|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 1:07:17 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
As often as I've noted Acts 17:27 which says that God created mankind to seek Him, the reformed have yet to respond to that. Instead, they continue to ague that Rom 3:10-12 refers to all of humanity. In so doing, they create a contradiction that they seem ignorant of.
Apparently they have to agree with what Acts 17:27 says, that God created man to seek Him. Yet, they then also apparently believe that what God created man to do, man is unable to do.
God also has created mankind to love Him with all the heart, mind, soul and strength. No one has been able to do this.
What passage do you have to support your claim here? Yes, we ARE commanded to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. But where is the passage that says that man was created to do this? Unless you have a solid verse of support, your whole argument falls apart.
quote:
God does command that which we cannot do on our own fulfill. So, there is no contradiction whatsoever.
Again, unless you can show solid support for your claim that man was created to love God, you have no argument.
quote:
God created mankind to seek Him, but none without His aid have ever done so. Romans 3:10-12 is no contradiction to Acts 17:27 or Cornelius.
Since I've pointed out many times that the very reason man is even aware of the existence of God, along with His power, nature, and attributes is because God has made those evident to everyone, so that they are clearly sens, and no one has an excuse for missing it or failing to seek Him.
So, your argument about "without His aid" fails. I've shown from Scripture that God is ALWAYS aiding man to come to faith. He provides clear evidence of divine Truth. Man will either believe or reject that Truth.
quote:
And, by the way, your claim that “the reformed” have not responded to your Acts 17:27 argument is not true. I have responded; you simply dismissed it as changing the subject. You therefore did not have to engage in the truth found in my response. Convenient.
If you actually did, then my apologies. However, could you be a good sport and direct me to that post? If you don't recall it, why not just answer it again?
From your response here, I suspect that you DID change the subject. What did you do, bring in some other passage not related at all?
I'd love to see that post where you addressed Acts 17:27. If you DID change the subject, then you HAVEN'T answered the question. If you answered it, I will apologize for my statement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 1:50:39 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
And, by the way, your claim that “the reformed” have not responded to your Acts 17:27 argument is not true. I have responded; you simply dismissed it as changing the subject. You therefore did not have to engage in the truth found in my response. Convenient.
Greeting SH !
Another Doctrinal text of the A-team.
I like the way a key word is overlooked.
I guess those who violate the principles
of exegeting, and apologetics, are also
content to manipulate language definition.
To believe all is all, and world is world, is
merely imprinting one's belief OVER the text.
What is seeking ? Is it aggressive seeking ?
Or a "seeking" by "thinking about "...
That is Strong's 2212, with Vine's notes.
All men are not seeking to begin with-
Some of those seeking, really aren't-
rather they exercise a mental faculty,
which we know what flesh cannot do.
Then of course, we have the PERHAPS !
There's certainty for ya. Is this God's way ?
God is emphatically certian and determined.
A big maybe is just, well, a BIG maybe.
Let's hang our hat on that...maybe !
Yep, King Agrippa was almost persuaded.
So, God ALMOST persuades people, to
perhaps consider, or think about Him.
There's salavtion right there for ya...
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 1:55:52 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1620
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Your claim that because men are without excuse therefore they can and do seek God is not founded in Romans 1 and is flatly denied in Romans 3.
Yet, Acts 10 and the life of Cornelius demonstrates that unregenerate men can and do seek God. So, obviously, your understanding of Rom 3 is incorrect.
It appears that the short description of the life of Cornelius is the foundation upon which you base your interpretation of Romans. It should be the other way around.
You've missed some of my posts. I have noted that Cornelius demonstrates the principle found in Romans 1. The foundation is Romans 1. Cornelius just demonstrates that foundation.
I have read that in many of your posts.
I was not speaking about Romans 1, but Romans 3.
Why would you think I was trying to link the life of Cornelius to Rom 3?
I didn't. We were talking about Rom 3 and you brought Cornelius and Romans 1 into it for some reason.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Paul quotes from Psalms 14 and 53; Psalm 5:9; Psalm 10:7; Isaiah 59:7-8; and Psalm 36:1 to confirm the universal sinfulness of man.
