Episode 41- Welcome back Potter! is now up

[Rational Gaze]

you are a synergist

Exactly. I cannot hold to a view that is both un-Biblical and logically contradictory.

[Rational Gaze]

Either God does it all or He doesn't. What is the third option?

Easy. God is necessary for salvation, but we have to choose to accept that gift, in order to receive it. At least, it seems pretty straight forward and easy to understand to me. I am not sure why people have such a hard time seeing it.

[Darfius]

The essential difference being, of course, that I prefaced my 'game' with an explanation as to how specifically she was in error.

[Rational Gaze]

I suspect that your misunderstanding in this matter springs from the same root as your preterism nonsense.

Preterism isn't "nonsense." Just to let you know.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Darfius, you are not welcome in this area, go away.

[Darfius]

Darfius, you are not welcome in this area, go away.

What rule have I broken? The don't displease the site owner rule? Way to be objective. Or Christian for that matter.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ministry partner area participation is solely within the discretion of the ministry; ergo, get lost.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Easy. God is necessary for salvation, but we have to choose to accept that gift, in order to receive it. At least, it seems pretty straight forward and easy to understand to me. I am not sure why people have such a hard time seeing it.

That is NOT a third option.

At least, it seems pretty straight forward and easy to understand to me. I am not sure why people have such a hard time seeing it.

You are affirming there is something you DO that anyone else could do if only they chose to do so is the final say in your salvation. Thus, you did something the unbeliever didn't do, and that thing you did is the difference between you two. You are better in some way. Talk about being sub biblical.

[Dee Dee Warren]

POSTING ON MY IPAD AND IT ISN'T LETTING ME EDIT PROPERLY-WILL FIX L ATER

Having looked into it, again, I find your argument unreasonable. For one thing, it can be directed against Calvinism. Now, your analogy of 8 out of 10 people being saved and 2 not can be used. You say that if the reason for this is because of their choice, then it counts as a "good work", thus implying they have a better moral character than those who did not choose, and that this somehow contradicts sola fide.

You have yet to explain how it doesn't.

Now, according to Calvinism, the reason why they are saved is because God chose them and their salvation is thus pre-determined. Of course, I can just turn around and say that God's choosing someone implies something about their moral character that is better than the person He does not choose to save.

You could smear yourself with butter and all yourself toast. That doesn't mean you are. Your statement makes no logical sense. Why did God sovereignly choose Israel?







If not, then you would need to find an alternative basis, that is more plausible. God could choose people with a bad moral character, but then what of the people with good moral characters? You could say, but they are not good enough, but that is the case with every human being, and thus would be forced to assume God choose everybody, which leads to the heresy of universalism. If people are truly morally good, but God does not choose them, then one option is they do not need saving, but that runs contrary to the Biblical statement that all men are fallen. Or maybe they are truly morally good and God just chooses to damn them, which would make God seem capricious. Of course, being truly morally good is impossible for humans anyway, so I guess none of this really matters, it is not by our moral characters by which God chooses, with which you would presumably agree. Given that all are fallen and in need saving, why does God choose some, but not all? Unless God chooses all, which would lead to Universalism (which is a heretical view) or none, which is even more absurd. Perhaps the answer could be, God chooses those who choose Him?

This raises the bigger problem, if God chooses some and not all, and it is not by moral character, and is not a case of His choosing those who choose Him, then it would thus seem that God's choice is thus completely arbitrary and thus meaningless. Furthermore, by eliminating human free will, Calvinism renders God omniderigent, with us being rendered nothing more than mere puppets, which would thus make salvation and our relationship even more absurd and meaningless. God would be nothing more than a capricious and malevolent puppet master, and would actually validate Richard Dawkins' description in The God Delusion. Thus, Calvinism stands in contradiction with God's loving nature. In order to have a meaningful relationship with God, we would need to choose Him, and in order for our choice to be meaningful we would need the option of not choosing Him, and we would need to be able to make the decision of our own Free Will. The only valid counter to the free will type soteriologies is that this denies the role of the Holy Spirit, yet this is not the case. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that we come to truly know God. However, it is possible to deny this conviction of the Holy Spirit, which would be the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (and this is only if you carry on disbelieving until your death.)

