[18:00] Nomos [kashubian@] has joined #CathApol
[18:00] Waeg [Waeg@] has joined #CathApol
[18:00] <Dolec> We must take responsibility for our own, there is not heirachy within the infinite universe
[18:01] <tollhouse> Duke, are Popes and bishops also considered apostles?
[18:02] <Dolec> we can all see the lord if we can take the time to do so...you do not bishops, priests, shamans...
[18:02] <Duke77> there was hierarchy in the Church from its very beginning
[18:03] <Dolec> Exactly, this is why it will fail
[18:03] <Duke77> Jesus selected leaders..
[18:03] <Duke77> the leaders selected successors...
[18:03] <Dolec> leaders to speak the correct path...
[18:04] <Dolec> not to build armys
[18:04] <Dolec> which the church did...and creted genocide for countless natives
[18:05] <tollhouse> Duke, if the Pope holds the same office as Peter, doesn't that make the pope an apostle since Peter was an apostle?
[18:06] <Duke77> Dolec, those were "men" doing what "men" did back then... that's just "the way it was" back then...
[18:06] <Nomos> tollhouse: faulty reasoning.
[18:06] <Dolec> natives who do not believe in jesus...will not die in enternal damnation...
[18:06] <tollhouse> Nomos, why?
[18:06] <Duke77> even within the short history of THIS country (assuming you're USA)
[18:07] Waeg [Waeg@] has left #CathApol
[18:07] <Nomos> tollhouse: Converse accident, or hasty generalization as the fallacy is often referred.
[18:08] <tollhouse> well I'll take that as a no, Nomos.
[18:08] <Nomos> tollhouse: Unless, by 'office', you are referring to apostleship.
[18:09] <tollhouse> nomos, that is the office peter held, wasn't it?
[18:09] <Nomos> tollhouse; So if one were to claim that Peter held the office of apostle, and the Pope held the same office of apostle, and if holding the office of apostle made one an apostle, then one could argue that the pope was an apostle.
[18:09] <Nomos> tollhouse: Peter was an apostle, yes.
[18:09] <Duke77> In a sense, John Paul II is an Apostle... yes... he sits in the Apostolic See.
[18:09] <Nomos> tollhouse: no Pope is an apostle, no informed catholic would ever make such an absurd claim.

[18:09] <tollhouse> nomos, I'm just asking if Catholics consider the Pope to be an apostle.
[18:10] <tollhouse> Duke, why do you say "in a sense"? What do you mean by that? How does he differ from ordinary apostles?
[18:10] <tollhouse> Nomos, are you saying that Duke is uninformed?
[18:10] <Dolec> it seems the apostles got carried away...
[18:10] <Nomos> tollhouse: some catholics may consider the pope as a demigod for all I know (I don't know all catholics), but no magisterial proclamation would ever be so naive as to equate the papal office with apostolicity.
[18:10] <Nomos> tollhouse: no, it was inferred. :]
[18:11] <tollhouse> Dolec, what do you mean by that?
[18:11] <Dolec> i will be off ...will come back..hope to chat again..
[18:11] <tollhouse> Nomos, do you think Duke is uninformed?
[18:11] <Nomos> tollhouse: Though, it may help for precision in meaning of terms - as perhaps Duke has a different meaning attribited to 'apostle' then is conventionally used.
[18:11] <Nomos> attributed rather
[18:12] <Nomos> tollhouse: I don't know Duke, nor the meaning he attributes to the term 'apostle'.
[18:12] <tollhouse> Duke, what do you mean by "apostle"? What do you mean by saying the pope is an apostle "in a sense"?
[18:14] <tollhouse> Duke, in what sense is the Pope an apostle?
[18:14] <Duke77> He is in the Apostolic See...
[18:14] <Duke77> a successor to the Apostle Peter...
[18:14] <Duke77> He is not "one of the 12"

[18:14] <tollhouse> So he's an apostle in the same sense as Peter was?
[18:14] <tollhouse> Peter was one of the 12, wasn't he?

