Search results

I like to think that we are dealing with a complicated subject and that discussion among friends can be helpful to those who follow along. I opened this thread at someone else's request, and I did so because she asked and because I thought it might be helpful to others. Moreover, the doctrine...

I'm not sure what you mean, so if I fail to address your question, please come back at me. I spoke about Calvinists and Armenians because that is how the debate is framed, but I suppose that there might be people in between. The debate centers on the question, "How much does salvation depend...

I get that. The point is, whether God gives a person what he deserves or he withholds a negative consequence, what makes the difference is NOT what a man wants or what he does. Paul never frames salvation as an offer. We got that idea from American Evangelists who salesmen trained. These men...

Most Calvinists I know do not put faith on its head or suggest that eternal life has nothing to do with what you believe. Some Calvinists might suggest that one's belief is not a matter of free conscience because, according to some Calvinists, people are constitutionally incapable of making a...

No, that is not fatalism. You left out an essential component of fatalism, which is nihilism -- the idea that nothing really matters. Remember, I argued that narrative is an essential aspect of Divine Determinism. God is not only creating individual people, he is creating individual stories...

Again, I take you back to the difference between "selecting" a pot and "creating" a pot. The potter analogy illustrates the process of creating a pot. If a potter wants a vase, he makes a vase and he treats the finished product as a vase. If a potter needs a toilet, he creates a toilet and...

You missed the point entirely. You argue that God's "election" is not a matter of creation, but a matter of selection. In your view, preordination is nothing more than a decision to reward believers with salvation and to punish unbelievers. Each individual must decide for himself, whether to...

I previously argued that foreknowledge isn't the way you say it is. And this is a problem for your view. Again we go back to Paul's potter analogy, where he dismisses the concept of "selection." I posited that "selection" is like a woman who goes to the store to find a pot that will suit her...

No, Paul isn't talking about mercy, justice or punishment in that chapter. Remember, God's regard for Jacob and Esau was decided before the boys did good or bad. It is evident from Paul's observation that God might appear to prejudge the boys since his regard for them was not based on anything...

Divine determinism is not fatalistic because fatalism suggests that the outcome is not tied to our actions. Divine determinism posits that God not only creates human beings, but also determines their history. In this view, God is like a master storyteller who crafts a tale where the outcome...

On the contrary, Paul's point was to show that God's regard for the boys, Jacob (love) and Esau (hate) was not a reaction to their respective decisions. God's regard for the boys was decided before they were born. This is a problem for your view since you think God's regard for us is in response...

Says who? Suppose I said, "Anyone with a ticket can board the train." Does that mean someone else cannot buy the ticket for the rider? No, it doesn't. My statement simply implies that possession of a ticket is the only requirement for boarding the train. It doesn't matter who buys the ticket...

You seem to misunderstand what I said. Paul argues that God treats each individual according to his unique purpose for that person. How so? I think I deserve a reason why you say this. I don't deny the Gospel of Christ Jesus. I strengthen it. Or at least Peter, Paul, and James do. Your view...

Perhaps you missed a critical aspect of Paul's argument where he asks a rhetorical question. "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?" All Christians and Jews agree that there is no injustice with God. Since we all agree that there is no injustice with God, then Paul's...

The guarantee applies to those who have been justified by God, who have a proven faith, who have been born again to a living hope, who have the love of God poured out into their hearts. Salvation is guaranteed to those whom God has granted such blessings. As I suggest, an undue focus on such...

He most certainly did. As I said in my previous post, God is not like the woman who is selecting pots from among all the available pots. He is a creator of pots, forming them according to the purpose he assigns to them. Isaac is called the "child of promise" because that is the purpose God...

We follow Paul's argument to it's logical conclusion and draw inferences from what he said. I interpret Paul according to his argument. And I avoid overlaying Jeremiah's prophecy onto Paul's argument because Paul's argument stands on its own. Those who overlay Jeremiah onto Romans 9, will draw...

In my mind, those two ideas are the same idea. If God provides the power to be saved by our faith in him, then it follows that God exerts his power to maintain our faith. If we are left to fall away, then we are maintaining our own faith. The scriptures you quoted prove that God exerts his...

As I said in a previous post, "If-statements" and warnings are expressions of uncertainty and contingency. However, if we solely focus on these passages and ignore other parts that depict situations where God removes all uncertainty, we will fail to have a balanced view of the overall picture...

Agreed, Paul would never contradict God. However, Paul's teaching and commentary are only sometimes based on prior revelation. As an Apostle of Jesus Christ, he has been given spiritual wisdom and insight into the mystery of God's will, which allows him to provide new revelation. I understand...