Okay, and? Also the "S" word isn't a swear word, just like the word crap isn't. Although I don't like to use "S" word. I don't like saying it. But that's my conviction.
This whole discussion actually refutes Calvinism. You’d swear people have a legitimate free will after hearing this podcast. If you really, truly believe the core of Calvinism, you shouldn’t be complaining about anything or correcting anyone because your system believes God decrees and determines all things that come to pass. A cage stage Calvinist in your theological view is merely acting according to their nature and God’s decree and couldn’t have done otherwise.
Calvinism also teaches compatibilism, I don't think you know what Calvinism is fully. Trust me it took me a long time to understand it as well. I've been saved for 5 years, and I researched Calvinism for almost 3 years, I went back and forth. I can confidently say now I'm a calvinist.
It’s interesting how you prop up John Calvin as a loving and compassionate man, all while leaving out the historical facts about him bullying, condoning violence, and murder. Even in his writings, he defended his violence. (Yes, I’ve read his material) That’s one of the problems with you Calvinists. You leave out legitimate information and facts in order to paint your position and leaders in your echo chamber in the best light possible. Do you all just expect people to believe what you say as facts and not do any research and be Bereans? Same with Romans 9. Y’all refuse to interpret Romans 9 in light of the actual context of that day and taking Paul’s Old Testament quotations and allusions seriously. Anyone who studies Romans 9 at the depth it requires instead of reading it as some stand-alone chapter with no context, they would never come to a Calvinistic conclusion. By the way, Paul concludes his argument in Romans 11. No wonder Jeff understood Romans 9 in a Calvinistic way without knowing much about the rest of the Bible, and I doubt he spent time looking into the historical context of that day. That’s vital information for proper interpretation, and Calvinists just leave that out constantly.
Oh nice Houstonian here and I attended redeemer in tomball a few times and really enjoyed his preaching. Thanks for having medders on
Forward to 4:30
Great discussion.
49:30 Did she swear? pretty sure she said the S word?
Okay, and? Also the "S" word isn't a swear word, just like the word crap isn't. Although I don't like to use "S" word. I don't like saying it. But that's my conviction.
This whole discussion actually refutes Calvinism. You’d swear people have a legitimate free will after hearing this podcast. If you really, truly believe the core of Calvinism, you shouldn’t be complaining about anything or correcting anyone because your system believes God decrees and determines all things that come to pass. A cage stage Calvinist in your theological view is merely acting according to their nature and God’s decree and couldn’t have done otherwise.
God can act through your free will. Its not mutually exclusive, because we hold to the doctrine of concurrence. God bless
BK not sure if you know what Calvinism is really about.
Calvinism also teaches compatibilism, I don't think you know what Calvinism is fully. Trust me it took me a long time to understand it as well. I've been saved for 5 years, and I researched Calvinism for almost 3 years, I went back and forth. I can confidently say now I'm a calvinist.
It’s interesting how you prop up John Calvin as a loving and compassionate man, all while leaving out the historical facts about him bullying, condoning violence, and murder. Even in his writings, he defended his violence. (Yes, I’ve read his material) That’s one of the problems with you Calvinists. You leave out legitimate information and facts in order to paint your position and leaders in your echo chamber in the best light possible. Do you all just expect people to believe what you say as facts and not do any research and be Bereans? Same with Romans 9. Y’all refuse to interpret Romans 9 in light of the actual context of that day and taking Paul’s Old Testament quotations and allusions seriously. Anyone who studies Romans 9 at the depth it requires instead of reading it as some stand-alone chapter with no context, they would never come to a Calvinistic conclusion. By the way, Paul concludes his argument in Romans 11. No wonder Jeff understood Romans 9 in a Calvinistic way without knowing much about the rest of the Bible, and I doubt he spent time looking into the historical context of that day. That’s vital information for proper interpretation, and Calvinists just leave that out constantly.