You're liking this, aren't you?
Check the record. . .
Pick one. . .
The video you apparently didn't watch covers that.
That's almost equally absurd, since we're told that God desires for all to be saved. Both "can't" and "won't" look to me to be equally silly.That's not an accurate representation of arminianism. It's not God cannot it's God will not.
Should a lifeguard offer a drowning person a "real choice" before dragging them out of the river by their hair?Like you've said in regard to Calvinism, what you're saying is God will not force anyone or cause anyone to become irresistibly compelled. Because that's not real love. It's not a real choice.
OK, I watched the video again, and it supports one of my bigger takeaways from the KJV - that the translation committee began with the theology, and translated to suit. However, would you not agree that translation should be done first, and honestly, and theology derived from that? I hope I don't sound redundant...
God says otherwise. He says he wanted to save Jerusalem but they would not.
NotCalvinism. In Calvinism, sin is the result of the exercise of Free Will.A robot would have been programmed to go into the building too. So God is saving him from what God caused him to do. ( In Calvinism.)
A robot would have been programmed to go into the building too. So God is saving him from what God caused him to do. ( In Calvinism.)