In article , lsenders{at}hotmail.com
says...

>> Unfortunately, such disastrously wrong doctrine is all too common.
>
>Back to the basics.

So you love to _say_, but you never really _do_ get back to the _real_ basics.
Intstead, you always run back to the same tired old false dichotomy.

> Those who state their position as above are those
>who hold to the position that man is truly free in his will (Position
>#1).

This is an irresponsible claim, since you are sweeping under the rug the vital
issue of what "truly free in his will" could mean.

But then again, I expect this out of you, since you have such a long history of
criticizing what you do not understand.

>Those who hold to the OSAS position believe that men are not free
>(Position #2).

And contradict Scriptures in this and many other ways. I already showed how you
contradict Scriptures with the Augustine citations, and you have NO answer to
this.

>Next, "free" must be given a definition in the context of the argument.

Is this why you always rush to give a _wrong_ definition? Better to admit the
difficulty of the problem than to insist on a wrong answer as you do.

>In the context, "Free" pertains only to whether or not a man can, on
>his own, turn to God without any further movement or empowerment by
>God.

No, it does not. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

>Those who hold to #1 maintain that man is not irredeemably bad

But that is neither here nor there, since neither I nor the OP I responded to
ever identified himself as "one of those who hold to #1". That is
YOUR false
dichotomy.

[snip]

>The question now is, "Does it really help to say that God didn't ordain
>the failure of the jack but merely permitted it?

It does if you keep in mind EXACTLY what you ignored in your tedious and
tendentious example: the huge, fundamental difference between the 'permission'
of men, which is based on our weakness, and the permission of God, which is so
fundamentally different precisely because it is NOT based on weakness.

>If a human cannot
>avoid responsibility by saying he only permitted the man to die, how
>much less can a sovereign God avoid responsibility by saying he only
>permitted the accident to happen?

You have completely missed the point of the argument.

>So those of position #2 do not seen that position #1 resolves anything
>after all.  In point of fact, it only calls God's power into question.
>Was he really helpless in adverting the man's doom?  Did He misjudge
>the velocity of the truck and the effect it would cause on the
>teetering jack?  How many things in a sinful world actually occur
>without His sovereign ordination and providential control?
>
>Position #2 (Calvinist) maintain that God's sovereignty and
>providential control are achieved and maintained through the
>manipulation of secondary causes.
>
>Position #1 (Arminians), hold that God only permits such things to
>occur.

And did you ever notice, Loren, that Arminius _was_ a Calvinist, and was widely
recognized by his fellow Calvinists as a _master_ of Calvinist theology, until
his expertise in theology led him to _reject_ Calvinism?

>Nevertheless, His permission necessarily means that He bore ultimate
>responsibility for it.

Most certainly NOT. This, Loren, is where you stray into blasphemy.

>After all, He could have chosen "not to permit"
>the truck driver from leaving the last stop light for 30 seconds
>longer.
>
>Calvinist (#2) believe that God ordains all the comes to pass and
>brings that ordination to fruition either by active or passive means.

And evidently, they also believe in taking credit for what they do not do. For
this belief is NOT peculiar to Calvinism. What _is_ peculiar to Calvinism is
denying that others correctly described this Providence long before them by
_denying_ their false notion of 'sovereignty', which is really demonic tyranny,
not divine Providence.


>"All things work together for the good" requires preordination.

It required it, eys. But it _also_ requires it NOT in the Calvinist sense.


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/25/05 6:44:10 PM ---