Omniscience means fatalism.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

LOL, the Pelagians in TOL can rip on Calvinism, but when they are labeled as Pelagians they pout. Man up, Stripey and accept your position as a Pelagian.

Just as Calvinists or the Reformed oppose mis-characterizations—and should call them for what they are—so should those that we would apply a label to without proper warrant.

There is no doubt that the often used anti-Calvinist canards are amusing, annoying, or betraying a lack of understanding of that of which they cavil or use as a cudgel to appeal to the crowd. Nevertheless, that should be no reason to take the bait and respond in kind.

In my many years of interacting with open theists, I have yet to encounter an open theist Pelagian a se. Why he or she would be quite a find and, if genuine; someone I suspect who would be loudly denounced on all sides. So just tossing that label out there is but a attempt to poison the well. You have and can do better.

AMR

 

[MennoSota]

:yawn:

Go away, Troll.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Says all Pelagians who deny God's Sovereign will over their lives...
TOL is not for cult members. You may leave now.

 

[MennoSota]

Just as Calvinists or the Reformed oppose mis-characterizations—and should call them for what they are—so should those that we would apply a label to without proper warrant.

There is no doubt that the often used anti-Calvinist canards are amusing, annoying, or betraying a lack of understanding of that of which they cavil or use as a cudgel to appeal to the crowd. Nevertheless, that should be no reason to take the bait and respond in kind.

In my many years of interacting with open theists, I have yet to encounter an open theist Pelagian a se. Why he or she would be quite a find and, if genuine; someone I suspect who would be loudly denounced on all sides. So just tossing that label out there is but a attempt to poison the well. You have and can do better.

AMR

Speak similarly to those who argue against Calvin rather than address scripture. They will be labeled as Pelagians as long as they refuse to address scripture. Let them gnash against the label.

 

[MennoSota]

So will the open theists please raise your hands?
Living in Minnesota I had the privilege of watching John Piper curb stomp Greg Boyd regarding God's sovereignty. Boyd went slinking off to start a church and that church sent him slinking off to lick his wounds. Today I have no idea where Boyd and his followers have gone to. I suspect they lurk in the liberal seminaries where the deity of Jesus is denied and human intellect is revered above God.
Let us be honest, open theism is a cult that has no part in the body of Christ.
If those whom I have labeled Pelagians would prefer, I can call you Boydians. [emoji56]

 

[George Affleck]

I believe 'Calvinism' is one of those false doctrines' that is a 'scourge on Christianity.'
It goes against the teachings/preaching of the Apostle Paul. Paul preaches Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

It is 'GRACE' that is the 'Gift,' not faith. God created mankind with a 'free will.'

“And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” John Calvin.

It would seem that John Calvin believed that "grace/faith=salvation" is the gift in total and not just faith.

I do not agree with this, based on the grammar, but it needs to be pointed out that Calvin did not believe that faith alone was the gift.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I believe 'Calvinism' is one of those false doctrines' that is a 'scourge on Christianity.'
It goes against the teachings/preaching of the Apostle Paul. Paul preaches Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

It is 'GRACE' that is the 'Gift,' not faith. God created mankind with a 'free will.'

“And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” John Calvin.

It would seem that John Calvin believed that "grace/faith=salvation" is the gift in total and not just faith.

I do not agree with this, based on the grammar, but it needs to be pointed out that Calvin did not believe that faith alone was the gift.

Paul's use of the neuter ("gift") indicates his comprehensive regard for the gift. It is ALL the business of salvation, and that would include (not exclude) the faculty of saving faith. In a single word the apostle envelops all the prior expressions (regardless of linguistic gender): "this."

GM doesn't regard all the individual elements within the gift as necessarily "gift." Akin to, if I came over to a girl's house to take her on a date, carrying a little gift from the store, and swiped a few daisies from her flower bed, rang the doorbell. And she answers, and I present myself for the date, with the things in my hand all together like a "package" gift. Yea, the flowers too, even though they were there on her walkway.

Except, faith is also a true gift, and not something God picks up on our walkway. See Php.1:29, "to you it has been granted (gifted)... to believe in him." It’s all a gift, and nothing original with us.