[18:15] <Duke77> not in "the same sense" but a "similar sense"
[18:15] Dolec [~pirch@adsl-141-151-141-220.bellatlantic.net] has left #CathApol
[18:15] <tollhouse> nomos, do you understand what Duke is trying to say?
[18:17] <Nomos> tollhouse: Not very precisely -- all that I see is that the Pope is in one sense an apostle and in another sense not an apostle.
[18:17] <Nomos> tollhouse: Again, understanding what he means by 'apostle' would probably be illuminating.
[18:18] <Nomos> Duke77: Are you bigscott?
[18:18] <Duke77> The Pope has the authority of St. Peter... in that sense, he is an Apostle... he is not one of the 12, if you restrict "Apostle" to that definition, he is not one.
[18:18] <Duke77> Nomos, yes.
[18:18] <tollhouse> Duke, are you giving me your own personal views, or is this the official position of the RC church?
[18:19] <Nomos> Duke77: Who told you that the pope has the authority of Peter?

The subject changed and that question went unanswered, so I'll answer now. Jesus tells us that Peter was selected with a primacy not given to the other apostles. It was to Peter, alone, that Jesus was speaking in John 21:15-17. It was to Peter, alone, that Jesus mentions "keys" in Matthew 16:19, and on Peter, alone in verse 18 that Jesus promises to build His Church. Now, did the other Apostles share in that? Yes, clearly all of them are the first foundations of the New Testament Church, but Peter is given a special role of primacy - of headship (taking the specific role of Shepherd from Christ, by Christ's own words [John 21:15-17]). So, "Who told me?" Jesus did, as recorded in the Gospels. (Also note that Nomos asked that question and immediately changed the subject to "interesting discussion with James White on your page...")

[18:20] <Nomos> interesting discussion with james white on your page.,
[18:21] <tollhouse> what page?
[18:21] <Nomos> augustine had some good theology - though some of it was terrible.
[18:22] <Nomos> I agree with him in his rejection of the immaculate conception at any rate.
[18:22] <Nomos> tollhouse: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/aug131.htm
[18:22] <GRAMafk> Nomos how do you determine what part of Augustine's theology is good and what part is terrible?
[18:22] <Nomos> GRAMafk: By presupposing Scipture as the ultimate criterion in theological orthodoxy.
[18:23] <Duke77> Nomos, I don't think he "rejected" it
[18:23] <GRAMafk> who's interpretation of Scripture?
[18:23] Calvinist is on IRC
[18:23] <Nomos> GRAMafk: mine of course.
[18:23] <Nomos> GRAMafk: no one is immune to self-interpretation.
[18:23] <GRAMafk> ah, so you are the ultimate authority over the bible
[18:23] <Nomos> hence, the rhetoric of the question.
[18:23] <GRAMafk> nope not rhetoric at all
[18:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: no, you assume that by my self-interpretation (which is unavoidable) I set myself as an 'ultimate authority'.
[18:24] <GRAMafk> so you can' tbe sure which part of his theology stinks and what part is good can you nomos?
[18:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I just don't delegate that task to some self-professed authority and pretend to get out of the loop.
[18:24] <GRAMafk> uh, not assume, observe
[18:25] <Nomos> GRAMafk: depends what you mean by sure. I believe I can determine, by God's revealed word, which part was good and which was bad.
[18:25] <Nomos> GRAMafk: But I hardly place my self in a position of infallibility.
[18:25] <GRAMafk> oh and how do you know that you can determine it and I can't?
[18:26] <Nomos> GRAMafk: If I am wrong, I would be happy to be corrected - its a daily journey.

This is a good attitude to have. (Just a comment I had to insert).

[18:26] <GRAMafk> whats the difference between infallibility and "I can determine, by God's revealed word etc"?
[18:26] <GRAMafk> IC
[18:26] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I haven't been as presumptuous as that to determine what you can and cannot know.
[18:26] <Nomos> GRAMafk: as I obviously don't know you.
[18:26] <GRAMafk> Well a good start is to read Scotts debate with White
[18:26] <GRAMafk> then some Sungenis debates with him
[18:26] <Duke77> was in private...
[18:27] <Duke77> sorry
[18:27] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I'm not much interested in those debates really - I think they miss the real point.