Since both Psa 14 and 53 begin with "the fool says in his heart", your claim is without any support regarding who suppresses the Truth.
First, I wasn't speaking about suppressing the truth, I was speaking about the clear message of Romans 3.
Yes, Rom 3:9 and 3:23 are very clear. Everyone is a sinner, under sin.
And Rom 3:10 is very clear also. Paul verifies his statement that all are under sin by quoting the OT.
quote:
quote:
Second, However Psalms 14 and 53 begins does not negate the clear language, word usage and context of Romans 3.
No, they don't.
Show us how the clear language, word usage and context of Romans 3 shows us anything different from what it clearly states.
quote:
However, you ignore that those psalms speak specifically about fools, and do not address the entire human race.
Your argument is immaterial to the clear meaning of the text. You have not shown otherwise. You can keep hiding behind the “fools” or you can comment on what is not only clear to me, but most of the theological world.
quote:
quote:
What I have brought forward as the true interpretation of Romans 3 has great support
Only amongst the reformed. 
Only if you think it was only reformed theologians that put together the NASB, ESB, KJB NKJB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, ASV, NLT, etc.
So far your only argument is your “fool” theory and Cornelius and reformed accustations. Do you have any argument that counters what I have brought forth concerning the clear language, sentence structure, word usage and definitions?
quote:
quote:
and I have shown it and you have made no comment that would disprove what I have shown whatsoever.
Only the FACT that Psa 14 and 53 are about fools, not the entire human race.
Paul's clear language, sentence structure, context, etc. shows otherwise. Do you have any substantive comment on that? Or is your only arguement your "fool" theory?
quote:
quote:
The sentence structure, the word usage and definitions all support what I have stated. It not only has support from context, word usage and word definitions, but has support of the scholars who translated the major versions of the Bible. None of them support your fringe view of Romans 3. No, not one.
I am not responsible for whatever anyone else thinks or concludes about what they read in the Bible. I AM responsible for what I read and conclude from the Bible.
It might be wise to occasionally check out what others believe. It will challenge your thinking. At this point you are the lone ranger.
quote:
You have not convinced me of anything, since you must ignore the subject matter of Psa 14 and 53.
You must use the term “ignore” differently from the way it is commonly used. I have commented on your isolated view of Psalms 14 and 53 and have not ignored it.
It’s fine with me if you are not convinced. If the scholars of many modern translations can’t convince you, I don’t have I problem if I can’t either.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 1:58:05 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Apparently they have to agree with what Acts 17:27 says, that God created man to seek Him. Yet, they then also apparently believe that what God created man to do, man is unable to do.
What does seeking accomplish ?
You have not given us the sequel ?
You said God gives more and more.
OK, so what's the next stage ?
What happens next ? It's your model-
What comes AFTER seeking ?
And what comes after that ?
God did not make man to be "seekers".
God made man to worship His Majesty.
Is that what seekers do ? Worship ?
Seeking is seeking. Seeking ISN'T finding.
You have people seeking a Spirit with their
carnal nature. You have people looking
for something that they don't believe in.
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:00:21 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1620
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
FG,
quote:
Yes, we ARE commanded to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. But where is the passage that says that man was created to do this? Unless you have a solid verse of support, your whole argument falls apart.
Are you saying man is not created for that which he is commanded to do?
Are you saying that God did not create man to love Him?
If man was not created by God to love Him, why does God command man to love Him?
Why is it that the whole of the Law is wrapped up in this one command and God did not make man to love Him?
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:03:59 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
To believe all is all, and world is world, is
merely imprinting one's belief OVER the text.
Thanks for clarifying the reformed pov on what words mean.
Apparently, for the reformed, "all" does NOT mean "all", and "world" does NOT mean "world".
All men are not seeking to begin with-
No one ever said that all men were seeking "to begin with" or even ever.
quote:
Then of course, we have the PERHAPS !
There's certainty for ya. Is this God's way ?
Since you seem unaware of Acts 17:27, please read it and get back to the thread and tell us all what it means to you.
quote:
So, God ALMOST persuades people, to perhaps consider, or think about Him.
