Replies

Why don't we stop at that and both agree to it.

I find it hard to even "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't really address clear teaching that refutes his patchwork view. You have suddenly dug in your heels and refuse to address the issue directly, but instead retort with "yea, but what about..." and keep changing the focus of the discussion. You steadfastly refuse to directly address or answer when someone shoots down your view, exposing its unscriptural roots. You whine about a lack of proof texts, and you have whined in the past about too many proof texts. I have avoided the standard Calvinist Rhetoric you so despise, and have in fact not quoted Calvin or Augustine even once, yet you still accuse me of Calvinist Rhetoric. That's your cop-out, and I won't let you take it. I have approached this from a logical and thoroughly scriptural frame of reference, attempting to engage you in clear debate of the issues, and you show either an unwillingness or an inability to engage in serious debate. You still argue for a choice that man does not have the ability to make, as though that were the be-all and end-all of salvation, and have totally missed the truth of Election, the Justice of God, and His absolute soveriegnty over man and all of creation. You've put your treasure in a basket with no bottom.

Truth does not compromise, and "agreeing to disagree" is, at best, a cop-out. We disagree, and as long as that situation exists, we do not agree, even to disagree. I will continue to proclaim the truth, and to speak of it whenever it is appropriate. I can do nothing else and be faithful to the truth.

Why don't we stop at that and both agree to it. I find it hard to even "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't really address clear teaching that refutes his patchwork view. You have suddenly dug in your heels and refuse to address the issue directly, but instead retort with "yea, but what about..." and keep changing the focus of the discussion. You steadfastly refuse to directly address or answer when someone shoots down your view, exposing its unscriptural roots. You whine about a lack of proof texts, and you have whined in the past about too many proof texts. I have avoided the standard Calvinist Rhetoric you so despise, and have in fact not quoted Calvin or Augustine even once, yet you still accuse me of Calvinist Rhetoric. That's your cop-out, and I won't let you take it. I have approached this from a logical and thoroughly scriptural frame of reference, attempting to engage you in clear debate of the issues, and you show either an unwillingness or an inability to engage in serious debate. You still argue for a choice that man does not have the ability to make, as though that were the be-all and end-all of salvation, and have totally missed the truth of Election, the Justice of God, and His absolute soveriegnty over man and all of creation. You've put your treasure in a basket with no bottom.

Well, then just move on!

You have done nothing but repeat tired old Calvinistic cliches.

You have not dealt with the real issue, Truth does not compromise, and "agreeing to disagree" is, at best, a cop-out. We disagree, and as long as that situation exists, we do not agree, even to disagree. I will continue to proclaim the truth, and to speak of it whenever it is appropriate. I can do nothing else and be faithful to the truth.

Amen! Go tell it to someone else, since I have heard the illogical, non-scriptural, God dishonoring rhetoric over and over again, it is no better when you say it, then when Calvin, Sproul and Pink states it.

Your system makes God the author of Sin and then expects to have man glorify him, for saving some, when He could have saved all.

That is not the God who stated that He had come to 'save the lost' (Lk 19:10).

The god that Calvinism advances is from Platonic philosophical speculation, dreamed up by Augustine and refined by Calvin.