help me out ladies and gentlemen.........

[rsc2a]

Got it. God created Satan with all of his reasoning, opportunities, desires, weaknesses, and gifts...

...and none of that contributed to his fall...

...riiiight...

God doesn't give us our desires.....He gives us free will....

Maybe not your god.

 

[Ransom]

God doesn't give us our desires.....He gives us free will....

which is what His word tells us....

Where's that again?

 

[rsc2a]

Got it. God created Satan with all of his reasoning, opportunities, desires, weaknesses, and gifts...

...and none of that contributed to his fall...

...riiiight...

God doesn't give us our desires.....He gives us free will....

Maybe not your god.

and there it is......... end of contest......... disagree with a calvinist and you are obviously not saved......... the most hyper of fundamentalist xers have absolutely nothing on them..........

Except I'm not a Calvinist?

 

[Bo]

Got it. God created Satan with all of his reasoning, opportunities, desires, weaknesses, and gifts...

...and none of that contributed to his fall...

...riiiight...

God doesn't give us our desires.....He gives us free will....

Maybe not your god.

and there it is......... end of contest......... disagree with a calvinist and you are obviously not saved......... the most hyper of fundamentalist xers have absolutely nothing on them..........

Except I'm not a Calvinist?

I believe he just likes to argue anyones beliefs......weather he uses scriptural logic or not

 

[Bo]

God doesn't give us our desires.....He gives us free will....

which is what His word tells us....

Where's that again?

ok.....God expects us to use our minds a little bit......I would have to assume...

post James 1:13-16......and tell me what we should get from that?

this is a WONDERFUL one for rsc2a to explain......

being that he believes that God gives us our evil desires

 

[Bo]

God doesn't give us our desires.....He gives us free will....

which is what His word tells us....

Where's that again?

ok.....God expects us to use our minds a little bit......I would have to assume...

post James 1:13-16......and tell me what we should get from that?

this is a WONDERFUL one for rsc2a to explain......

being that he believes that God gives us our evil desires

and by the way....there are MANY more that I could quote that show that we OBVIOUSLY have our own ability to choose our actions.......

 

[PappaBear]

Stick with the Bible, and you should be okay.  It's like training someone to recognize counterfeits.  You do that by letting them become familiar with the real thing.

Regardless how you cut it or what others tell you, God is NOT willing that any should perish.  He would still have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

And holiness, godliness, honesty, and righteousness are still good words favorably used in the Bible.

But, you see, that's the rub.  On forums like these, those who want to emphasize those other terms you mentioned,  and fight as if they are all-important, tend to ultimately avoid the Bible and twist it into some outdated and mysterious text that only a few enlightened individuals can understand (usually themselves).  They ignore the truth of the Bible as an authority.  Yes, that's another good Biblical word they hate.

*Hat tip </)

 

[Ransom]

ok.....God expects us to use our minds a little bit......I would have to assume...

post James 1:13-16......and tell me what we should get from that?

Why me? Aren't you able to "use your mind a little bit" and find it yourself? It's your point, after all, so I don't get why I should be expected to show your work.

Nonetheless:

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.

So it says that God does not entice people to sin; it's people's own sinful desire that does it.

How is this in support of free will? If anything, it supports the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity.

 

[Ransom]

and by the way....there are MANY more that I could quote that show that we OBVIOUSLY have our own ability to choose our actions.......

I'm not impressed by anyone who boasts about what they could do, when by all appearances they are avoiding actually doing it.

And I'm not Googling Bible verses for you any more. From this point on, show your own work.

 

[Bo]

and by the way....there are MANY more that I could quote that show that we OBVIOUSLY have our own ability to choose our actions.......

I'm not impressed by anyone who boasts about what they could do, when by all appearances they are avoiding actually doing it.

And I'm not Googling Bible verses for you any more. From this point on, show your own work.

I knew the verse...I mainly wanted to just get you to read it for yourself...

also....you just said it yourself....it is our own sinful desires....

so if they are OUR desires that lead us to temptation......it is OUR will that we do them.....

im getting nowhere with this.....no matter how obvious it is....yall wont admit it

yall know it....but yall wont admit it

 

[Bo]

and by the way....there are MANY more that I could quote that show that we OBVIOUSLY have our own ability to choose our actions.......

I'm not impressed by anyone who boasts about what they could do, when by all appearances they are avoiding actually doing it.

And I'm not Googling Bible verses for you any more. From this point on, show your own work.

the verse CLEARLY explains that if you sin.....it wasn't God that made you choose to sin...it was you that decided that....

