Yes, Virginia, There Really is a Middle View

Dizerner

Well-known member
You should get into a discussion with them as to if a little Determinism, determines the whole Loaf. You could probably point out places in the Bible where God DID determine something; then they would have to believe in Hard Determinism because they always round-up Soft Determinism. I would enjoy reading that discussion; I've had it with them for years now...

Conflation, equivocation.

Two different kinds of determinism.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Is there more than 1 kind or type of love ?

and does the same principle of conflation/equivocation apply ?

if not why not ?

I would say there is more than one kind of love.

There is soulish love that is based on the emotions.

There is a supernatural impossible love that only God can give, to love someone that doesn't love you back.

And it would be conflation and equivocation to use those two kinds of love to equal the same thing.
 

civic

Well-known member
I would say there is more than one kind of love.

There is soulish love that is based on the emotions.

There is a supernatural impossible love that only God can give, to love someone that doesn't love you back.

And it would be conflation and equivocation to use those two kinds of love to equal the same thing.
how is hard/soft determinism conflating when they can prove a distinction ?

are you claiming its a distinction without a difference ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Might I just point out that the ideas behind Arminianism came before those behind Calvinism historically.


Have you looked up all the quotes in this video, and checked their context, as well as checking the other teachings of those quoted to check for consistency?
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Have you looked up all the quotes in this video, and checked their context, as well as checking the other teachings of those quoted to check for consistency?
I don’t think it would make a difference.
All he sees is God forcing everything on us robots.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Cool, love the robot dialogue.

In the meantime here is @Ken Hamrick's gospel:

Every man must keep the law. Divine righteousness alone cannot save us, since we are not gods but men who need human righteousness--the kind of righteousness achieved by a man and worked out in the actions and attitudes of a human life, step by step and day by day. Christ did not give us merely His divine righteousness--that is the heresy of Osiander. Rather, He became one of us so He could walk in our shoes and do all that we should have done, keeping the law perfectly in our place.

We all need two things to gain heaven:
1. We need a human life lived perfectly righteous in every detail from birth to grave;
2. As those who have sinned, we need to suffer the complete wrath of God against sin.

Christ fulfilled both of these: He lived a perfectly righteous life from manger to grave, fulfilling the law's requirements on any man in every detail. And He suffered the complete wrath of God against our sin, suffering our penalty. When we come to Him in faith, Christ is sent into our hearts in a spiritually identifying union by which we gain an ownership in all of His human deeds, including both His righteous human life and His propitiatory, atoning death. After we are joined to Christ, we are seen in the eyes of justice as having lived His life and having died His death two thousand years ago. Christ in me and I in Christ have become one new man, and the old identity is no longer valid--no longer condemnable--no longer lacking at the bar of Judgment.
Any one knowing anything about the Gospel knows indeed the above is a false gospel. Philippians 3:9, Galatians, and a myriad of NT truth affirms this. This guy needs to be under Titus 3:9-11.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Cool, love the robot dialogue.

In the meantime here is @Ken Hamrick's gospel:


Any one knowing anything about the Gospel knows indeed the above is a false gospel. Philippians 3:9, Galatians, and a myriad of NT truth affirms this. This guy needs to be under Titus 3:9-11.
Yep, the first couple lines says enough.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Yep, the first couple lines says enough.
...enough to set him off; but only because he has no care for whether or not he might be jumping to the wrong conclusions. Just looking for key words to ignite the rant. From my previous discussions with you, you did not seem to be that type.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
...enough to set him off; but only because he has no care for whether or not he might be jumping to the wrong conclusions. Just looking for key words to ignite the rant. From my previous discussions with you, you did not seem to be that type.
I’ll reread the post. I haven’t made a judgement yet. But those first couple lines speak loudly.
 
Top