No, not God. That would be Paul, if you can believe the Bible. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:05:00 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
For man to have the free will to choose for God aside from the determination, predestination and foreknowledge of God, this would negate all three...how could it not?
The real questionis, why do you think it would? When God makes Himself evident to man, that creates a choice: to either believe Him or reject Him. Please explain why either believing or rejecting the Truth He makes evident would negate any of His attributes.
God doesn't make Himself evident.
What is the evidential revealing ? Nature.
What exactly does God reveal to every man
in such a fashion that man has real knowledge ?
What are the characteristics God reveals ?
God is known by His mercy and kindness-
are these revealed ? How about grace ?
What attributes is God showing in Romans 1 ?
What is the changing catalyst God reveals ?
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:10:17 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Yes, Rom 3:9 and 3:23 are very clear. Everyone is a sinner, under sin.
And Rom 3:10 is very clear also. Paul verifies his statement that all are under sin by quoting the OT.
No, neither Psa 14 nor 53 "verifies" what Paul states in 3:9. I'm amazed that you even think he was trying to verify that all are sinners by quoting Psa 14 and 53.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Second, However Psalms 14 and 53 begins does not negate the clear language, word usage and context of Romans 3.
No, they don't.
Show us how the clear language, word usage and context of Romans 3 shows us anything different from what it clearly states.
By reading Psa 14 and 53 and seeing that Paul was speaking of fools in v.10-12.
quote:
quote:
However, you ignore that those psalms speak specifically about fools, and do not address the entire human race.
Your argument is immaterial to the clear meaning of the text.
It is completely material to the fact that Paul speaks of fools when he quotes Psa 14 and 53; not the entire human race, as you keep assuming.
quote:
You have not shown otherwise.
No, Psa 14 and 53 do that quite nicely.
quote:
You can keep hiding behind the “fools” or you can comment on what is not only clear to me, but most of the theological world.
Why would I "hide" behind what Paul quoted from the OT. It is clear for everyone to see. And it's sad that you see no link from Rom 1:21,22 to Rom 3:10-12.
quote:
So far your only argument is your “fool” theory and Cornelius and reformed accustations.
Please explain clearly how Paul's quoting directly from Psa 14 and 53 equals a "theory" on fools?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:10:19 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I wonder if you even understand my definition of free will, which is being able to freely to believe or reject the Truth when it is presented.
Sure, Adam and Eve had free will.
Sin came into the world. Things changed.
Now, man's sin nature changes his will.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge this ?
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:15:50 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
To reject something it has to be offered. To chose something it has to be offered with the option to reject it. To reject something that is as good as eternal life means that the mind is unable to process.
This may be your opinion, but I know many unbelievers who clearly understand the gospel message, yet reject it. So, your opinion is not accurate.
What do they understand ?
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:18:47 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Show us how the clear language, word usage and context of Romans 3 shows us anything different from what it clearly states.
So far your only argument is your “fool” theory and Cornelius and reformed accustations. Do you have any argument that counters what I have brought forth concerning the clear language, sentence structure, word usage and definitions?
Frequently. I'm sorry you are not grasping it. And since Paul quoted directly from pa 14 and 53, which was about fools, you can call that a theory all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.
quote:
quote:
quote:
and I have shown it and you have made no comment that would disprove what I have shown whatsoever.
Only the FACT that Psa 14 and 53 are about fools, not the entire human race.
Paul's clear language, sentence structure, context, etc. shows otherwise. Do you have any substantive comment on that? Or is your only arguement your "fool" theory?
I've given plenty. Paul quotes directly from Psa 14 and 53. You have failed to show from those psalms that they are about the entire human race.
I've shown from Romans 1:21,22 that Paul makes comments about fools, which lays a foundation for quoting from Psa 14 and 53 later.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The sentence structure, the word usage and definitions all support what I have stated. It not only has support from context, word usage and word definitions, but has support of the scholars who translated the major versions of the Bible. None of them support your fringe view of Romans 3. No, not one.
