"Bart Goddard" wrote in message
news:147.11.17.05.052122000@srcbs.org...
>
>
> gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >> The two sentences:
> >>
> >> God wills all men be saved.
> >>
> >> God wills some men be damned.
> >>
> >
> > I find the first in Scripture.
> > I find the negative of the first in Scripture:
>
> Duh. The second _is_ the logical negation of the
> first. The first point here is that if one defines
> "will" differently in each sentence, then they might
> not be negations of each other. You miss this entirely
> and go off on another rant based _entirely_ upon the
> premise that "will" means the same thing in both
> sentences, in spite of my plain caveat to the contrary.
>
> The second point here is that _your doctrine_ leads
> logically to the second statement. You are completely
> unable to give an answer to this, but instead, every
> time this is brought to your attention, you just
> respond "Oh, well, my perception of the Calvinist
> God is worse."
>
> So what if you can find something worse? You still
> refuse to face up to the heretical flaws in your
> own doctrine.
>
>
> > God has NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked!
>
> This is such a gross strawman. _Nobody_ says that
> God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked. This is
> another of your mantras which have no effect, since they
> are chanted against no real person.

It's not worth arguing with you. You may have all the
last words. As Steve would say.

Gary


((( 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. )))

And being eternal, outside the contraints of time that we are
constrained by here on earth - for just a little while longer anyways -
He is the I Am.

((( 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. )))

In article <7BF72BCF-894E-1989-B15C-832430C80553@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:

>[...]


>> > Rather Paul argues that it was "freely given" and that "it is God who
>> >justifies." Where is "free-will" herein then taught?

>> This has been answered too, and many times: free-will is
>> taught whenever and wherever Scripture gives _commands_ to
>> men.


>Let's be clear.

That would be a pleasant change, Bob. But alas, your very
next sentence fails to accomplish this.

> Free will is _implied_ whenever and whe