You never fail to disappoint, Clete. This post most perfectly exemplifies your M.O.
My "promising sentence" was the premise of my argument, and the Scriptures I presented supported my premise, and the rest of my post consisted of my conclusions from my premise and Holy Scriptures.
A single premise does not an argument make, Nang!
It wasn't even a premise! It was merely a claim! You did exactly what I said you did. You stated your position and then tried to proof text me to death mostly with Scriptures that I could have used as my own proof texts!
Now, the next thing that is supposed to happen with a normal debate partner, is for them (i.e. you) to either challenge or concede my premise, and conclusions.
There were neither! Stating one's position is not an argument, Nang!
And besides, I asked you specific questions relating to the portion of those claims that seemed to be just pulled out of thin air.
But you know what . . . we are having a big barbecue with several of our dearest friends tomorrow (Yes! We have friends!), to celebrate the beautiful new house the Lord provided us in our old age. Which means I must thoroughly clean it once again and do some major cooking and hubby must do all the outside landscaping details, etc.
Hopefully God has predestined you to have a good holiday.
So this kind of negative bickering will not be on my agenda for tonight or tomorrow.
I very intentionally was not bickering. This reaction from you, which is entirely typical, is the real reason you and I are and will remain enemies. To my knowledge you've never once actually engaged the debate. The only reason you're here is to bicker.
I tell you this just to prevent you from posting that I have conceded to your non-argument in any way, shape, or form . . .which is also your M.O.
I only make a claim concerning a concession when such claims are warranted and they are almost always accompanied with an explanation as to why the point concedes the question being debated.
Meanwhile, you might want to ponder whether or how to answer my argument that God's sovereignty means He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, instead of continuing to simply answer with questions (which is an avoidance of logical reasoning) and throwing out blanket denials of my presentation.
You very simply made no such argument. Nothing you quoted said a single word about God's omnipresence or omniscience and His sovereignty is not disputed. What is disputed is your definition of the word 'sovereign' which is not only irrational, it has no basis in Scripture or in common parlance. The word very simply does not mean "absolute meticulous control" as the Calvinist claims and nothing you presented says otherwise.
At least that would be the intelligent and adult thing to do. . .
Every word I say or don't say was predestined by your god though, right?
So what I "might want to do" and what would be the intelligent and adult thing to do is rather irrelevant, isn't it?
Don't you just love it when the Calvinist speaks like an Open Theist?! :chuckle:
They do it all day, every day and don't even notice it!
Well, don't just yell and say so . . . tell me why! Present a counter-argument, and not just a screaming ad hominem denial, for once in your life!
Now, don't get started with lying again, Nang. You know full well that when you came here I gave you more slack than you deserved. You came here for the specific purpose of harassing me and my initial reaction was basically to beg you to engage the argument which you never did. I gave you chance after chance after chance. You chose to make me an enemy. Live with it or leave.
I will check back with you after my party . . .
Nang
Make the argument, Nang!
Pretend that you've been asked to make a presentation in front of 500 college students making the case for the Calvinist worldview. You claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, right? So convince me from Scripture that Calvin's version of God is true! You don't have to prove the entire theological system, just pick some Calvinist distinctive and
ESTABLISH it biblical and/or rationally. That's going to take more than simply stating a doctrine and then throwing in a dash of proof-texts and a pinch of emphatic dogmatism. Pretend your child was in the audience and that his eternal soul was hanging in the balance and his acceptance or rejection of Calvinism (and therefore, in your view, the gospel itself) would hinge on the strength of your argument. I mean really pull out all the stops here, Nang! Make an argument like the life of your children depended on it.
If you do that, I'll respond with gladness. If you do not, you'll go back on my ignore list.
YOU CHOOSE!
Resting in Him,
Clete
