Disscusion thread for: Does Abraham's faith disprove Unconditional Election?

[Memento Mori]

I'll be amazed if anyone alters their position from this debate.

 

[Stripe]

I'll be amazed if anyone alters their position from this debate.

Lots of people come to TOL without any idea that the debate even exists. Of course some people will be changed by what they read.

 

[Nick M]

It is clear who is doing the heavy lifting (Nang) with Scriptural support and actual exegesis....Nang is cleaning AJ's clock Scripturally, while AJ fumbles around trying to ignore Nang's Scriptural arguments. The first person in any discussion who resorts to personal attacks is always the person on the defensive.

It is amazing hom many numbskulls think you are well written and make good points. It is usually by those that don't actually read the Bible.

In order for election of a few before the world to began to mean what you want it to mean, you have to throw out much of the Bible.

1. God wants all men to be saved.

2. God will withold blessings.

These are undeniable. The only conclusion you can draw is that salvation is conditional.

Her long essays are like atheist/philosophical drivel, with out logic and leaving out the key parts to make your point. Your act is growing old too. :down:

 

[RobE]

It is amazing hom many numbskulls think you are well written and make good points. It is usually by those that don't actually read the Bible.

In order for election of a few before the world to began to mean what you want it to mean, you have to throw out much of the Bible.

1. God wants all men to be saved.

2. God will withold blessings.

These are undeniable. The only conclusion you can draw is that salvation is conditional.

Her long essays are like atheist/philosophical drivel, with out logic and leaving out the key parts to make your point. Your act is growing old too. :down:

It's interesting to see that you have closed the book on the argument when the one point which Nang has made has already been conceded.

The point being that all events are monergistically brought about.

Thousands of words have been spent on the subject, yet AJ fails to recognize the damage it does to his and apparently your position.

I, who am not a SupraLapsarian, but a free will theist must readily concede Nang's argument as valid.

Is God the source of man's faith? Are you able to defend your own position?

1. God wants all men to be saved.

Then how is it that all men will not be saved? Is God unable to accomplish His own desires?

 

[penofareadywriter]

It is clear who is doing the heavy lifting (Nang) with Scriptural support and actual exegesis, while AJ seems to be stuck trying to merely wax insubstantially eloquent and insert oblique ad hominems whenever possible. Just typical behavior for those who prefer to appeal to the masses versus dealing substantively with the subject matter. Kudos to Nang for not taking AJ's obvious baiting tactics to heart and responding in kind. :thumb:

Nang is cleaning AJ's clock Scripturally, while AJ fumbles around trying to ignore Nang's Scriptural arguments. The first person in any discussion who resorts to personal attacks is always the person on the defensive.

What do you think about open theism?

 

[penofareadywriter]

It's interesting to see that you have closed the book on the argument when the one point which Nang has made has already been conceded.

The point being that all events are monergistically brought about.

Thousands of words have been spent on the subject, yet AJ fails to recognize the damage it does to his and apparently your position.

I, who am not a SupraLapsarian, but a free will theist must readily concede Nang's argument as valid.

Is God the source of man's faith? Are you able to defend your own position?



Then how is it that all men will not be saved? Is God unable to accomplish His own desires?

I love it!