Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

You really think your repeated question begging fallacy of presuming determinism must be accepted is a 'missile lock?' That's cute.

False Dichotomy. There is another option which you've yet to actually engage in a debate.

 

Takes one to know one... :smilewinkgrin:

Oh, and at least in my system the pride and arrogance of this thread is our doing, not God's doing through secondary causes...

 

Really? You aren't presuming the premise of determinism should be accepted as if it were 2+2=4? Sure sounds like it...

Yep. Just like I thought. You equate the Deterministic premise is just a clear and accepted as a simple math equation. That is question begging bro. In fact I can't think of a better example of question begging than this.

Still waiting for you to define why God determined to save you rather than someone else. Willy nilly or random?

 

For those following along, the deterministic premise assumes that the all powerful God couldn't possibly have created free autonomous creatures with the ability of first cause determinations. They ASSUME this is a logical impossibility simply because it can't be fully comprehended or defined by our limited finite understanding. They conclude instead that the creator must have created contingent creatures who act in accordance with their predetermined nature in response to their predetermined outward stimuli in a manner that they could not have done otherwise (aka animal instinct - the lion will alway desire meat over salad because that was the way he was made).

They are fine to conclude that God is a free and autonomous person who makes fully self-determined choices, and they accept the mystery of such choices, but somehow think any appeal to mystery regarding the choices of those He created in His image is unwarranted.

 

What? You're not already aware of the passages which speak of election? Without even looking I know that would be Romans 9-11, Eph 1 and 1 Peter 2. I think he is probably assuming his readers are already aware of what these passage say.

 

Mature.

Actually it is statements based upon assumptions and you assume Determinism is a given (like math or gravity) which is the fallacy of Question Begging. Just do a little study on the subject of debate fallacies and I think you will see your error.

And there you go again. This presumes Paul, Christ and Moses were deterministic just like you which IS the point up for debate.

Let me help you out. If I could simply repeat what you just said as my rebuttal it is probably question begging. Kind of like when a kid is arguing and says, "Nuh-huh! You're stupid," and his opponent just repeats him. It really is the lowest form of debate and I think you can do better.

 

Translation: I, Aaron, can't debate using the actual terms and claims of my opponent, so I'll make up outrageous, unfounded, and unrelated accusations so as to distract from my deficiencies.

 

Ok Aaron, which part of this is not accurate. Let's take it point by point:

Have you and others here not argued that libertarian freedom is a logical impossibility and God could no more have created libertarian free creatures than he could have made a rock so big that he couldn't move it? Are you now saying that God could have created free autonomous creatures with the ability of first cause choices? Or was it something else you objected to? Let's continue...

Do you not claim that libertarian freedom is illogical and thus must be dismissed, or has that changed too? Or maybe it was something else I wrote?

Is mankind not created with a nature by God? Do you not believe that nature determines what choices he will make? Do you not agree that his choice will alway be according to his God given nature/desire and God preordained plan? Do you not also agree that God is in full control over the circumstances (stimuli)? Or have you changed your views?

You don't believe God is a free and autonomous person who makes fully self-detremined choices?

What is it exactly that is not correctly representing what you have argued? Try actually forming a real argument for once.

 

And yet every arguement I've made can be substantiated with similar published arguments made by non-Calvinistic scholars, so we all know where you are pulling this from too. :thumbs:

Good idea.

Ironic how the one who holds the view that claims God picks some over others is accusing us, the view that believes God loves and provides for all mankind, of believing God is 'respecter of persons.' Just because you don't know the reason for God's choosing you over someone else doesn't excuse the fact that he does the "respecting of persons" in your system.

BTW, you never answered the question as to what determines God choice to pick you and not someone else? Oh, yeah. You are leaving now....figures.