Hmmm, and Nomos just stated he is reading one of mine, and openly stated it was "interesting." A bit of a contradiction here.

[18:27] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Though I have listened to a number of White's tapes.
[18:27] <GRAMafk> nomos, I think you are afraid to see the Calvinist doctrine defeated
[18:27] <tollhouse> I want to see it. Is it on the internet?
[18:27] <Nomos> GRAMafk: That's nice. :]
[18:28] bad_boy [turbo@Kitchener-ppp111622.sympatico.ca] has joined #CathApol
[18:28] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Some might be offended by such juvenile presumption, but I'm really not too concerned.
[18:28] bad_boy [turbo@Kitchener-ppp111622.sympatico.ca] has left #CathApol
[18:28] <GRAMafk> Sungenis eats James lunch so to speak all the time and Scott did so a few times
[18:28] <Duke77> tollhouse, my debate with White is...
[18:28] <Nomos> GRAMafk: too bad for James White I guess.
[18:28] <tollhouse> ...?
[18:28] <Duke77> there's a link to it on my response page...
[18:28] <GRAMafk> right read em
[18:29] <tollhouse> where?
[18:29] Sylvester [Sylvester@ts042d02.det-mi.concentric.net] has joined #CathApol
[18:29] Calvinist is on IRC
[18:29] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I don't have James White tatooed to my forehead, so that's not likely to cause me any embarrasment.
[18:29] <GRAMafk> well have to get back to making dinner
[18:29] <GRAMafk> uh, it isn' t White who is defeated but Calvinism
[18:29] <GRAMafk> big time
[18:29] <GRAMafk> bb later
[18:29] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Don't be too upset if I don't take you seriously. :]
[18:30] <tollhouse> Duke, where's the web page?
[18:30] <Nomos> GRAMafk: To think you are immune to the autonomy of initial presuppositions only reflects an inadequate comprehension of the issue that is actually at hand.
[18:30] <Duke77> http://www.a2z.org/acts/cathapol/jw_debate1_response.htm
[18:30] <tollhouse> thanks
[18:31] <Nomos> GRAMafk: But I suppose it's easier to just throw out presumptious commentary.
[18:32] <Duke77> Nomos, have you read my response?
[18:32] <Sylvester> Do you mean perhaps "presumptuous"
[18:32] <Nomos> Duke77: Your response to what?
[18:33] <Duke77> my debate with White....
[18:33] <Nomos> Sylvester: Great inductive effort. ;]
[18:34] <Nomos> Sylvester: Isn't it perhaps obvious that I meant presumptuous? ;]
[18:34] <Duke77> that "i" and "u" right next to each other wull get you all the time!
[18:34] <Nomos> Duke77: no, not yet - though, looks interesting nonetheless.

And again Nomos confirms it "looks interesting," so I guess we can just disregard the comment stating "I'm not interested."

(snipped 30+ minutes of talk about syntax, math and music, that discussion did continue for a while longer too, and I am snipping those comments out below here too.)

[18:53] <Fiddler> Duke?
[18:53] <Fiddler> Council of Orange, 529 AD:
[18:53] <Fiddler> CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith.
[18:55] tollhouse throws out the word, "transubstantiation," and then runs to a corner to watch and see what happens.
[18:56] Savonarola [soli_deo_g@bal-cas1-cs-31.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has joined #CathApol
[18:56] <GRAMafk> fiddler we believe that
[18:56] Fiddler looks for an RC "In whom is no guile."
[18:56] <Verga> Yo here
[18:56] <Fiddler> Well, Duke77 believes in free will.
[18:56] <GRAMafk> Fiddler insults are not allowed
[18:57] <GRAMafk> we believe that God must draw us
[18:57] <GRAMafk> but we must respond
[18:57] <GRAMafk> Hey Scott where are you?????
[18:57] <Fiddler> How can you believe 2 contadictories, Gram?
[18:57] <Fiddler> Too cluttered here,
[18:58] Fiddler [sgys@ip-207-155-84-68.cybertime.net] has left #CathApol
[18:58] <GRAMafk> It isn't contradictory Fiddler. God draws, we respond
[18:58] <GRAMafk> well if he would just wait

I've been snipping the "clutter" as Fiddler called it.

