Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here's an interesting excerpt from IEP that is helpfully succinct:
And then it goes on to point out that Anselm was not a libertarian: "Anselm rejects the notion that one must be able to act in ways other than they do in order to be free."
Now the other part. Did the Sanhedrin, high priest and Pilate choose to act the way they did?Of course.
Now the other part. Did the Sanhedrin, high priest and Pilate choose to act the way they did?
Indeed. Yet He is living and active in our very lives. Thanks be to God.Lol, sure.
God is not an efficient-causal created reality... As an analogy, material beings cannot occupy the same space or occupy two discrete spaces at the same time, and yet God is omnipresent.
Did the Sanhedrin, high priest and Pilate choose to act the way they did?
How about you answer my post no. 84?Libertarians are generally scared to answer that question.... because either Pilate etc. were predestined to do what they did, or else (the open theist answer) God wasn't quite sure whether it would all work out as planned.
Don't expect a straight answer.
I did several times. You just ignored the responses.And @redleghunter , or you, could reply to my no. 85
How about you answer my post no. 84?
Oh heavens no. I'm Reformed I would never throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't subscribe to "Solo Meo."
Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.
The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.
There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.
Understanding Sola Scriptura
What I quoted to you refutes this.Sola Scriptura makes one their own authority, their own pope
What I quoted to you refutes this.
That's not Sola Scriptura but your own straw man.Not really. Every man does what he will with the Bible who is Bible only. A quite silly doctrine
That's not Sola Scriptura but your own straw man.
Of course we get the antics of Tetzel from Sola Ecclesia.
Have a blessed Advent.I really don't care about Tetzel, I am not Catholic. Sola Scriptura is a straw man and I done talking about such a d\silly thing it is NWMTOE.
Sola Scriptura makes one their own authority, their own pope
This was to Zippy.Well, that shows a substantial lack of understanding of the issues.
Compatibilist free will says that you do the thing that you want to do. I'm having eggs for breakfast; that's what I want. To quote Thomas Hobbes, free will is finding "no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe."
Libertarian free will says that you could have done something else. I'm having eggs for breakfast, but I might have chosen oatmeal.
Libertarian free will is, of course, incompatible both with predestination and with the foreknowledge of God (because if God foresaw that I would have eggs, it would be impossible for me to have oatmeal).
You're just repeating the question which I've already answered. We were speaking about Luke 8:10.He told us in Luke 8:10
So some can hear and some not.
Again Jesus tells us in Luke 8:10
None of which address many are called few are chosen.
They merit the garment by accepting God's condition: Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Acts 16:31Where did they get the approved garment? How did they merit the garment?
God does not predestinate anyone to salvation and thus to hell. He offers each person the possibility to be saved. Foreknowing something does not cause it to happen.Indeed. I guess God is just waiting for people to accept Jesus to Predestinate them.
Absolutely. This is what the bible teaches from Genesis on.Of course. The many were called and the few were chosen. You seem to think somehow the people at the banquet merited the garment that was acceptable.
God in His mercy saves some???Yes the Gospel is a command to all. God saves some of us but not all. We are all condemned and God in His Mercy and Grace saves some.
So our efforts to understand God’s parables in some way merits us to be chosen by Him?
You've explained libertarian free will correctly. I have THE CHOICE to have either oatmeal or eggs for breakfast. MY choice. God has nothing to do with it but He knew in advance what I was going to choose.
His knowing in advance does not affect my choice.
Compatiblist free will was not explained correctly by you. This states that God determines WHAT you will have for breakfast and then HE MAKES YOU want that choice. He changes your mind to make it be in tune with HIS, or COMPATIBLE with His.
Knowing the future does not cause it to happen.Well, the difficulty with that, and the driving force behind the growth of open theism among Arminians, is that you can only take the action that God foresaw. If God foresees the future, then the future must happen as foreseen.
you're right because it is a philosophical in nature and beginnings,,,,but the reformed religion teaches that God makes your hearts desire compatible with His by changing what you desire.The "compatible" in "compatibilism" refers to "compatible with determinism," not "compatible with God." See: Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And, "Calvinism" does not mean "following Calvin" (which is why I would personally prefer the labels "Reformed" or "Monergist"). I do agree with the Calvin quote you posted, though: it's entirely Biblical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?