The false claims of a "loving Calvinist"

[makesends]

You underestimate the abilities of God. You can't imagine a world where God could possibly be Sovereign over anything with a free will. As I've told you before and I'll say again. Free-will is a matter of the mind. Freedom does not imply power. However, mankind can be "anything" in their free mind. Which, in and of itself, is culpable relative to love, desire, lust, kindness and etc. As a person "thinks in his heart".... so is he.

Yours is indeed a world of imagination.

I don't define free 'will' the way you do, nor 'sovereignty', apparently. My point about God's sovereignty is that our notions have no substance. There is no such thing as libertarian free will, except in God's ability to do uncaused what he does. We have no such ability. Cause and effect is completely pervasive.

Perfect example here. Man did not literally murder Christ. It was impossible for any man to literally murder Christ. Christ laid down His life. However, in their mind and in their hearts... they MURDERED Christ.

Free will...... Limited in power but binding none the less.

Perfect example of what? Seems we are talking past each other here. I hope I haven't been doing so on purpose.

But, to go with your look at this, man did literally murder Christ, and the only way they could do so was by God's plan, which, btw, included Christ laying down his life. What man wills to do is indeed binding.

 

[makesends]

"Cringe"? "Poor arguments"... I'm glad you're the not the judge of anyone. We are debating the subject. Judge as you will.

makesends said:
Let me see if I am hearing you right: Are you saying God is not supreme above all things? Wow! Yep, I would cringe about now, if I was one of your buddies!

makesends said:
You must have skipped a step or two. How does what you quote me saying above your comment here, have anything to do with this?

I can't speak for "my buddies" and it seems rather plain you don't speak for yours either. (They may cheer you on, but there have been several times I can imagine them cringing from, yet not bringing up the fact of, your poor arguments). But for myself, I would like to see where you can quote me saying that Calvinism is the "Doctrines of Grace". I don't do it. You are wrong, sir.

But maybe I am wrong. Show me where I said it.

I'm going by memory. I don't know the times I've heard it from "Calvinists". The fact you're open to being corrected indicates you actually use or have used the reference. No forum has a search index worth much relative to phrases. Phrases are difficult to index as such. I did a quick search and found plenty. I didn't see one for you but I didn't go past a couple of pages and threads tend to index above single references in a large thread.

No, it does not indicate that. The fact I am open to being corrected has to do with my claim that I have not said it —not to any claim that I may have been wrong to say it. Is this the way you use Scripture? It might help explain how you come up with the conclusions that you do.

makesends said:
You must have skipped a step or two. How does what you quote me saying above your comment here, have anything to do with this?

I notice you still have not answered this question. You quoted something I said, then made this comment, as though to answer what you quoted me saying. But what you said seemed to me completely disconnected from what you had quoted me as saying. It was a change of subject.

 

[makesends]

No. It was a logical question relative to your own view of "Supremacy". Maybe you should have given more than 5 seconds of thought to my response. God doesn't have any problem letting ants rule their domain. After all, what impact do "ants" have on God?

True enough, though your term "rule" is a bit off. But I get the point. You think God's causation doesn't generally impinge on man's rule of his realm. —I.e. Self-Determinism. And yes, I say that is self-contradictory nonsense. 1. Man does indeed have a will; 2. Man does nothing uncaused; Both true.

Man does indeed choose, as I have always insisted. And his choice is real —and, if fact, made real by God's say-so! It is God's decree that makes every choice of man real. Give that 5 seconds of thought.

Thoughts have logical ramifications. If you can't organize thoughts, then have no rational context whereby to operate in reality. Sure, there are is plenty of conjecture to be seen everywhere. However, it is the rational construct of natural existence that sets a framework of order in our reality.

I can't see how you can deny this.

I don't deny this, though I would phrase that last differently: "However, it is the rational construct of natural existence that sets a framework of order in our [notion of] reality." (After all, our view of things is not the reality of those things. Only God's view of things IS the reality of them.)

What is the problem? Do you have any rational sequence of thought that denies that all fact descends causally from God?

 

[praise_yeshua]

True enough, though your term "rule" is a bit off. But I get the point. You think God's causation doesn't generally impinge on man's rule of his realm. —I.e. Self-Determinism. And yes, I say that is self-contradictory nonsense. 1. Man does indeed have a will; 2. Man does nothing uncaused; Both true.

Man causes. Your insistence that man can not do anything apart from God is like blaming murder on the "god" that fabricated the gun.

God has ceded power of death to man. That equals "rule".

Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.

Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Man does indeed choose, as I have always insisted. And his choice is real —and, if fact, made real by God's say-so! It is God's decree that makes every choice of man real. Give that 5 seconds of thought.

God placing mankind in prison doesn't mean that the "prisoners aren't ruling the prison". No. God isn't directly involved at all. He maintains the prison and "breaks up" the fighting at times. Claiming God orchestrates what goes on in the prison is ridiculous. Even worse Preposterous.

I don't deny this, though I would phrase that last differently: "However, it is the rational construct of natural existence that sets a framework of order in our [notion of] reality." (After all, our view of things is not the reality of those things. Only God's view of things IS the reality of them.)

What is the problem? Do you have any rational sequence of thought that denies that all fact descends causally from God?

Your appeal to causality that is derived from God for the "good" that existed in "evil" issuing forth from the Character of God is extraordinarily problematic.

Only God's view of things will ultimately matter in Eternity. Temporal things.... Well. They are temporal. That included you. That includes me. That includes everything in this prison we live in.

Heb 12:27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

You are shakable.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No, it does not indicate that. The fact I am open to being corrected has to do with my claim that I have not said it —not to any claim that I may have been wrong to say it. Is this the way you use Scripture? It might help explain how you come up with the conclusions that you do.

So the "I might be wrong" doesn't actually mean "I might be wrong". Typical. Not my issue. The issue is you have the "greasy pig" problem. No, I'm not calling you a "greasy pig".

makesends said:
You must have skipped a step or two. How does what you quote me saying above your comment here, have anything to do with this?

I notice you still have not answered this question. You quoted something I said, then made this comment, as though to answer what you quoted me saying. But what you said seemed to me completely disconnected from what you had quoted me as saying. It was a change of subject.

Then claim victory in this comment. I have no idea what you're saying and it has nothing to do with you speaking "spiritually".