Of course, faith that we exercise is what we do. In that sense it is "sourced" in us. That's no answer to the question of where the capacity for such faith comes from in the first place. Is it a common ability, the power of every person on earth?

Jn. 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Jn. 14:17 even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:


1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Spiritual comprehension is not a natural possession. If it was, then by a proper exercise of it under the presentation of the truth some man would be a believer. And the unbeliever would be him that used not his instrument aright.

Not only would the believer have something to boast about (contrary to Rom.4:2); it also flies in the face of 1 Cor. 4:7, "For who maketh thee to differ from another?and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

Paul regards the least thing of spiritual value as a gift from God, and nothing to boast about.

Thus, the gift in the second clause refers, via touto, to "For by grace you have been saved through faith." God's gift is salvation by grace through faith. Faith is included in the gift. Faith isn't something by which (faith is the instrument) Christians receive the gift, but a part of God's gracious saving endowment.

Libertarian freewill theists typically say that for something to be a gift, the recipient must be able to refuse it. Yet, consider efficacy, where gift-giving is powerful, accomplishing its purpose–as when parents give the gift of life to their children or someone is rescued from death. In those situations, the recipient is passive and helpless. Moreover, in patronage system of the Roman Empire, a powerful benefactor isn't offering a gift. Rather, he confers a gift.

The asymmetrical dynamic between social superiors and social inferiors in the ancient world is far more analogous to the relationship between God and creatures than birthday gifts and Christmas presents between peers.

The efficacious concept of gift-giving is incompatible with grace in freewill theism, which is resistible and therefore not efficacious.

AMR

 

[MennoSota]

Paul's use of the neuter ("gift") indicates his comprehensive regard for the gift. It is ALL the business of salvation, and that would include (not exclude) the faculty of saving faith. In a single word the apostle envelops all the prior expressions (regardless of linguistic gender): "this."

GM doesn't regard all the individual elements within the gift as necessarily "gift." Akin to, if I came over to a girl's house to take her on a date, carrying a little gift from the store, and swiped a few daisies from her flower bed, rang the doorbell. And she answers, and I present myself for the date, with the things in my hand all together like a "package" gift. Yea, the flowers too, even though they were there on her walkway.

Except, faith is also a true gift, and not something God picks up on our walkway. See Php.1:29, "to you it has been granted (gifted)... to believe in him." It’s all a gift, and nothing original with us.

Of course, faith that we exercise is what we do. In that sense it is "sourced" in us. That's no answer to the question of where the capacity for such faith comes from in the first place. Is it a common ability, the power of every person on earth?

Jn. 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Jn. 14:17 even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:


1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Spiritual comprehension is not a natural possession. If it was, then by a proper exercise of it under the presentation of the truth some man would be a believer. And the unbeliever would be him that used not his instrument aright.

Not only would the believer have something to boast about (contrary to Rom.4:2); it also flies in the face of 1 Cor. 4:7, "For who maketh thee to differ from another?and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

Paul regards the least thing of spiritual value as a gift from God, and nothing to boast about.

Thus, the gift in the second clause refers, via touto, to "For by grace you have been saved through faith." God's gift is salvation by grace through faith. Faith is included in the gift. Faith isn't something by which Christians receive the gift, but a part of God's gracious saving endowment.

Libertarian freewill theists typically say that for something to be a gift, the recipient must be able to refuse it. Yet, consider efficacy, where gift-giving is powerful, accomplishing its purpose–as when parents give the gift of life to their children or someone is rescued from death. In those situations, the recipient is passive and helpless. Moreover, in patronage system of the Roman Empire, a powerful benefactor isn't offering a gift. Rather, he confers a gift.

The asymmetrical dynamic between social superiors and social inferiors in the ancient world is far more analogous to the relationship between God and creatures than birthday gifts and Christmas presents between peers.

The efficacious concept of gift-giving is incompatible with grace in freewill theism, which is resistible and therefore not efficacious.

