- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
Woops too late. I already did.Yeah I see a pattern, you`ve made 25 posts to my thread going back to #289 and you haven`t quoted a single scripture.
Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Besides:Yeah I see a pattern, you`ve made 25 posts to my thread going back to #289 and you haven`t quoted a single scripture.
So the tree is fully clean but still manages to produce bad fruit, in many instances? That's an interesting position, given Christ's words:
3“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.
Absolutely. Look, I get it. Believe me I do. I understand that the Calvinist passages seem so Calvinist that the Arminian solutions seem too watered-down a reading of those verses.See? You do believe in salvation by election after all.
Besides:
(1) As I already told you, a self-contradictory position is wrong even if a million verses are given to "back it up"
(2) I also accused Calvinism of contradicting God's love. Was it really necessary for me to go find a thousand verses about God's love? Just to "back it up"? I could have done all that, but I hardly see the point.
It's generally an act of irrationality to embrace two seemingly blatantly contradictory propositions. One exception would be a conclusion based in Direct Revelation - but Direct Revelation isn't really arguable on a debate forum. And don't pretend I'm alone in this accusation. Heck, even Charles Hodge basically admitted that the Reformed God is a monster by human standards - but then he essentially claimed that we just suck it up and praise Him because He's God!!!!The problem is you think you are the referee for this imaginary debate. A position isn`t self-contradictory
just because you say it is.
Anyone see a pattern here? On every alleged contradiction, you simply respond "bad logic". This is how you "debate" - and seriously want me to go back and read your posts? You're joking, right?More bad logic.
Absolutely. Look, I get it. Believe me I do. I understand that the Calvinist passages seem so Calvinist that the Arminian solutions seem too watered-down a reading of those verses.
What Calvin DIDN'T see is that you don't have to reduce the force of those verses to produce a non-Calvinistic reading.
I believe 100% in monergistic regeneration and salvation of the elect predestined before the foundation of the world. In NO SENSE do I try to reduce the force of those verses.
Calvin should have admitted that his understanding of regeneration was internally self-contradictory. And once that's admitted, an alternative to TULIP can be formulated.
Basically what I'm saying is that the Calvinistic assumptions don't necessitate the conclusion that only a limited number of people are eligible for salvation. Nor is it even clear that free will can't play a part in conversion.
It's generally an act of irrationality to embrace two seemingly blatantly contradictory propositions. One exception would be a conclusion based in Direct Revelation - but Direct Revelation isn't really arguable on a debate forum. And don't pretend I'm alone in this accusation. Heck, even Charles Hodge basically admitted that the Reformed God is a monster by human standards - but then he essentially claimed that we just suck it up and praise Him because He's God!!!!
Anyone see a pattern here? On every alleged contradiction, you simply respond "bad logic". This is how you "debate" - and seriously want me to go back and read your posts? You're joking, right?
Again, if a position is internally contradictory, there's no point in debating it against Scripture!I`m here to talk about scriptures. I`m tired of your philosophy class leftovers.
distracted (consumed) by ‘holiness’ teaching for years. Struggle to discern right teaching now and completely lost trust. Anyone can quote scripture! Am bitter because i believe in entire sanctification, but I’m not there yetI believe that when God forgives your sins He sends His Spirit to wash you clean in your heart and to sanctify you. As we worship and pray God will renew His Spirit within us. This is the Biblical sanctification.
It`s not progressive because you can`t get more clean than clean and you can`t get more saved than saved.
Tell me why you feel bitter and confused?
Nobody cares what you "think" - what matters is what can be demonstrated, and that involves charges of inconsistency and a convincing effort to resolve those charges, which you are obviously not living up to.I`m very serious. I think your logic is really bad and I expect someone to understand a thread before they jump in it and start taking it over. I said everything I have to say about progressive & Calvins before you arrived.
Did I neglect to mention also that the Reformed doctrine of Original Sin is equally self-contradictory? Shouldn't that too, have given Calvin a clue that his soteriology was flawed?
It's not dead because no one else (except one man I know of) has produced a viable, logically consistent theory of Adam. And that theory has direct bearing on regeneration and progressive sanctification. I already told you it is all connected.You are flogging a dead horse. We already tore Calvin to pieces.
distracted (consumed) by ‘holiness’ teaching for years. Struggle to discern right teaching now and completely lost trust. Anyone can quote scripture! Am bitter because i believe in entire sanctification, but I’m not there yet
It's not dead because no one else (except one man I know of) has produced a viable, logically consistent theory of Adam. And that theory has direct bearing on regeneration and progressive sanctification. I already told you it is all connected.
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?