Of course, I offer the usual disclaimer that what I write is merely the random scribblings of a retard, and you are thus free to make of it what you will.[/QUOTE]

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am continuing with where I could not because I couldn't figure out how to post properly on my iP-d.

If not, then you would need to find an alternative basis, that is more plausible

You already showed that your "alternative" wasn't plausible, so why would I need to do so? You have yet to offer an alternative. Plus, Paul anticipated this.

Who are you o man to reply against God?

But there is a great basis. For His own good pleasure and glory. The best reason of all. I think you don't understand what "capricious" means.


This is all though quite far afield of my challenge. In your view, there is something about you that the unbeliever lacks, but COULD have.

That is works my friend. You do have something to boast about since you accomplished something that your unsaved neighbor did not.

[Christian><>]

Greetings Dee Dee (does this mean you are only two dimensional – 2 Dee?),
I have listened to the first five episodes now, as well as all the kicking Left Behinds and announcements. I skipped ahead to the Welcome Back Potter episode, I must confess, because I thought it was something about Harry Potter and I wondered what your thoughts were on the whole phenomenon…
To my surprise, it was about your transition to the “dark side,” LOL.

Okay, I believe I can answer your unanswerable question(s):
Ten people hear the gospel, but only two respond with faith. Why?
Is it because they are the only two who chose faith?
Did the two do something to merit salvation?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no, even from a molinist/arminian perspective.

All men are totally depraved and incapable of coming to Christ. But the Holy Spirit works on the hearts of everyone drawing them and enabling them, overcoming that depravity if you will, without regenerating them. The reason that the other 8 didn’t answer is because, some never will of course. But the others may not have been ready yet. The Holy Spirit isn’t finished working on their soil… So the two who responded didn’t merit anything. Paul specifically said faith is not works. If no one is capable of even having faith without the Spirit drawing them, how can the person who responds take credit?

I started out a Calvinist, and like you, found questions that could not be answered. To me these were greater and much more significant that the questions you posited.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Christian, remember I didn't say the questions could not be answered... I said they could not be answered and retain true protestantism. You didn't answer the question of "why" at all. Why will some never respond? Why are some not ready?

In other words, you won't fool me with clever words, its turtles all the way down.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I answered the comments on the latest episode, Episode 44, Seasons in the Sun.

[Christian><>]

Wow! I was sort of flattered that my comment got the first response. ;) I consider myself famous... even though you didn't mention my name. I hadn't read this response and saw on the episode 44 notes that you addressed the Calvinism issue, so I listened to it.

I agree, it seems that we may be reading past each other. Perhaps we are predestined to disagree and be blinded to the other arguments.

I would like to respond a bit more in depth and explain what I wrote. In all fairness, I was trying to be brief and I assumed that you were very familiar with classical Arminian theological arguments, which is why I didn't quote a bazillion passages and elaborate trying to prove my point. So I don't think you are ignorant at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Perhaps I am, though, for thinking that you had not thought of what I said. In all fairness though, you didn't mention it as a possibility and address it.

So here is my proposal. Would you be interested in an interview or a phone conversation? If not, I totally understand. But maybe you can help me repent of my synergistic heresy, like you did for Roderick. ;)

PS, I finally got around to singing, or writing, your praises on iTunes. I'm in Episode 19 now.

PPS you sounded different on episode 44. Perhaps it is because you spoke faster. Not sure, but there is a definite difference and improvement between earlier podcast Dee Dee and current... not that you were bad at all before. Oh sheesh, I can't seem to stop putting my foot in mouth tonight.

Anyway, I can't wait to get all caught up.

Later Diz.

[One Bad Pig]

I said they could not be answered and retain true protestantism.

Interesting comment, Dee Dee.