It appears that DmWt opposes the bible, doesn't it? It appears that calvinism prefers logic to scripture, doesn't it?
DmWt doesn't want to hear that it's possible to desire your own child's salvation, but realize that God gave the child the right of free choice, so that that child must believe.
Let me ask you, DmWt, this question posed by Hank Kerchief? You have only 2 choices.
According to Calvinism, when a person comes to Christ,
1. Does the person believe?
2. Or does God believe for the person?
Third, it appears that Calvin adopted a peculiar approach to truth, judging from his earlier book, which appeared in 1532. This book was a critical edition and commentary on the Roman philosopher Seneca's work De clementia (“Concerning Clemency”). In this book Calvin demonstrated his scholarly abilities, but also showed that he favored the opinions of the rhetoricians over those of the dialecticians. The dialecticians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by how well it fits into a coherent logical system. The rhetoricians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by its clarity and elegance as well as its persuasive power. (Robert M. Kingdon, “John Calvin,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed, 1982, Vol 3, p 671)
Calvin's tendency to underplay the importance of logic can also be seen in his Institutes. Here are just three examples from the Institutes where Calvin emphatically states ideas that are logically weak — a sure indication of the rhetorician's approach to truth. First, any discussion of free will is logically related to the subject of divine predestination. However, when Calvin discusses Adam's free will, he claims that it is unreasonable to introduce the subject of divine predestination. It were here unreasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. (Book 1, Chap 15, Sec 8). Second, the idea that human punishment is ultimately based on man's actions is logically contradictory to the idea that it is ultimately based on God's decision. Yet, Calvin states both of these ideas in the same sentence. Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 8). Third, Calvin states that man makes voluntary choices which are not free. This is an obvious logical contradiction which can be avoided only by adopting a very narrow and inappropriate definition of volition. … a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice. (Book 2, Chap 5, Sec 1) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/712991/posts
Sir, you merely quote scripture and say it supports a particular teaching. Every doctrine must be reasonable in light of the enttire word of God. When you have been asked to defend your doctrine, you avoid the defense by casting an accusation against me. I guess you want to avoid logic because your doctrine cannot be logically defended. In other words, your doctrine must be unreasonable.
Despite your bomb throwing, I have sought to embrace the Bible and subject what I think I understand to analysis and inquiry. You claim support from the Bible, but seek to avoid any critique of your doctrine. That is very clearly dishonest and dissembling. Then when backed into a corner, you make a personal attack on Martin Luther. Pitiful.
"DmWt doesn't want to hear that it's possible to desire your own child's salvation, but realize that God gave the child the right of free choice, so that that child must believe."
Frankly sir, I have not earthly idea of what you are talking about, nor do I understand how you can claim what I do or do not want to hear. This is your modus operandi, isn't it. Whenever you are forced to defend your teachings, you change the subject, ask an off the wall question to throw your interlocutor off the trail and even inject a personal attack. Again dissembling and intellectually dishonest. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I am sure nothing could shame you if you are unwilling to defend what you believe.
Let me ask you, DmWt, this question posed by Hank Kerchief?
No, sir. I won't answer any of your questions until you answer the questions that have been posed to your over the past days but you have consistently failed to address. I think you are really afraid to do so because you really don't have any answers.
Just because you started this thread, you cannot dictate the terms of this discussion.