AMR

It seems to me that free-will proponents call mental decision making...faith. That would put the power of faith in the human mind rather than in the will of God.
Hebrews 11:1 says:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Such assurance is not a mental decision. It is, instead, a gift of God to those whom He has elected to make alive in Christ.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It seems to me that free-will proponents call mental decision making...faith. That would put the power of faith in the human mind rather than in the will of God.
Hebrews 11:1 says:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Such assurance is not a mental decision. It is, instead, a gift of God to those whom He has elected to make alive in Christ.

It has been my experience that few, when challenged, will stand still long enough to come to an ultimate answer that accounts for their belief over that of their neighbor, who does not believe. When asked, "Why, you, and not your neighbor?" what will inevitably follow is all manner of equivocation. Why? Because most on the receiving end of the question, are smart enough to know where the logical end of such a question resides in the libertarian free will proponent:

“Lord, I thank thee that I am not like these poor, presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with a power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace as I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know that thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves… it was not thy grace that made us differ… I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”

Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on [URL="http://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/free-will-a-slave#flipbook/"]John 5:40[/URL] “Free Will Slave
​

” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.​

About the only direct answer I have received is from Robert Pate:

And you and you alone are responsible for your salvation.

At least Robert is foolishly bold enough to unequivocally declare in public exactly what the anti-Calvinist really believes.

AMR

 

[Clete]

You follow Pelagius. You are a Pelagian. This is too bad. He's had other followers who read the Bible and teach his philosophy. You follow Pelagius.

I don't know anything about Palageus. I've heard the name but know nothing at all about his doctrine. Maybe he follows me.

I know you don't get the point so let me spell it out...


1. I didn't read a word that Palgeus wrote and have no idea what he taught. (i.e. not a follower)
2. Even if I had read his work and believed every word he wrote and did follow him. You spouting the name Palageus doesn't amount to an argument! (i.e. For all I know, Palageus was right!)

To the extent that Palageus taught what I believe, Palageus was right. The extent he didn't he was wrong.

Prove me wrong!

Since I have no idea what the man taught and what he didn't nor what he believed or denied, we might as well stick with what I believe.

I know! I know! You still don't get the point...


See (i.e. google) Poisoning the Well fallacy, Guilt by Association Fallacy, Straw Man fallacy and Red Herring Fallacy, all of which seem to apply here to one degree or another.

Clete

 

[Clete]

At least Robert is foolishly bold enough to unequivocally declare in public exactly what the anti-Calvinist really believes.[/FONT]

AMR

That comment of Robert's is stupidity (assuming it means what you represent it to mean) and you are a liar.

 

[Rosenritter]

Rather than making a tout court claim, it would be best to qualify the "Pelagius!" charge as there are distinctions.

Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?​

For more, see:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html

AMR

Mennosota, pay attention to what AMR is showing you here. If you're going to cast about accusations, you should at least define your terms and make sure your assessment is accurate.

Anything else is (as Stripe pointed out) is trolling when the accusation is inaccurate and merely used for the point of causing strife.

 

[Rosenritter]

Libertarian freewill theists typically say that for something to be a gift, the recipient must be able to refuse it. Yet, consider efficacy, where gift-giving is powerful, accomplishing its purpose–as when parents give the gift of life to their children or someone is rescued from death. In those situations, the recipient is passive and helpless. Moreover, in patronage system of the Roman Empire, a powerful benefactor isn't offering a gift. Rather, he confers a gift.

Spoiler

The asymmetrical dynamic between social superiors and social inferiors in the ancient world is far more analogous to the relationship between God and creatures than birthday gifts and Christmas presents between peers.

The efficacious concept of gift-giving is incompatible with grace in freewill theism, which is resistible and therefore not efficacious.
AMR

A child does have the ability to cast away the gift of life that his parents have given him. In the example of a newborn you used above, suicide would be an example. The parable of the prodigal son has a similar example where the one son cast away the inheritance decreed from his father. Even though he eventually returned and was accepted, that inheritance was no longer restored, and anything that remained belonged to the eldest. So the efficacious gift in the parable could also be cast aside and lost for ever.

