The famous Calvinist Churchhill analogy shot down by Joe Dongell

This is a segment of Jerry Walls' opening statement in "The Great Debate: Predestination vs. Free Will." You can purchase the full debate from The Apologetics Group at: http://www.theapologeticsgroup.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=281

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Calvinism
• Arminianism
• Free Will
• Predestination
• Sovereignty
• John Piper
• Romans 9
• God's love
• Debate
• Love of God
• Grace
• Atonement
• Kerrigan Skelly
• Jesse Morrell
• John MacArthur
• John Wesley

[Ogram1000]

Did Adam and woman act on their own will OR was the snake actually GOD in disguise? and IF they died Just HOW did they HEAR God...cause I have be told that we can not hear GOD if we are dead.So were they a little dead or a lot dead?

[DougCameraMan]

there's no sound after the first minute.

[nbanuchu]

@1689Baptist God is under necessity to do something (which means it is impossible for him to do otherwise)? Something (it must be outside of God) like justice forces God to act a certain way?

[nbanuchu]

@1689Baptist "Eph.1 is personal not Corporate"?

(1) In Eph 1:1-2, the apostle directs his epistle to a group, "to the saints" and the "you" in vs.2 refers to the group, not an individual.

(2) Vs.3 refers to the same group, "blessed us".

(3) In vs.4-5 reference is made to those "chosen" and "predestined" as corporate, "us", not an individual: "he hath chosen us"; "Having predestined us; same is true for vs.6: "he hath made is accepted in the beloved".

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 No one denied that God will be glorified in the judgment of the unrighteous; God will be seen as holy through their condemnation. However, that is not the preferred way God seeks to glorify Himself. he'd rather do such through the salvation of the sinner. Again, Ezk 18:32 confirms this (as do other texts).

[nbanuchu]

@1689Baptist The phrase "all" is not necessary but assumed and a logical understanding of the text if all are sinners. The point made is Christ died for them, not as the "elect" but as sinners and against God. The reference to "us" shows to whom the benefits of the atonement had been applied, however, there is not intention to restrict the atonement itself to a "particular elect". Note, Rom5:12: "all have sinned" and v.18: ""upon all men unto justification".

[S7VIIN]

@olorin3k I don't think you understand the whole context of my statement. I do agree with what you have stated however. Also, is there anyway in which I could access your dissertaion?

[olorin3k]

@S7VIIN Actually, John was generally not talking about evangelism in his 1st-2nd Great Commandment statements and exhortations to love, since he was talking about the special intra-ecclesial love of Christians between God and one another, which Francis Schaeffer (my past mentor) called "the mark of the Christian." (My dissertation is on this 2d Great Commandment, which does not immediately relate to direct outreach but provides secondary, indirect centripetal evangelistic attraction.)

[S7VIIN]

@Hello1689 Talking about the love of God isn't emotionalism either. Now I can go ahead and write something like this: " You see! This is why Arminians get so upset with people who think like you. Srawman after strawman is all we ever hear from you." I shouldn't though, because arrogance isn't a virtue. Unless it's being used against a heretic like me right?

BTW, please forgive me for being so stupid. Maybe you could teach people like me proper logic.

[S7VIIN]

@Hello1689 Why would I need to ignore those passages? Do me a favor and exegete them for me. Calvinists cite passages like that over and over, please exegete the passage and tell me what you get out of Acts 13:48. I don't need to ignore any verse in the Bible.