That is an uninformed opinion.
You are sure opining a lot of things without having read either of the conversations.
It’s not though. I am confident that a thread on here did not overturn the dozens of books I’ve read and the studying I’ve done under elders by people I believe to be Christians in trith and righteousness. There are tons of things in here that people believe is true as the majority that I still believe in completely false and so destructive that I’ve stopped directing people here. A group of people who all agree something is true can claim we are true.
I can take you to forums on other sites and groups where 99.99% will agree that we are right and that those that believe OSAS is wrong and that it has been debated again snd again. Anyways. I’m withdrawing because it’s useless. I don’t have the time to respond with dozens and dozens of verses at this moment. I’m to busy to actually debate it. I should have left it at my original comment.
OSAS is not a belief that must be accepted to accept the various choices , such as it being a group effort between man and god. Since I believe in one of the views for the most part and do so without belief in OSAS.
Because the conversation does not matter. It means nothing compared to the years and years of conversations I’ve had spanning hundreds of hours with dozens of disciples. You’re confusing a conversation where some from that conversation disagrees, with what was proven. Anyways later. Last response for now.
Nonsense…
That is an argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority, that I do not accept. (It is also a logical fallacy.)
Reply whenever on the other thread where I tagged you, please.
Indeed it is nonsense to suggest that God’s effort to change what we do is something that can happen independent of what we do. It is downright insane. It is like saying that you can paint a black room red without the room changing its color. It is a logical contradiction. So why do people suggest such nonsense? It is because they want a “get out of jail free” indulgence card so they can keep their sins without the consequences. It is the typical “have your cake and eat it too” sort of thinking of childish and irrational sinners.
Indisputably.
The concept of “responsibility” is real among humans. Courts prove that it’s “real” there.
But in the Court of Heaven,
- Romans 3:10 As it is written:
- “There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
- “There is no one righteous, not even one;
Paraphrasing Einstein: “At the same time” is relative.
Monergism, Calvinism, bleak atheistic materialism and determinism. All synonymous concepts to me.
Vinnie
2 Likes
…shows that man is responsible in God’s eyes, too, but hopeless.
I’m not a fan of Einstein nor of Divine omnitemporality. “At the same time” in Absolute Time is good enough for me.
- From Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation (1518):
- Thesis 28. “The love of God does not find, but creates, what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through what is pleasing to it.”
- The second part is clear and is accepted by all philosophers and theologians, for the object of love is its cause, assuming, according to Aristotle, that all power of the soul is passive and material and active only in receiving something. Thus it is also demonstrated that Aristotle’s philosophy is contrary to theology since in all things it seeks those things which are its own and receives rather than gives something good. The first part is clear because the love of God which lives in man loves sinners, evil persons, fools, and weaklings in order to make them righteous, good, wise, and strong. Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God flows forth and bestows good. Therefore sinners are attractive because they are loved; they are not loved because they are attractive. For this reason the love of man avoids sinners and evil persons. Thus Christ says: “For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” [Matt. 9:13]. This is the love of the cross, born of the cross, which turns in the direction where it does not find good which it may enjoy, but where it may confer good upon the bad and needy person. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” [Acts 20:35], says the Apostle. Hence Ps. 41[:1] states, “Blessed is he who considers the poor,” for the intellect cannot by nature comprehend an object which does not exist, that is the poor and needy person, but only a thing which does exist, that is the true and good. Therefore it judges according to appearances, is a respecter of persons, and judges according to that which can be seen, etc."
- Thesis 28. “The love of God does not find, but creates, what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through what is pleasing to it.”
How about of what is true? 
The Calvinist in you should rejoice and marvel at Maggie’s testimony, I should think. How does he do that, orchestrate the several events, and at the same instant dynamically relate personally? If there is no dynamic relationship, then he is not truly our Father and we not his children, but automatons.
This may not be compelling, but check it out: The Omnitemporality of God.
(What is compelling to me is my and other’s life experiences… are you familiar with George Müller?)
One doesn’t have to be a Calvinist to rejoice and marvel at Maggie’s testimony.
I suppose that if I believed that if I’m only allowed a choice between being an automaton or a child of the Father, then “yes, I’d rather be a child of the Father.” But the fact is: I believe that that’s a false choice, and that the truth of the matter is something much more marvelous and exciting: I have the unique pleasure of having spent a good number of years as an automaton being transformed into a living child of the Father. The transformation won’t be over until it’s completed, but I am confident that God can transform me and my hope is that He will.
1 Like
No, of course not, but God’s providential interventions are hard to sweep under the rug to focus only on her free will.
As do I.
I can’t say I have had that experience.
I’m with you there! Many here can tell you that my transformation is incomplete thus far. 
But it’s not a transformation from being an automaton – I’ve been willfully, carelessly or ignorantly rebellious enough!
That would be a sure hope in the final product, so to speak (not that there might not be setbacks along the way), as was my initial point in the discussion, Spinoff: Law vs. Grace?, here: a sure hope and confidence.
“Automaton” is, apparently, what one is doomed to be if one is a Determinist. Personally, I prefer thinking of myself as a swirling cloud of dust, which sounds better than a mud-pie or a gingerbread man.
There is this possibility, I suppose:
[Charles Bragg, “The Sixth Day”]
2 Likes
My favorite extrabiblical quote covers it:
“We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.” I.B. Singer 
1 Like
One can also be a Lutheran Determinist.
1 Like
That’s just a whiteout redaction of ‘Calvinist’ overwritten with ‘Lutheran’. 
Actually, ‘Calvinist’ is a whiteout redaction of Lutheran overwritten with Calvinist.
Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546)
John Calvin (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564)
1 Like