I am not responsible for whatever anyone else thinks or concludes about what they read in the Bible. I AM responsible for what I read and conclude from the Bible.
It might be wise to occasionally check out what others believe. It will challenge your thinking. At this point you are the lone ranger.
LOL. What do you think this thread has been doing to me all this time? Do you really think that no one has challenged me yet? However, I've answered all the challenges that I recall, not that you'd agree that I have.
quote:
quote:
You have not convinced me of anything, since you must ignore the subject matter of Psa 14 and 53.
You must use the term “ignore” differently from the way it is commonly used. I have commented on your isolated view of Psalms 14 and 53 and have not ignored it.
Apparently my memory is failing me. Care to share the post #? Or, maybe just re-comment? Unless you can demonstrate that Psa 14 and 53 are directed at the entire human race, not just fools, or that they are actually saying that the whole human race are fools, you have no point.
quote:
It’s fine with me if you are not convinced. If the scholars of many modern translations can’t convince you, I don’t have I problem if I can’t either.
Your failure to convince be is so basic. Your interpretation creates a HUGE contradiction within the Bible, yet you seem oblivious to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:23:27 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1620
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Also, universal sinfulness of man is clearly proven from Rom 3:9 and 3:23. You don't need anything from Psa or Isa to prove it.
It is not me that needs to prove anything from Psalms, but it was the apostle Paul who did use Psalms to prove the universal sinfulness of man - "all are under sin" being proved to the Jew by quoting, "there is none who seeks for God." The fact is, Paul did use Psalms and Isa to prove his assertion that "all are under sin."
quote:
If you will recall, Paul initially made mention of fools in Rom 1:21,22. That is significant. When he directly quotes Psa 14 and 53, v.1-3 in Rom 3:10-12, he does so to "remind" his readers what fools do, which is to not seek God.
iow, his precedence for quoting Psa 14 and 53 is found in Rom 1:21,22.
Why does his clear language and sentence structure go against your theory?
quote:
quote:
To take your view we would have to say that Paul is trying to prove that "all are under sin" by bringing forward scripture that states "fools don't seek God."
No, you just aren't following this discussion.
I am following it very well. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am not following.
quote:
My view does NOT lead to that. My view is that Paul quoted Psa 14 and 53 as a reminder to his readers about what the fool does.
Sure it does. Paul is clear. He states that “all are under sin” and then to give credence to his statement he quotes the OT. If his quote is merely about fools, then it is only fools who are under sin. We know that is not what the apostle is saying, but rather all are under sin is proved in the OT by the fact that it says, “There is none righteous . . there is none who seeks for God . . .”
quote:
quote:
Fools not seeking God does not show the that all are under sin; it only shows that fools are under sin. That is what you have with your spin.
Paul's point wasn't anything near using fools to demonstrate that all are under sin, as you assume. He was reminding what fools do.
Prove it from the sentence structure and common use of language. There is a reason you are a lone ranger here FG.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The term “kathos” shows us that “there is none who seeks for God” is in accord with “all are under sin.” Paul is demonstrating from OT Scripture that “all are under sin,” and does so by quoting, “there is none who seeks for God.”
Your interpretation fails to consider other Scriptures which indicate that man CAN seek God, as Cornelius demonstrates. Also, God created man to seek Him, per Acts 17:27. So, your interpretation creates a contradiction within the Bible. How do you excape that?
I look at Romans 3 for what it clearly states. For me to try to spin Romans 3 to fit a held belief would be doing violence to what Paul clearly wrote.
Your answer fails to even address the HUGE contradiction your interpretation of Rom 3:10-12 causes. Why don't you address Acts 17:27?
First, I don’t interpret Scripture that is as clear as Romans 3 so as there will be no seeming contradictions. Romans 3 is so clear that it stands no matter what other assumptions you may have.
Second, there is only a contradiction in your mind, not mine. I have addressed Acts 17: 27 and find it contradicts nothing.
quote:
quote:
There is no contradiction whatsoever. I don't make the same assumptions that you do. I take Romans 3 for what it clearly states and consider the little we know of Cornelius from that stand point; not the other way around.