 

[Bo]

now I would like to make one thing clear....

looking at another thread in another forum on this site it occurred to me that I might need to clarify my stance on the "free will" issue...

I believe whole heartedly that God HAS the ability to control our thoughts and minds and choices and actions and words...

I just believe that He chooses not to as a way of seeing our dedication and love for Him (or lack thereof) thru trials and everyday life.

 

[rsc2a]

and by the way....there are MANY more that I could quote that show that we OBVIOUSLY have our own ability to choose our actions.......

I'm not impressed by anyone who boasts about what they could do, when by all appearances they are avoiding actually doing it.

And I'm not Googling Bible verses for you any more. From this point on, show your own work.

the verse CLEARLY explains that if you sin.....it wasn't God that made you choose to sin...it was you that decided that....

Yes?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Except I'm not a Calvinist?

I believe he just likes to argue anyones beliefs......weather he uses scriptural logic or not[/quote]

Wow. You've been here two weeks and you've already gained the ability to read minds.

And "scriptural logic" isn't a thing; logic is, and you have to apply out when reading Scripture. If your understanding isn't logical, it's wrong.

 

[FSSL]

Didn't he ask for help with definitions.... he already knew...

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yeezy is, as usual, being disingenuous when he says Calvinism has nothing with the doctrines of grace.  He neglects, probably purposefully (since he cannot countenance being seen to be in error), that words have a multitude of related meanings.

Of course Calvinism is properly used of the whole system of John Calvin's theology: not merely his soteriology, but his views on the sacraments, church government, civil government, moral theology, and so forth. But outside of Reformed/Presbyterian circles, many Christians in many denominations affirm Calvin's soteriology, if not his ecclesiology. In fact, with usage, this has arguably become the primary definition of "Calvinism" because of its widespread acceptance, while "Calvinism" meaning "Calvin's whole system of theology" has ironically become the secondary definition. Certainly when Spurgeon said that he must preach "Calvinism," he meant Calvin's doctrines of salvation, which he then lists, and not, for example, Calvin's doctrine of baptism, which Spurgeon as a Baptist would have rejected!

Are you really going to engage or is this just a hit and run job?

I referenced Calvinism as a systematic theology. Maybe you would take care to read what I wrote again. I know you embarrassed yourself in dealing with the topic of "allusion"..... but you can do better than this.

I listed a quote in which Spurgeon distanced himself from Calvinism....like any proper minister of the Gospel would. Spurgeon didn't have an "I am of Paul" mentality. I know you self-avowed Calvinist have a hard time understand the danger of such things.... but let me help you with it. The truth isn't about Calvin. Its not wrapped up in Calvin. Calvin didn't reveal it. Calvin didn't foster its acceptance. YET, you "I am of Calvin" sucklers feel obligated to defend his doctrine at any cost. Its pitifully sad just how you hold to it as if your life depends on it....

Well. It kinda does. You love the idea that God dragged you to Himself while abandoning your neighbor to suffer eternally without hope. You're just so "special" that way. Kind. Tenderhearted. So full of empathy and understand for your fellowman. It brings a dry tear to my eye!!!

Of course Yeezy would have us believe Spurgeon didn't know what he was.  I submit, rather, that Yeezy doesn't know what Yeezy is: a loudmouthed windbag.

If you Calvinists are going to complain about "name calling".... then don't throw them around yourself.

Spurgeon played the field..... so to speak. Any rational person would admit this. Generally speaking........ is about as clear as mud. You wouldn't accept a "general speaking" answer in a debate but you'll use such a quote from Spurgeon as evidence?

Typical Calvinist inconsistencies.

The problem is that you cannot understand that Spurgeon's beliefs are more than a label.

You try to tell us that Spurgeon makes a statement about the Calvinist label and interpret that as if he is wishy washy on Calvinistic theology.

You don't know Spurgeon.

I'm not treating it exclusively as a label. Yet, you can't deny its an label.

Why are you ignoring what I said? I said it was a systematic theology. That's more than a label. Quit being dishonest with what I wrote.

Yes. Spurgeon was wishy washy on Calvinism. In fact, if you break down what he believed, you'll find some inconsistencies. Obviously you don't know him as well as you think you do.

None of you Calvinist believe exactly the same. You pretend you do. You don't. Never have.

 

[rsc2a]

None of you Calvinist believe exactly the same. You pretend you do. You don't. Never have.