 

[Rosenritter]

It has been my experience that few, when challenged, will stand still long enough to come to an ultimate answer that accounts for their belief over that of their neighbor, who does not believe. When asked, "Why, you, and not your neighbor?" what will inevitably follow is all manner of equivocation. Why? Because most on the receiving end of the question, are smart enough to know where the logical end of such a question resides in the libertarian free will proponent:

“Lord, I thank thee that I am not like these poor, presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with a power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace as I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know that thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves… it was not thy grace that made us differ… I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”

Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on John 5:40 “FreeWill Slave
​

” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.​

About the only direct answer I have received is from Robert Pate:



At least Robert is foolishly bold enough to unequivocally declare in public exactly what the anti-Calvinist really believes.

AMR

I acknowledge that Calvinists also have free will (even if some think they might not) and I do not think that this question is very difficult.

Mark 9:23-24 KJV
(23) Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
(24) And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

We choose whether we will believe in evidence of things unseen. Two people can have the exact same information, access to the same data, evidence of the same miracles, and one will raise up his eyes to the serpent on the pole and the other will resist and cast his eyes down. Why might I believe and not my neighbor? I cannot speak for my neighbor, but I can be obedient to the call to follow Christ.

John 21:22 KJV
(22) Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

 

[Rosenritter]

I don't know anything about Palageus. I've heard the name but know nothing at all about his doctrine. Maybe he follows me.

I know you don't get the point so let me spell it out...

1. I didn't read a word that Palgeus wrote and have no idea what he taught. (i.e. not a follower)
2. Even if I had read his work and believed every word he wrote and did follow him. You spouting the name Palageus doesn't amount to an argument! (i.e. For all I know, Palageus was right!)

To the extent that Palageus taught what I believe, Palageus was right. The extent he didn't he was wrong.

Prove me wrong!

Since I have no idea what the man taught and what he didn't nor what he believed or denied, we might as well stick with what I believe.

I know! I know! You still don't get the point...


See (i.e. google) Poisoning the Well fallacy, Guilt by Association Fallacy, Straw Man fallacy and Red Herring Fallacy, all of which seem to apply here to one degree or another.

Clete

When I went to college they taught me that dinosaurs lived during the Pelagius.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I believe that Calvinism seeks to change the character of the 'God of the Bible.' During WW2 there was a man by the name of Josef Mengele He was an SS officer and physician at Auschwitz concentration camp. He was also a member of the team of doctors who selected victims to be killed in the gas chambers. Arrivals deemed able to work were admitted into the camp, and those deemed unfit for labor were immediately killed in the gas chambers. He would 'choose' who would die and who would live as they got off the trains that transferred them to Auschwitz.

There are similarities between Mengele and the Calvinist's view of God. The Calvinist's believe God chose who He would save and who He would send into eternal damnation. (Lake of Fire.) They believe He chose the 'Elect' and the damned before the foundation of the world based upon His Sovereign Will. Calvinists do not believe that humanity has a free-will of its own. I wonder if your average Calvinist would tend to believe that Satan and his fallen angels had a free-will of their own or were they chosen to rebel against God?

Acts 18:6 states: "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." The 'Gospel' was first taken to the Jews. Acts 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." According to these two Scripture verses, the Apostle Paul became agitated that the Jews rejected the Gospel and he made a decision to henceforth, deliver the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Why did the Apostle Paul become so upset with the Jews and make the decision to henceforth, deliver the Gospel to the Gentiles? Why would Paul become so upset by the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews? After all, according to the Calvinists, it was God Himself who chose from the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would be damned. Paul was privy to the Will of God, he had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and if the 'Jewish listeners' chose to reject the Gospel, why did Paul get so upset? In order to be a Calvinist follower one accepts that:

1) Humanity has no free-will of its own.
2) God in His sovereign Will decided before the foundation of the world, who would be saved and who would be damned to eternal punishment/suffering.
3) Christ only died for the sins of the 'Elect.'
4) Basically, the Gospel is only preached so the 'Elect' will respond with the faith that God gave them in the first place.
5) Even if the 'non-elect' hear the Gospel, they're unable to believe because God didn't give them the 'gift' of faith.