What have I assumed? Nothing. You have ignored Acts 17:27, as well as all the OT and NT verses that mention "those who seek God".
What is your definition of “ignored” anyway? You must have a different dictionary than I do.
Until you can give a clear reason why the apostle Paul’s wording is not what it clearly appears to be then you have no argument. If you are right in your interpretation, no one can trust the word of God to say what it clearly says. We would need you to interpret for us.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:29:09 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1620
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
The question is answered in Romans 1. When God makes evident His existence, power, nature and attributes to man, the fool (atheist) simply rejects the Truth of His existence. It's called "suppression of the Truth". Suppression of truth is from the flesh. Acceptance of it is the work of the Spirit. The natural man cannot understand spiritual things. He calls them foolishness. 1 Cor 2:14.
1 Cor 2:14 is speaking of the "deep things of God", of which the gospel is NOT that. So you are using a verse out of context to support your notion.
Just when you thought you heard it all-
The gospel is NOT a deep thing of God ?
That answers alot of questions.
And explains why I do this. 
Hey Manna,
This does explain a lot. But I don't know if the explanation is deep error or a desire to spin every scripture to fit a preconceived philosophy or both.
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:32:40 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Apparently they have to agree with what Acts 17:27 says, that God created man to seek Him. Yet, they then also apparently believe that what God created man to do, man is unable to do.
What does seeking accomplish ?
Uh, finding, Manna. At least, that is what our Lord said, in Luke 11:9. I wonder if you are aware of how often your sarcasm mocks Scripture?
btw, those who seek will find, as promised by Scripture. However, that doesn't mean that all who find the gospel will believe it. That is the choice that God gives to everyone who seeks.
quote:
You have not given us the sequel ? You said God gives more and more.
OK, so what's the next stage ? What happens next ? It's your model-
What comes AFTER seeking ?
God has made evident to everyone His existence so that no one has an excuse for not recognizing and honoring Him. Cornelius demonstrates an unbeliever who did recognized and honored God, and sought Him.
quote:
And what comes after that ?
God sent an angel with more divine relevation or Truth.
And, what came after that, you might ask? Because Cornelius believed the angel and followed his directions, God sent Peter with the gospel.
quote:
God did not make man to be "seekers".
Your opinion in the matter is irrelevant. Acts 17:27 says otherwise.
quote:
Seeking is seeking. Seeking ISN'T finding.
I can't even begin to imagine what you are thinking here. Seeking is an action verb. Those who seek WILL find. Are you aware of "cause and effect"?
Because man seeks, God ensures man will find. That is grace. He is under no obligation to do so. But His Word says that is His promise.
quote:
You have people looking for something that they don't believe in.
No, I don't. You only think I do. When people respond to the divine Truth that God makes evident per Rom 1, and seek Him, God will ensure they find Him.
Of course, even though Peter brought the gospel, Cornelius had to believe it in order to be saved. He wasn't saved just because God gave him the gospel.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:34:49 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
FG,
quote:
Yes, we ARE commanded to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. But where is the passage that says that man was created to do this? Unless you have a solid verse of support, your whole argument falls apart.
Are you saying man is not created for that which he is commanded to do?
Are you saying that God did not create man to love Him?
If man was not created by God to love Him, why does God command man to love Him?
Why is it that the whole of the Law is wrapped up in this one command and God did not make man to love Him?
Why did you NOT answer my question? Where is your solid Biblical support for your claim? If man was created for that which you claim, where is your verse that says so?
4 questions in "response" to my question does NOT equal an answer.
Unless you have any solid support for your claim, your argument falls flat.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:40:34 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
For man to have the free will to choose for God aside from the determination, predestination and foreknowledge of God, this would negate all three...how could it not?
The real questionis, why do you think it would? When God makes Himself evident to man, that creates a choice: to either believe Him or reject Him. Please explain why either believing or rejecting the Truth He makes evident would negate any of His attributes.
God doesn't make Himself evident.
Interesting comment, kelman. Scripture contradicts you.
