PDA

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



Knight
February 20th, 2008, 10:52 AM
If you are following the thread: Does Abraham's faith disprove Unconditional Election? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46479) and would like to discuss it, this is the place!

logos_x
February 20th, 2008, 10:59 AM
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
(Gen 28:14)


I would say not :)

....but you know that, already.

Lighthouse
February 20th, 2008, 11:45 AM
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
(Gen 28:14)


I would say not :)

....but you know that, already.
Do you know what unconditional election is?

Stripe
February 20th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Do you know what unconditional election is?A second term for a republican president?

This OOO looks like one worth following. Good luck to both contestants (though one of you won't necessarily need it).

logos_x
February 20th, 2008, 11:23 PM
Do you know what unconditional election is?

Does it matter?

logos_x
February 20th, 2008, 11:34 PM
Do you know what unconditional election is?

An explanation of the doctrine is on Wikipedia as follows:

In saving people unconditionally, God must guarantee all the means that he has for men to be saved. This means that true faith must be guaranteed. The source of this guarantee arises from the infinite worth of Christ's death to be applied to what God intended it for; like the salvation of a particular people. This is worked out by the Holy Spirit, which convicts the world of sin and righteousness. In doing this, the Holy Spirit opens hearts and eyes. This makes sinners both willing and able to exercise faith in the gospel. The goodness and grace of the gospel becomes irresistible to a rational person, so faith results. It is the result of a new nature that comes from being born again or regenerated by the Holy Spirit preceding faith. People are saved unconditionally while they are still enemies of the cross. Yet, sinners do not remain enemies of the cross because of the things that follow election: God's calling to faith, justification by faith, and glorification.

Now...from my perspective the problem with Calvinism is not embodied in this doctrine...rather it is in the doctrine of Limited Atonement...which limits the infinite worth of Christ's death...while this doctrine claims to uphold it.

Stripe
February 22nd, 2008, 08:13 AM
Did Nang really just spend about a thousand and a half words arguing that Abraham had faith before he was saved?

PKevman
February 22nd, 2008, 10:06 AM
AJ's last post was very good. :up:

Knight
February 22nd, 2008, 10:13 AM
Ouch! This is painful. AJ is spanking Nang like a 4 year old at KMart.

Stripe
February 22nd, 2008, 10:36 AM
Ouch! This is painful. AJ is spanking Nang like a 4 year old at KMart.You can get arrested for doing that sort of thing where I come from ...

Nang is getting a hiding though. AJ posts the same volume, but his points are so clear.

Mystery
February 22nd, 2008, 10:46 AM
Ouch! This is painful. AJ is spanking Nang like a 4 year old at KMart.

I can understand why God has chosen to discipline her like this, but why has He chosen for her to be so disobedient in the first place?

:idunno:

Ask Mr. Religion
February 22nd, 2008, 11:01 AM
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.

Stripe
February 22nd, 2008, 11:19 AM
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.
Perhaps if Nang were on topic then her bountiful supply of bible verses would be relevant. As AJ points out she is yet to even quote the one verse the whole thread is sourced from.

PKevman
February 24th, 2008, 12:12 AM
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.

All I have to say is: :ha:

:mock: Nang
:mock: Calvinism
:mock: Those who misrepresent our Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving God!

Ask Mr. Religion
February 26th, 2008, 12:21 AM
Nang's latest post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1687936&postcount=7) is a show stopper! Wow! Now if only AJ will do the same level of heavy lifting that Nang is clearly doing in the 1:1 instead of resorting to whimsical rhetoric. Nang has posted dozens and dozens of verses to bolster her argument that AJ cannot ignore.

Ask Mr. Religion
February 27th, 2008, 01:44 AM
Nang's latest post points out the progress to date: "We are one week into our two-week opportunity to hash over these theological differences, but instead of "hashing," all you are doing is bashing. Why?"

Aj has yet to present any cogent arguments from Scripture to support his position. Instead he is clearly on the defensive and wastes his efforts with ad hominems versus substantive discussion. Who can blame him, for he obviously has nothing to add and prefers to stand on Nang's back hoping he can gather a few crumbs to feed from. Nang won the debate with the death blows of her previous post. Now we are witnessing the hapless AJ twitching as he gasps his last. Someone pass him some oxygen, please, in hopes that he can recover and actually discuss his position versus transparent attempts to wail on Nang's.

Stripe
February 27th, 2008, 07:31 AM
:nono:

Ask Mr. Religion
February 28th, 2008, 03:38 AM
Once more, AJ's latest is a combination of personalizations and lack of exegesis, form over substance.

Accuses Nang of deceit! :dizzy:
Asks for apology? :dizzy:
Actually claims he is doing 'deep diving' :dizzy:

In 'More Cobbles' AJ employs the powerful exegetical technique :think: of boldface in Scripture citations. Wow, that is 'deep diving' exegesis. :dizzy:
AJ concludes with a call for deep diving! :rotfl:

Note to Nang: Maybe more boldface will convince AJ? Apparently exegesis is a simply a skill in formatting text. :bang:

Stripe
February 28th, 2008, 09:28 AM
I prefer a single bible verse with a bolded section to a list of references that don't say anything.

Ask Mr. Religion
February 28th, 2008, 05:54 PM
Nang's latest post here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1690634&postcount=11) cannot be used by AJ to falsely claim once again that she is not directly dealing with the issues. Nang's restraint, by not responding to AJ's ad hominems, is an example for us all. AJ has filled his posts with personal criticisms, negative smilies, etc., yet witness in Nang's post critical attention to the topic at hand while never taking any baiting from AJ. This is exactly the behavior anyone in a serious discussion should strive to emulate.

Kudos, Nang! :thumb:

Memento Mori
February 28th, 2008, 06:00 PM
I'll be amazed if anyone alters their position from this debate.

Stripe
February 28th, 2008, 07:29 PM
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
March 1st, 2008, 01:24 PM
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
March 3rd, 2008, 07:16 AM
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
January 29th, 2009, 02:21 PM
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
January 29th, 2009, 04:55 PM
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!