The heresy that I find inherent in Calvinism

[His clay]

What I am saying is that the foreign object cannot be logically removed.

So then you are saying that you prefer not to deal with Calvinism but rather with a straw man. And it is logically removed by a basic life lesson. Our natures have direct causal impact upon what we choose. Right?

 

[justbyfaith]

I am certain of that too which is why it baffled me when someone is shown in black and white that what they are teaching is a contradiction of other scriptures, and they still insist that they are not.

You simply need to be more precise in your setting forth of how you think these scriptures contradict each other in light of my theology.

I do not see them as contradicting themselves.

 

[justbyfaith]

So then you are saying that you prefer not to deal with Calvinism but rather with a straw man. And it is logically removed by a basic life lesson. Our natures have direct causal impact upon what we choose. Right?

Sorry...

It follows logically, that if regeneration precedes faith, that regeneration can happen apart from faith.

The only way regeneration does not happen apart from faith is if faith precedes regeneration.

 

[justbyfaith]

So then you are saying that you prefer not to deal with Calvinism but rather with a straw man. And it is logically removed by a basic life lesson. Our natures have direct causal impact upon what we choose. Right?

I am dealing not with a straw man but with a construct that is the logical conclusion of Calvinistic thinking.

 

[justbyfaith]

So those who are given are drawn, come to him, and are raised up on the last day?

Yes. Also, those who are drawn are not necessarily given.

 

[His clay]

Sorry...

It follows logically, that if regeneration precedes faith, that regeneration can happen apart from faith.

The only way regeneration does not happen apart from faith is if faith precedes regeneration.

Your idea of logic is a non-sequitur. I already dealt with that, but you have ignored it, along with my last simple question. The basic fact is this. Our natures have a direct causal bearing upon what we choose. Because I am not an otter, but rather a human being, then I make choices in keeping with who I am. Now, if God changes a person's heart, which directly impacts what they choose, then faith does not happen apart from regeneration. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

 

[His clay]

I am dealing not with a straw man but with a construct that is the logical conclusion of Calvinistic thinking.

All that you know is your own mind. You have no objective evidence of what you assert. And reality keeps proving that you are wrong.
Sorry, what you call a logical conclusion is a non-sequitur fallacy (see post 146, and many others that I've kept pointing you to, and you have ignored.)

 

[justbyfaith]

Your idea of logic is a non-sequitur. I already dealt with that, but you have ignored it, along with my last simple question. The basic fact is this. Our natures have a direct causal bearing upon what we choose. Because I am not an otter, but rather a human being, then I make choices in keeping with who I am. Now, if God changes a person's heart, which directly impacts what they choose, then faith does not happen apart from regeneration. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

Again, a person is enabled to receive or reject Christ when he or she is drawn to Christ.

They are regenerated at the moment that they receive Christ.

What is so hard about that to understand?

 

[His clay]

Again, a person is enabled to receive or reject Christ when he or she is drawn to Christ.

They are regenerated at the moment that they receive Christ.

What is so hard about that to understand?

Red herring fallacy. You realized that you were trapped, so you changed to a different topic. I'll help you by quoting my post again.

Your idea of logic is a non-sequitur. I already dealt with that, but you have ignored it, along with my last simple question. The basic fact is this. Our natures have a direct causal bearing upon what we choose. Because I am not an otter, but rather a human being, then I make choices in keeping with who I am. Now, if God changes a person's heart, which directly impacts what they choose, then faith does not happen apart from regeneration. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

As you can see in my post above. Nature directly impacts choice; therefore, faith does not happen apart from regeneration in Calvinism. What you call logic is thus shown and demonstrated to be a non-sequitur fallacy. A fallacy is when you fail in your reasoning, and you have done a lot of that lately.

 

[justbyfaith]

My position here has nothing to do with being in debate mode (see Romans 1:29, 2 Corinthians 12:20) but everything to do with the following.

Tit 1:9, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

My hope is that I might actually reach you through the repetition of sound doctrine.

 

[justbyfaith]

You realized that you were trapped, so you changed to a different topic.

No, I'm pretty certain that it is the same topic.