Rom 1:19 "because that which is known about God IS EVIDENT WITHIN THEM; FOR GOD MADE IT EVIDENT TO THEM.
Would you like more "evidence" that contradicts you?
Rom 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal jpower and divine nature, HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
quote:
What is the evidential revealing ? Nature. What exactly does God reveal to every man in such a fashion that man has real knowledge ?
His invisible attributes, His eternal power, His divine nature. Is that enough for you?
quote:
What are the characteristics God reveals ?
Please pay attention and see above.
quote:
God is known by His mercy and kindness-
are these revealed ? How about grace ?
What does "because that which is known about God is evident within them" mean to you?
quote:
What attributes is God showing in Romans 1 ?
I've shown you. It's your job to understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:42:29 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
The very FACT that they rejected the Truth that God made evident to them proves they had free will. Remember, free will means only freedom of choice when faced with options. When God makes His existence evident, man is faced with a choice: to either believe or reject that Truth. The very FACT that they rejected the Truth that God made evident to them is that they have darkened understanding. Darkness hating the light. Sin loving iniquity. Natural man not understanding spiritual things.
What's the benefit of having a choice if
I can only choose incorrectly ? Not a choice.
Where's Monty Hall ? Let's "Make A Deal" !
Choose behind door # 1, #2, or #3.
Choose wisely ? How can I do that ?
I don't know with any kind of certainty
what is even available. So, I guess-
A reprobate is not confronted with choice.
Certainly not an eternal life choice. Is he ?
What are the two choices before him ?
Who in The Bible can be cited as an example ?
Which person had put before them a clear
understanding of Heven and hell. Life & death.
Let's look at the 2 thieves on the cross.
Even on his deathbed, the bad thief is
so hardened in sin and unbelief, when
God is in front of him, the reprobate is
hostile to God, and cannot "SEE" God.
There is no choice, no decision, no 2
sides of the coin to weigh and consider.
No choice with consequences is arrived at.
No thinking, analyzing, or comtemplation.
Freewill failed this time for sure !
Boy, did that bad thief make a bad choice.
Confronted with The Son of God, Savior
of the world, a few feet away, the thief
didn't even come to a choice, his nature
prevailed, his seething hatred of God was
manifested...where is the "seeking" ?
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:43:06 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I wonder if you even understand my definition of free will, which is being able to freely to believe or reject the Truth when it is presented.
Sure, Adam and Eve had free will.
Sin came into the world. Things changed.
Now, man's sin nature changes his will.
Oh, really? Where did you get this from?
quote:
Why do you refuse to acknowledge this ?
Because I won't acknowledge reformed rhetoric. Show me your proof.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:46:33 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
To reject something it has to be offered. To chose something it has to be offered with the option to reject it. To reject something that is as good as eternal life means that the mind is unable to process.
Yes, Amen my brother !
What's the point in being presented
a choice if I can only chose 1 way ?
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 2:46:59 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1620
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Show us how the clear language, word usage and context of Romans 3 shows us anything different from what it clearly states.
So far your only argument is your “fool” theory and Cornelius and reformed accusations. Do you have any argument that counters what I have brought forth concerning the clear language, sentence structure, word usage and definitions?
Frequently. I'm sorry you are not grasping it. And since Paul quoted directly from pa 14 and 53, which was about fools, you can call that a theory all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.
You still have not made any substantive comment on what I have stated about Paul's use of words, sentence structure, definitions, etc.
What the apostle Paul clear states in the passage we are discussing in Rom 3 goes against your "fool" theory. Prove to us that it does not.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
and I have shown it and you have made no comment that would disprove what I have shown whatsoever.
Only the FACT that Psa 14 and 53 are about fools, not the entire human race.
Paul's clear language, sentence structure, context, etc. shows otherwise. Do you have any substantive comment on that? Or is your only argument your "fool" theory?
I've given plenty. Paul quotes directly from Psa 14 and 53. You have failed to show from those psalms that they are about the entire human race.
I don't have to show anything about Psalm 14 and 53 because the apostle Paul has already clearly shown us what they are about - all are under sin.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
