Lurker wrote:
I am not surprised at the mental gynastics the carnal mind will go through to uphold the might of their almighty freewill.

For a moderator that suppose to restore civility to this place you sure have no problem bullying people. I would think that I would expect more grace from you.

I would press the abuse button, like I was instructed to do, but I doubt that you would censor yourself.

If you trully believed that God is sovereign in his word, then you would not subscribe to worldly definitions when the Bible makes no distinction.

There is no such thing as godly pizza and worldly pizza. There is also no such thing as a worldy definition and a godly definition.

It seems to me that such approach is a convenient way of allowing one to be free to make up whatever definition he feels like making up without having to subject himself to the laws of language which God ordained.

I happen to believe that God did not make a mistake when he stated "a good man" in Proverbs 13:22.

Lurker wrote:
Sure.
God's definition...
...none is good, save one, that is, God. (Luke 18:19) viz. God is good.
Man's worldly definition...
[URL=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/good]]]Dictionary[/URL]

And I suppose that the Holy Spirit made a few mistakes when he spoke of the good man like in Proverbs 13:22

A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.

So are you saying that YOU are not good neither?

I find it quite alarming how you reject dictionaries but refer to mystical meanings that cannot be validated outside your theological system. If you believe not in English dictionaries, how is it possible for you to speak English.

Lurker wrote:
You are confusing the worldly definition of good with God's definition and you are dead wrong.

R. K. Borill wrote:
IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT WE IN NEED OF A RIGHTEOUSNESS OUTSIDE OF OURSELVES FOR SALVATION. IT MUST BE IMPUTED TO US BY FAITH. IT IS NOT OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS BUT hHIS IMPUTED TO US!!!!

I implore you to resist the temptation of going off rabbit trails and hobby horses. This is sacred stuff we are dealing with here.

Lurker wrote:
You got an answer, JD, you just don't want to hear it. What you want is a platform from which you can twist and mutilate the theology of the reformed into knots and throw mud at it without recourse.

Discerning Believer wrote:
You have illustrated the problem of easy believism. Since you do not see men as totally sinful and totally depraved then you do not readily see the grace of God in the salvation of sinners. You do not see the sovereignty of God either. Even the good works of a lost sinner are as filthy rags and will not be worth one iota in attaining heaven. Salvation is soley by the grace of God and is a gift. It cannot be earned or is not a reward for something we do.

R. K. Borill wrote:
The question then is why should Arminians fight against God's appointment of the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction...

Kevin wrote:
But when we question those in hand they don't have the answers. I have ask various questions throughout these forums, but I get very little replies to my questions. How can someone post a comment and not back it up!

Just wondering wrote:
You show by your infatuation with yourself (patting yourself on the back for allowing God to be so sovereign) that your works based theology hasn't killed your pride.

Just wondering wrote:
You are the one who has to defend your theological bias with a question that demands your answer or a theologically wrong answer.

On the one side you accuse me of being too simplistic and the other side you give me credit for being clever.

Do I believe God is sovereign enough to NOT give man a free will?

Yes.

Now you tell me.

Just wondering wrote:
GLAS,
Just wondering,
Your answer to the "simple" question, ""Can God make a rock big enough that He cannot pick it up?" with a resounding "no" means that God is limited in His ability to create. Would you dare limit God in this way? Your simplistic approach to the Bible is why you are at the point you are at in your thinking.

I take my side with the simplistic crowd over the elitist crowd any day.

Like I said, it is only hard for you because you presuppose certain presuppositions.

You would not have a problem with me asking you is God sovereign enough to ordain unconditional election, but somehow you have a problem with God being sovereign enough to ordain what you perceive as arminian theological threats.

I think the problem is that you are willing to defend your theological system at all costs.

The fact that I can concede that God is sovereign enough to ordain unconditional election and you refuse to allow him to be sovereign enough to ordain conditional election demonstrates how you all your talk is really a guise to protect your theological bias.

Just Wondering wrote:
"Can God make a rock big enough that He cannot pick it up?"

1. I can answer that question with a simple no. I am not sure how you can find the question so difficult unless you already have certain unshakable presuppositions.

2. Your "contradict biblical truth" clause begs the question. You believe that unconditional election is true, and I believe that it is an error. For you to state that the question contradicts biblical truth is assuming that unconditional election is biblical without any proof.

I do not understand what is the difference between my question and the Calvinist question of, "Do you believe God is Sovereign enough to NOT give man a free will?"

I know for sure that you would not have any objection to the question because it does not threat your position.

Do I believe God is sovereign enough to NOT give man a free will?

Yes.

Now you tell me.

Do you find that so difficult. I can give you a simple yes or no answer to your question.

The question was not, "Do you believe that man is dead spiritually?"

I would answer a yes to that.

The question was:

Do you believe that God is sovereign enough to give man a free will?

The question was not, "Do you believe that man is dead spiritually?"

I would answer a yes to that.

The question was:

Do you believe that God is sovereign enough to give man a free will?

It says nothing about man not having a free will.

"Salvation is of the Lord" means that God is the owner of salvation and he gives it to whomever he will. It also means that he sets the terms for salvation, not any theological system.

The verse John 1:13 states that salvation was born from the will of God. It is not man that decided to create the plan of salvation, but rather it was God. Left to ourselves we will never seek God, it is God that has to make the first mood.

Neither of these verses explicitly nor implicitly negates the free will of man. Explicitly, it is quite obvious that none of the verses state that the free will of man has been effected by the Sovereignty of God.

Implicitly:

1. God ordained the free will when he created man.

2. The Bible takes for granted that man has a free will.

3. God ordained that salvation depends on the free will of man.

4. God is sovereign regardless of man's free will or not.

They claim it to be a trick question.

Even if this were true, even Jesus answered trick questions.

It seems that to many here the truth is a threat to their social club. If I were ever proven wrong, I would count it as a blessing, not a threat.