Probably because they are always learning new things.


Like God.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Yeezy is, as usual, being disingenuous when he says Calvinism has nothing with the doctrines of grace.  He neglects, probably purposefully (since he cannot countenance being seen to be in error), that words have a multitude of related meanings.

Of course Calvinism is properly used of the whole system of John Calvin's theology: not merely his soteriology, but his views on the sacraments, church government, civil government, moral theology, and so forth. But outside of Reformed/Presbyterian circles, many Christians in many denominations affirm Calvin's soteriology, if not his ecclesiology. In fact, with usage, this has arguably become the primary definition of "Calvinism" because of its widespread acceptance, while "Calvinism" meaning "Calvin's whole system of theology" has ironically become the secondary definition. Certainly when Spurgeon said that he must preach "Calvinism," he meant Calvin's doctrines of salvation, which he then lists, and not, for example, Calvin's doctrine of baptism, which Spurgeon as a Baptist would have rejected!

Are you really going to engage or is this just a hit and run job?

I referenced Calvinism as a systematic theology. Maybe you would take care to read what I wrote again. I know you embarrassed yourself in dealing with the topic of "allusion"..... but you can do better than this.

I listed a quote in which Spurgeon distanced himself from Calvinism....like any proper minister of the Gospel would. Spurgeon didn't have an "I am of Paul" mentality. I know you self-avowed Calvinist have a hard time understand the danger of such things.... but let me help you with it. The truth isn't about Calvin. Its not wrapped up in Calvin. Calvin didn't reveal it. Calvin didn't foster its acceptance. YET, you "I am of Calvin" sucklers feel obligated to defend his doctrine at any cost. Its pitifully sad just how you hold to it as if your life depends on it....

Well. It kinda does. You love the idea that God dragged you to Himself while abandoning your neighbor to suffer eternally without hope. You're just so "special" that way. Kind. Tenderhearted. So full of empathy and understand for your fellowman. It brings a dry tear to my eye!!!

Of course Yeezy would have us believe Spurgeon didn't know what he was.  I submit, rather, that Yeezy doesn't know what Yeezy is: a loudmouthed windbag.

If you Calvinists are going to complain about "name calling".... then don't throw them around yourself.

Spurgeon played the field..... so to speak. Any rational person would admit this. Generally speaking........ is about as clear as mud. You wouldn't accept a "general speaking" answer in a debate but you'll use such a quote from Spurgeon as evidence?

Typical Calvinist inconsistencies.

The problem is that you cannot understand that Spurgeon's beliefs are more than a label.

You try to tell us that Spurgeon makes a statement about the Calvinist label and interpret that as if he is wishy washy on Calvinistic theology.

You don't know Spurgeon.

I'm not treating it exclusively as a label. Yet, you can't deny its an label.

Why are you ignoring what I said? I said it was a systematic theology. That's more than a label. Quit being dishonest with what I wrote.

Yes. Spurgeon was wishy washy on Calvinism. In fact, if you break down what he believed, you'll find some inconsistencies. Obviously you don't know him as well as you think you do.

None of you Calvinist believe exactly the same. You pretend you do. You don't. Never have.

Here is Spurgeon's  sermon where he claims "Calvinsim is the Gospel"
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
Hardly seems "wishy washy" to me...

 

[Ransom]

Yes. Spurgeon was wishy washy on Calvinism. In fact, if you break down what he believed, you'll find some inconsistencies. Obviously you don't know him as well as you think you do.

Ah, yes. If we break down what he believed. Not that Yeezy will break down what he believed for us.

Maybe this is why Yeezy thinks Spurgeon was a theological squish. He's never read the man in any depth. He's just drawn a foregone conclusion,1 and expects us to do his homework and convince ourselves that he's right.

It is to laugh.

1 Yes, I made a bona fide literary allusion. 10 Bonus PointsTM to the first person to name the source!

 

[Recovering IFB]

Yes. Spurgeon was wishy washy on Calvinism. In fact, if you break down what he believed, you'll find some inconsistencies. Obviously you don't know him as well as you think you do.

Ah, yes. If we break down what he believed. Not that Yeezy will break down what he believed for us.

Maybe this is why Yeezy thinks Spurgeon was a theological squish. He's never read the man in any depth. He's just drawn a foregone conclusion,1 and expects us to do his homework and convince ourselves that he's right.

It is to laugh.

1 Yes, I made a bona fide literary allusion. 10 Bonus PointsTM to the first person to name the source!

Was it PY himself??