 

[His clay]

My position here has nothing to do with being in debate mode (see Romans 1:29, 2 Corinthians 12:20) but everything to do with the following.

Tit 1:9, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

My hope is that I might actually reach you through the repetition of sound doctrine.

Red herring fallacy. You realized that you were trapped, so you changed to a different topic. I'll help you by quoting my post again.

Your idea of logic is a non-sequitur. I already dealt with that, but you have ignored it, along with my last simple question. The basic fact is this. Our natures have a direct causal bearing upon what we choose. Because I am not an otter, but rather a human being, then I make choices in keeping with who I am. Now, if God changes a person's heart, which directly impacts what they choose, then faith does not happen apart from regeneration. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

As you can see in my post above. Nature directly impacts choice; therefore, faith does not happen apart from regeneration in Calvinism. What you call logic is thus shown and demonstrated to be a non-sequitur fallacy. A fallacy is when you fail in your reasoning, and you have done a lot of that lately.

Your actions have demonstrated that you have been in debate mode. (hence your actions contradiction your above words). The repetition of fallacy is not how to go about changing people's minds.

 

[His clay]

No, I'm pretty certain that it is the same topic.

Your idea of logic is a non-sequitur. I already dealt with that, but you have ignored it, along with my last simple question. The basic fact is this. Our natures have a direct causal bearing upon what we choose. Because I am not an otter, but rather a human being, then I make choices in keeping with who I am. Now, if God changes a person's heart, which directly impacts what they choose, then faith does not happen apart from regeneration. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

Again, the issue was that a person's nature direct impacts what they choose. After all, I can't choose to breath water, because I don't have gills. I can choose to leap tall building with a single bound because my nature has a direct causal bearing upon what I choose, thusly, when you say "apart from" you are wrong and demonstrating a non-sequitur fallacy. Are you still going to keep on ignoring the evidence?

 

[justbyfaith]

A person is enabled to receive or reject Christ when he is drawn to Christ.

 

[His clay]

A person is enabled to receive or reject Christ when he is drawn to Christ.

Red herring fallacy. We are still on the same issue of logical implications of Calvinism, and you have failed repeatedly to deal with the issue I have raised, which demonstrates your assertion of logical conclusion of Calvinism to be nothing more than your own non-sequitur fallacy. I'll quote the post again, so that you can read it.

Your idea of logic is a non-sequitur. I already dealt with that, but you have ignored it, along with my last simple question. The basic fact is this. Our natures have a direct causal bearing upon what we choose. Because I am not an otter, but rather a human being, then I make choices in keeping with who I am. Now, if God changes a person's heart, which directly impacts what they choose, then faith does not happen apart from regeneration. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

 

[justbyfaith]

My "red herring" is simply the sound doctrine by which you can come to understand the reality that you find yourself currently unable to see.

 

[justbyfaith]

Your idea of logic is a non-sequitur. I already dealt with that, but you have ignored it, along with my last simple question. The basic fact is this. Our natures have a direct causal bearing upon what we choose. Because I am not an otter, but rather a human being, then I make choices in keeping with who I am. Now, if God changes a person's heart, which directly impacts what they choose, then faith does not happen apart from regeneration. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

It should be clear that Romans 5:1-2 teaches us that faith precedes regeneration.

We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand.

 

[His clay]

My "red herring" is simply the sound doctrine by which you can come to understand the reality that you find yourself currently unable to see.

Again, you have failed to respond to the issue you have raised and my response to it. Namely, you have failed, yet again, to deal with the reality that nature directly impacts what we choose. Thusly, what you call a logical conclusion of Calvinism is nothing more than a non-sequitur fallacy in your head. Are you going to keep avoiding the issue and dodging? Or are you going to deal with what you have been avoiding? Do you really think that all this bobbing and weaving is demonstrating your point? Do you see now that nature directly impacts choices, and therefore, your reasoning is a non-sequitur fallacy?

 

[justbyfaith]

Again, a person is enabled to receive or reject Christ when he or she is drawn to Christ.

This is not regeneration unless the person actually receives Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:1-2).