@cbankston7 @12000ak I agree. The most recent rhetoric has been so empty of substance.
English
Just Keep Reading
7.1K posts
I’ve seen so much use of the word “anti-Calvinist” lately that I have to think it’s been a coordinated effort.
English
Alright, y’all. I had the same profile pic for 7 years, but since last weekend I had an angry OrthoBro dox my address and a sensitive Catholic make a random creeper comment about my kids that sounded like a veiled threat. So I figured I should change to just me.
#NewProfilePic
English
@AtheistTakes Is liable if said for the wrong reason. Righteous anger is a similar dynamic.
English
@_jonbowlin @Soteriology101 A king would use external coercion as the means to bring it about.
English
@Soteriology101 When a king/president decrees something, is the decree itself forcing the nation to do it or are there means they use to carry it out?
English
Calvinists only please:
Do agree or disagree with this?
English
@Lindaloves1776 I’m definitely not a Calvinist. I think a useful label would be Provisionist, given the options.
I prefer, if a label like this must be used, anti-CalvinISM over anti-CalvinIST.
I think people are trying to poison the well by attaching a motive to it.
English
@just_keep_read I got the impression that you were not a Calvinist, but then I looked at your bio and it is hard to tell where you stand. What is your stance regarding Calvin's messaging? What would you prefer to see besides the term anti-Calvin?
English
Young earth creationists believe all big cats descend from three pairs of big cats 7,000 years ago.
John17apologetics@J17apologetics
That's all it takes to cover every "kind" of animal on earth. Any species that can breed together, only need one pair on the ark to represent them. Google says 29 species of rabbits exist. So 2 rabbits are enough. We don't need 58. All the dogs, coyotes, jackals, they can gradually come from 2 wolves on the ark. Lions can still mate with tigers, leopards, jaguars and panthers, so we don't need each of them.
English
@just_keep_read @Mikethewander1 lol little guy blocked me after insulting.
I guess the friendly conversation I thought we were having was a debate.
I definitely won seeing as he resorted to blocking after insulting 😂
English
I would argue that Human’s have free-will and not everything is part of God’s plan but He can use anything to further His plan because He is sovereign
Internet Atheists@AtheistTakes
Nobody has ever addressed this before
English
@just_keep_read It’s like being called “racist” and “bigot”
English
@Be_Like_JChrist some of us, who aren’t calvinists, just get tired of your anti-calvinism propaganda 🤷♂️
English
@Mikethewander1 @BornAgainBalaky Jesus knew that Peter would betray Him, even despite Jesus telling him he would. Jesus didn’t cause Peter to deny him (this would make God the author of this sin).
God’s will was to allow Peter to betray Him.
English
@just_keep_read @BornAgainBalaky In advance which means "god's will be done", hence no "free will". There are notable references in the Bible. "Peter, you will betray me 3 times before the sun comes up"
English
@Mikethewander1 @BornAgainBalaky If I changed my mind, that is what God would know.
English
@just_keep_read @BornAgainBalaky Foreknowledge on behalf of an Omni, literally means you couldn't change your mind if you wanted too, it's merely the illusion of a choice. Think about it for a few days, weeks maybe more but don't come back to me in 30 seconds or a few minutes. ta ta
English
@Mikethewander1 @BornAgainBalaky God’s plan/will can be to allow free will.
Foreknowledge isn’t causative.
English
@BornAgainBalaky Reason with me: IF god is Omni a) Did he know what was going to happen before it did? b) Can you go against the Will of God? If Either A OR B is true, then "Free Will" does NOT exist. If either A OR B are False, then your god is NOT Omni!
English
@rootcausesleuth @dhanabarger He’s been on a roll lately. He doesn’t have any answers so he’s turned to rhetoric— in this case poisoning the well by associating you with Satan
English
@dhanabarger @Klosski_Kevin Why would I? I read the Bible and primary sources.
I’d think these would be mostly anti-Calvinism, not anti-Calvinist. The anti-Calvinist label is quite loaded with negativity.
English
@just_keep_read @Klosski_Kevin You don't know what books that are written to refute reformed theology are?
English
Reformed folks try to soften predestination by appealing to a permissive will, but the rubber meets the road with stuff like this from Davenant. God doesn't simply foresee the choices He permits. He must eternally decree them first, lest He be seen as depending on temporal acts
English
@dhanabarger @Klosski_Kevin What are anti-Calvinist books?
English
@just_keep_read @Klosski_Kevin Yes, that's what I said. I was a rabid anti-calvinist. I've read all the anti-calvinist books made all the arguments you are making now. Then the reality of what I was avoiding in my own system came crashing down on me.
English
@Soteriology101 Maybe it’s all things without distinction, but not without exception.
English
Calvinists only please:
True or False:
God decrees whatsoever comes to pass except the sinful desires of creatures.
English
@just_keep_read @Klosski_Kevin Still haven't realized your own system doesn't escape this problem, eh? It's a hard day when that happens. I remember it well when I was rabidly anti-reformed just like you. I still have all my notes and arguments I could share with you if you'd like.
English
@dhanabarger @Klosski_Kevin God’s foreknowledge arises from His will. He’s decreeing and bringing about everything He “permits.”
Tod Ashby@TodAshby
“[God’s] knowledge of future things cannot be changed, because that knowledge arises from his Will, which is irreversible — ‘The counsel of the LORD, that shall stand’ (Proverbs 19:21) — so that if God can never decay into weakness and never return to inconsistency, there can be no variation of his knowledge.” — Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God
English
@just_keep_read @Klosski_Kevin you mock by misrepresenting what we believe.
English
@profitecpro @Be_Like_JChrist It’s making an argument for the (very intuitive) idea that moral culpability requires an ability to comply with the moral imperative.
This is a binary comparison of “able” to “not able.” There’s no need to put this on a spectrum of relative inability.
English
@Be_Like_JChrist Other than the fact that it assumes that the more corrupt someone’s character is, the less culpable he is
English