I believe the Calvinists change the CHARACTER of the God of the Bible and twist His character to fit their 'false doctrine and misinterpretation of Bible Scriptures.' I also believe that Satan, most likely is behind this and other 'false doctrines, beliefs, cults, etc. John Calvin himself was an evil/wicked man who is responsible for the deaths of over 50 people who disagreed with his false doctrine. I believe that Calvinism is more dangerous than Mormonism and other false doctrines/cults, because, it can be made to represent the truth by misinterpretation of Scripture, etc.

The 'Gospel of the grace of God' is available to anyone who hears the Gospel and places ALL of their 'free-will choice' to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and His death on the cross for their sins and His subsequent resurrection.

I would ask any Calvinist this question: If someone places all their faith in Christ, but totally rejects Calvinism and believes it's a 'false doctrine' are they saved, in your opinion? I know enough about Calvinism to realize what your answer may be. Answer if you wish?

 

[Rosenritter]

I believe that Calvinism seeks to change the character of the 'God of the Bible.'

Spoiler

During WW2 there was a man by the name of Josef Mengele He was an SS officer and physician at Auschwitz concentration camp. He was also a member of the team of doctors who selected victims to be killed in the gas chambers. Arrivals deemed able to work were admitted into the camp, and those deemed unfit for labor were immediately killed in the gas chambers. He would 'choose' who would die and who would live as they got off the trains that transferred them to Auschwitz.

There are similarities between Mengele and the Calvinist's view of God. The Calvinist's believe God chose who He would save and who He would send into eternal damnation. (Lake of Fire.) They believe He chose the 'Elect' and the damned before the foundation of the world based upon His Sovereign Will. Calvinists do not believe that humanity has a free-will of its own. I wonder if your average Calvinist would tend to believe that Satan and his fallen angels had a free-will of their own or were they chosen to rebel against God?

Acts 18:6 states: "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." The 'Gospel' was first taken to the Jews. Acts 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." According to these two Scripture verses, the Apostle Paul became agitated that the Jews rejected the Gospel and he made a decision to henceforth, deliver the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Why did the Apostle Paul become so upset with the Jews and make the decision to henceforth, deliver the Gospel to the Gentiles? Why would Paul become so upset by the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews? After all, according to the Calvinists, it was God Himself who chose from the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would be damned. Paul was privy to the Will of God, he had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and if the 'Jewish listeners' chose to reject the Gospel, why did Paul get so upset? In order to be a Calvinist follower one accepts that:

1) Humanity has no free-will of its own.
2) God in His sovereign Will decided before the foundation of the world, who would be saved and who would be damned to eternal punishment/suffering.
3) Christ only died for the sins of the 'Elect.'
4) Basically, the Gospel is only preached so the 'Elect' will respond with the faith that God gave them in the first place.
5) Even if the 'non-elect' hear the Gospel, they're unable to believe because God didn't give them the 'gift' of faith.

I believe the Calvinists change the CHARACTER of the God of the Bible and twist His character to fit their 'false doctrine and misinterpretation of Bible Scriptures.' I also believe that Satan, most likely is behind this and other 'false doctrines, beliefs, cults, etc. John Calvin himself was an evil/wicked man who is responsible for the deaths of over 50 people who disagreed with his false doctrine. I believe that Calvinism is more dangerous than Mormonism and other false doctrines/cults, because, it can be made to represent the truth by misinterpretation of Scripture, etc.

The 'Gospel of the grace of God' is available to anyone who hears the Gospel and places ALL of their 'free-will choice' to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and His death on the cross for their sins and subsequent resurrection.

I would ask any Calvinist this question: If someone places all their faith in Christ, but totally rejects Calvinism and believes it's a 'false doctrine' are they saved, in your opinion? I know enough about Calvinism to realize what your answer may be. Answer if you wish?

I endorse this post and would like to hear answers to that question.

