that I never claimed such persons are in fact saving themselves, as I have been slanderously reported to have said. That is unfortunate and uncalled for.
Now, if one could simply stick to what is actually said, then, well, we could have dialogue. Only after one apologizes for saying I accused others of saving themselves of course. This type of twisting needs to end.
Did God chose Abram to serve Him due to inate goodness of the pagen, or JUST because God elected Him to establish His plan to be fulfilled in the coming of the messiah eventually to earth?
Aaron, with all due respect brother, what purpose do comments like this serve except to inflame by not all that subtly implying that we can't have a relationship with Christ if we don't agree with your theological system.
You don't present any argumentation, scripture or even philosophical reasoning to make a case for your views.
Instead, you just make implications about the salvation (or lack thereof) of those with whom you disagree.
I sincerely and respectfully request that you stop doing that.
Why should Skan expect God to tell him what you think instead you just telling him?
Obviously, someone asking you "Why is it this way?" (as Skan did) and then you telling him "Take it up with God.", obviously means something to the effect of "that is the way it is, don't ask me, you take it up with God."
:BangHead:
You may be right.
Those people out there somewhere who believe fallen humanity are really "pretty good fellers" and "seek God" on their own without His initiation would be greatly offended if you thought they also "saved themselves."
I apologize for implying that you believed those people think they "save themselves."
When you said, "they went to the polls, an via free-will voted for God, all on their own goodness and ability," I'm sure you didn't mean they were using their goodness to cast a free-will vote for God in a saving manner and so I'm sure that was a complete misrepresentation of what you really meant when you said that about these nebulous folks.
So, I apologize for misrepresenting your views about Baptist believers who don't exist. :smilewinkgrin: