If the following is true:

Rockson said:
And you go on to say he won't because of the things you say God won't put in him. So the following will illustrate to on lookers what you're really saying. I'll give this analogy.

Imagine a child's toy like a cat (we have one like this) which makes cute meow sounds because there's a battery in it making it possible to do so. Without the battery in it or put in it by the manufacturer it CAN'T activate. Your argument is it can meow and that it can activate but what you're really saying is it has to potential to do so if the manufacturer completed the system. You put that down as a condition.
Click to expand...

Yes because we deny that there is a “self sustaining” Ultimate power, like a “battery” other than God in existence.

We deny both Deism and Dualism because…

Hebrews 1:3 “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”

Colossians 1:17 “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Acts 17:28 “In him we live and move and have our being”

…
 
Rockson said:
So right there you're admitting you believe God is proactive and does all things to influence something he wants. Everything that takes place is God ordained according to Calvinistic teaching. So what about the most gross, impure, unspeakable things imagined things that even make police officers sick when they have to investigate them. Your analogy has God yelling something and they do sleazy, disgusting, sickening things for remember everything according to you is the will of God. My Bible says God is light and in him is no darkness at all and my Bible says sins causes God much pain and grief not pleasure, in fact it's blasphemous even to suggest it would provide him that. Sorry but that's where Calvinism takes one though.
Click to expand...
See Acts 4;27 and 28. Your problem is with the Bible not Calvinism
 
Rockson said:
And you go on to say he won't because of the things you say God won't put in him. So the following will illustrate to on lookers what you're really saying. I'll give this analogy.

Imagine a child's toy like a cat (we have one like this) which makes cute meow sounds because there's a battery in it making it possible to do so. Without the battery in it or put in it by the manufacturer it CAN'T activate. Your argument is it can meow and that it can activate but what you're really saying is it has to potential to do so if the manufacturer completed the system. You put that down as a condition.

But in a way you don't want to make it seem like it's a condition in your first words....You're saying the sinner has the ability to believe which is like saying the toy has the ability to do things without the battery! So I think all would scratch their heads wondering then why you would even say this? I'd contend it's obvious. It's Calvinists window dressing. You're wanting to push that God is just by judging because after all according to you the sinner has the ability to do something but what's hiding behind the curtain is that you don't really believe that. You're saying only what you're saying for the public image of Calvinism. You even said the sinner, HAS THE ABLITY but that HE WON'T. You don't say he can't!

YOU WOULD NOT HOWEVER SAY THIS IN THE REAL WORLD.

If you saw my cat without the battery, there is no way you would say it can activate. (or believe) And there's NO WAY you'd say he won't. You would say that it can't. You're wanting to create the thought that the non-elect sinner is in a place where he REALLY deserves judgment and it's his fault after all he has this ability, but you know according to your own paradigm way of thinking he doesn't. I think it's where you try to make your own doctrine sound better to yourself.

Let's carry on. So imagine the cat toy has real life and feelings BUT no battery. It CAN'T produce what might please the manufacturer that is being activated and yet it's blamed for not doing so and so you Calvinists would call that just! I'd say it's outside even the basic of rational thinking to consider it would be and if were anything outside a religious paradigm you folk are desperately trying to defend you would agree it would be unjust too. I have no doubt about that. I think you should admit that.
Click to expand...
I Dont do analogesis. If you have a arguement make a adult one
 
Christian said:
Which was a one time unique event in human history . The exception is not the rule . What God does one time is not a universal truth applied to all people at all times . That is eisegesis not biblical exegesis.
Click to expand...

That did not answer:

What’s more “gross” than the Crucifixion of Christ?

It only takes “God doing it one time” to undermine the entire premise of the “emotional” argument above.

…
 
Sketo said:
That did not answer:

What’s more “gross” than the Crucifixion of Christ?

It only takes “God doing it one time” to undermine the entire premise of the “emotional” argument above.

…
Click to expand...
Oh I agree it was the most horrific act in human history with the punishment/torture inflicted upon our Sinless Savior. The Just for the unjust, the Sinless One for the sinner. But God determining those events of the crucifixion and Jesus life which fulfilled many prophecies doesn't mean He determines every other event in human history which fulfills prophecy. To argue otherwise is conflating Jesus unique life with that of sinners. Apples to oranges as they say.
 
Last edited:
Christian said:
Oh I agree it was the most horrific act in human history with the punishment/torture inflicted upon our Sinless Savior. The Just for the unjust, the Sinless One for the sinner. But God determining those events of the crucifixion…
Click to expand...

The point of my post was only to address the “emotionalism” of Rockson’s argument, not to prove All events are determined by God…

Christian said:
and Jesus life which fulfilled many prophecies doesn't mean He determines every other event in human history which fulfills prophecy. The argue otherwise is conflating Jesus unique life with that of sinners. Apples to oranges as they say.
Click to expand...

Although I believe “all other events in human history are determined by God” through Storyline Level means, that was not the point of my argument here.

…
 
Last edited:
ReverendRV said:
God our Creator; and our Sustainer...

Are we free from our fathers and mothers who sustain us? We shall leave our mother and father and cleave to our wives; but are we then free from our wife who then sustains us?
Click to expand...
I will only point out that there is a massive distinction between God who "sustains" us and parents who "sustain" us. We ought not equivocate on the meaning here. The two different types of "sustain" are catastrophically different.

Here is a simple comparison.
-If a parent doesn't sustain us in the teen years, we can probably get by with significant difficulty. If a parent doesn't sustain a baby, then the life expectancy diminishes rapidly.
-If God doesn't sustain a person, then that person, instantly, no longer exists.
 
Rockson said:
And like the other poster just asked is he free from unconditional predetermination to do so? Your teaching is he's ordained not to! So if you're really saying he's free to then I guess you're saying ALL men have the capacity to repent after all. I guess you're saying he can break through the ordaining process as found in your WCF. But then you say nope God doesn't want or desire for him to do that for he was made to be a vessel of wrath. But then it seems you actually turn against Calvinism (actually good for you) and announce, "He can repent" and you add on "He can believe"

Now forget about what you say later, "He simply won't"

Forget about that for now and focus on what you said he actually CAN DO, CAN DO, CAN DO! You might want to say to yourself a hundred times or even a thousand times, what you said,

"He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe! He can repent and he can believe!

So if you're sincere in what you've said it seems to me and plus I'm sure to many readers that you've left Calvinistic thinking! That position has always been that HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T! He doesn't have the ability to according to what you once did think. I'd say then Reformedguy that is good....you're making progress!
Click to expand...
physical ability vs moral inability -->not equal
 
Sketo said:
The point of my post was only to address the “emotionalism” of Rockson’s argument, not to prove All events are determined by God…



Although I believe “all other events in human history are determined by God” through Storyline Level means, that was not the point of my argument here.

…
Click to expand...
ok thanks for clarifying Sketo .
 
Dizerner said:
princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif



This reminds of the time Dr. White, in his debate, stated "When you read Romans 9, you have a choice to make."

The bizarre and humorous lack of self-awareness could not fail to strike me.

Under his interpretation, when I read Romans 9, I have absolutely no choice to make, a choice has already been made for me.

Logical consistency is not a strong suit when it comes to those preaching EDD, the divine decree of all things.
Click to expand...

we have a choice to make? we have to choose (just happens maybe) what matters more to us in the Bible and what we don't maybe know about yet...

and that's OK ...

or to take it (any particular verse) with all the rest of the Bible -- altogether -- the whole of the Bible to mean things quite different than another

ever thought of
 
ReverendRV said:
Would you allow for the Holy Spirit under the preaching of the word, to give a person the ability to choose? If so, then why do you think he was being hypocritical? If you don't believe it, it's still okay for Dr White to believe it; isn't it?
Click to expand...

it is indeed ok. and that makes a good point. if it's ok for one to take things one way -- because that is how they honestly see it (at this present time on Earth), then it's just as ok for a different person to take things another way because that is the way - (hopefully with help of the Spirit) they see things -- at this present time on Earth.

"But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be restrained; where there is knowledge, it will be dismissed. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away.…" 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

different dna, different upbringing, different life experiences, different kinds of people in ones life, different past, different choices, different amounts of actually seeking truth / verses belief, strong overwhelming belief in dogmas -- for years, different amounts of growth in the Lord.
 
Last edited:
Rockson said:
And you go on to say he won't because of the things you say God won't put in him. So the following will illustrate to on lookers what you're really saying. I'll give this analogy.

Imagine a child's toy like a cat (we have one like this) which makes cute meow sounds because there's a battery in it making it possible to do so. Without the battery in it or put in it by the manufacturer it CAN'T activate. Your argument is it can meow and that it can activate but what you're really saying is it has to potential to do so if the manufacturer completed the system. You put that down as a condition.

But in a way you don't want to make it seem like it's a condition in your first words....You're saying the sinner has the ability to believe which is like saying the toy has the ability to do things without the battery! So I think all would scratch their heads wondering then why you would even say this? I'd contend it's obvious. It's Calvinists window dressing. You're wanting to push that God is just by judging because after all according to you the sinner has the ability to do something but what's hiding behind the curtain is that you don't really believe that. You're saying only what you're saying for the public image of Calvinism. You even said the sinner, HAS THE ABLITY but that HE WON'T. You don't say he can't!

YOU WOULD NOT HOWEVER SAY THIS IN THE REAL WORLD.

If you saw my cat without the battery, there is no way you would say it can activate. (or believe) And there's NO WAY you'd say he won't. You would say that it can't. You're wanting to create the thought that the non-elect sinner is in a place where he REALLY deserves judgment and it's his fault after all he has this ability, but you know according to your own paradigm way of thinking he doesn't. I think it's where you try to make your own doctrine sound better to yourself.

Let's carry on. So imagine the cat toy has real life and feelings BUT no battery. It CAN'T produce what might please the manufacturer that is being activated and yet it's blamed for not doing so and so you Calvinists would call that just! I'd say it's outside even the basic of rational thinking to consider it would be and if were anything outside a religious paradigm you folk are desperately trying to defend you would agree it would be unjust too. I have no doubt about that. I think you should admit that.
Click to expand...

made in

T H E I M A G E O F G O D
 
Reformedguy said:
I Dont do analogesis. If you have a arguement make a adult one
Click to expand...
And I'm willing to accept other readers and potential lurkers might conclude all my points were valid and when you're pressed with valid rebuttals you use things like this as your default position. At least I've made my points and they're on the record.
 
Rockson said:
And I've addressed that issue. You should consider your problem might be trying to change the gracious loving character of God into something not seen in the ministry of Jesus.
Click to expand...
So you agree then that sinful actions are planned and determined by God and brought about by His hand then? Good. Now your making progess
 
Rockson said:
And I'm willing to accept other readers and potential lurkers might conclude all my points were valid and when you're pressed with valid rebuttals you use things like this as your default position. At least I've made my points and they're on the record.
Click to expand...
I dont have to nor feel the need to address your dumb anologies. Offer some exegesis then your onto something. If not take your anologies to Soterology 101. They love them over there. Thats all they do
 
Reformedguy said:
No. In our world God is soverign. God is our creator. He could have created a world where all believe or that no one believes.

You have the ability to believe. You have a choice to make. You simply wont because you do not desire to choose to believe unless drawn, given understanding of Spiritual things.

Glad I could help
Click to expand...

I don't agree .....

IMO, it's more "like this is the way walk in it".

Not get dragged along, in the way, with chains of bondage; getting beat by sin and death. .

I realize you guys are Evangelicals, but maybe put down your clubs and consider.
 
Last edited:
Rockson said:
edit
Click to expand...

I think I will for the lurkers.

Acts 4: 27, 28. "For truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, Herod and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together (28) to do

whatever YOUR HAND and your purpose DETERMINED BEFORE to be done." ESV

As you line to say CHECKMATE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reformedguy said:
That's what it says dude. Would you like me to quote it?

I think I will for the lurkers.

Acts 4: 27, 28. "For truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, Herod and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together (28) to do

whatever YOUR HAND and your purpose DETERMINED BEFORE to be done." ESV

As you line to say CHECKMATE
Click to expand...

How may I serve you, "your grace"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top