 

[Rosenritter]

Disagree. In fact, it goes against the Open Theist paradigm that God "cannot know what is unknowable" i.e. a future before He altered it. We all argue from our paradigms. I simply try to ensure that none of mine put God in a man-made box. Going to happen? Probably not, because I'm finite and limited so my concept of Him always will be. That said, I've a bit of room over a few others in my head with a 7 3/4 hat size. Are you sure? Or does it only look that way to you? :think:


You mean everyone who kneels here, don't you? :think:


Really? It is always "God, I want my will on this when you answer"? Or is it said more with "If it is 'YOUR' will"? See what they are saying and meaning?


To me? Calvinist. Your will doesn't matter when you ask for His will.


You mean like with a hammer? Or with consistent, gentle, but firm pressure? Did you have to have a ton of spankings when you were young? Why does it take so much force to have gotten your heart right? I'm not sure you know better, honestly. I think I know God does exert force. Hezekiah had to have his life about to be removed to get right. God does discipline those He loves. I 'think' I know better than to not believe this, but I'm not certain if this is a disagreement or what exactly you have in mind here. It may be no disagreement at all? :think:


James 5:16

Not only that, but that God thought about it, the correct way with the needed outcome, first. RATHER prayer allows me to participate in the love God has for me and for you. When I pray for you, and you are healed, I've asked for nothing that God didn't want to already do. Rather, I've entered into relationship between you and God, and I am better for it. More? You are better for it and it is you and I that have changed. Therefore, I pray.

The people of Nineveh did not repent as Calvinists. They knew that God has given his pronouncement and asked God to change his will.

Jonah 3:9-10 KJV
(9) Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
(10) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

I realize that one could suppose that this punishment was determined on the condition that they did not repent, but as the Holy Spirit wrote this "to make us wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15) it certainly looks like God was influenced by their prayer (their petition through repentance.)

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I don't know anything about Palageus. I've heard the name but know nothing at all about his doctrine. Maybe he follows me.

I know you don't get the point so let me spell it out...


1. I didn't read a word that Palgeus wrote and have no idea what he taught. (i.e. not a follower)
2. Even if I had read his work and believed every word he wrote and did follow him. You spouting the name Palageus doesn't amount to an argument! (i.e. For all I know, Palageus was right!)

To the extent that Palageus taught what I believe, Palageus was right. The extent he didn't he was wrong.

Prove me wrong!

Since I have no idea what the man taught and what he didn't nor what he believed or denied, we might as well stick with what I believe.

I know! I know! You still don't get the point...


See (i.e. google) Poisoning the Well fallacy, Guilt by Association Fallacy, Straw Man fallacy and Red Herring Fallacy, all of which seem to apply here to one degree or another.

Clete

Excellent post.

 

[MennoSota]

I don't know anything about Palageus. I've heard the name but know nothing at all about his doctrine. Maybe he follows me.

I know you don't get the point so let me spell it out...


1. I didn't read a word that Palgeus wrote and have no idea what he taught. (i.e. not a follower)
2. Even if I had read his work and believed every word he wrote and did follow him. You spouting the name Palageus doesn't amount to an argument! (i.e. For all I know, Palageus was right!)

To the extent that Palageus taught what I believe, Palageus was right. The extent he didn't he was wrong.

Prove me wrong!

Since I have no idea what the man taught and what he didn't nor what he believed or denied, we might as well stick with what I believe.

I know! I know! You still don't get the point...


See (i.e. google) Poisoning the Well fallacy, Guilt by Association Fallacy, Straw Man fallacy and Red Herring Fallacy, all of which seem to apply here to one degree or another.

Clete

Does this mean you are going to stop with the Calvinist comments and address the scriptures and my points? If so, I can stop calling you a Pelagian. If not, I can point to the founder of your theology...Pelagius. It's your call.

 

[MennoSota]

Mennosota, pay attention to what AMR is showing you here. If you're going to cast about accusations, you should at least define your terms and make sure your assessment is accurate.

Anything else is (as Stripe pointed out) is trolling when the accusation is inaccurate and merely used for the point of causing strife.

As far as I see it, your theology is Pelagian. Thus, I label you as such. Prove me wrong.