[18:58] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Why do you think some people respond and other's don't?
[18:58] <Verga> Gram but we do not have to we have the option of walking away
[18:58] <GRAMafk> free will nomoa
[18:58] <GRAMafk> err Nomos

[18:58] <GRAMafk> yes Verga
[18:59] <Nomos> GRAMafk: What is freewill?
[18:59] <GRAMafk> fiddler just misunderstands
[18:59] <GRAMafk> :)
[18:59] <Verga> clearly at least three of us here did that to some extent or another
[18:59] <GRAMafk> Done of one's own accord; voluntary.
[18:59] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Usually when I hear people use the term 'freewill' they're referring to man's ability to do as he chooses - is that how you're using the term?
[18:59] <Sylvester> the ability to accept or decline God's gracious offer of reconciliation with Him found in the ministry and Sacraments of His church.
[19:00] <Nomos> GRAMafk; Okie, but if freewill is so defined, your answer to my question is tautological.
[19:00] <GRAMafk> Nomos we do not accept the calvinistic free choice without true freewill
[19:00] <GRAMafk> ic
[19:00] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Yea, I think that's obvious. :]
[19:00] <Nomos> GRAMafk: But maybe we could have a good discussion on the topic nonetheless?
[19:00] <Verga> The will must be free or the choice is not
[19:01] <Nomos> Verga: What does it mean for the will to be free?
[19:01] <Nomos> Verga: Does that mean the will chooses at random?

[19:01] <GRAMafk> I don't think so Nomos, Calvinistic verbal gymnastics are so frustrating to me
[19:01] <Verga> No not at random per se
[19:01] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Well, I don't wish to frustrate you. :]
[19:01] <GRAMafk> thanks a bunch Nomos ;)
[19:01] <Nomos> Verga: So what do you believe causes us to choose one way and not another?
[19:01] <Verga> it couldbe arbritarary
[19:02] <Verga> our selves , our nature and our person

[19:02] Duke77 changes topic to "Did God Give Man Free Will?"
[19:02] <GRAMafk> wb dukie ole boy :)
[19:02] <Duke77> :-)
[19:03] <Nomos> Verga: Your answer is confusing to me, because in essence, it doesn't seem to be saying any more than 'we choose some things over another because we choose somethings over another'.
[19:03] <GRAMafk> thats right Nomos why is that confusing
[19:03] <GRAMafk> looks like english may not be your mother tongue
[19:03] <Verga> Nomos we must have a free chhoice or the result is meaqningless
[19:03] <Duke77> Did Adam freely choose to eat of the fruit?
[19:03] <Nomos> Verga: Our 'self', our 'nature' and our 'person' =- what determines those things?
[19:04] <Nomos> Verga: I don't know what you mean by 'free choice' though.
[19:04] <Savonarola> Duke, the discussion is not about Adam.
[19:04] <GRAMafk> ya know Nomos I think you spend too much time thinking. has anyone else ever told you that?
[19:04] <Verga> Genetic determine our self, God gave us our nature and our person is based on our past experieneces( nature it you will)
[19:04] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Yes. :]
[19:05] <Nomos> Verga: Hold that thought, I need to run to the waste disposal room.
[19:05] <GRAMafk> well, chill, go ride a horse or play a game of sports
[19:05] <Sylvester> See, this is going to be one of those discussions where the conclusion will be staved off indefinitely due to the interminable defining of terms.
[19:05] <Verga> LOL
[19:05] <GRAMafk> yep
[19:05] <GRAMafk> there are some people who like to discuss for discussion sake
[19:05] <GRAMafk> Im not one of them
[19:05] <Verga> can we discuss that
[19:06] <Duke77> sounds like "nature called" Nomos... :-)
[19:06] <GRAMafk> lol
[19:06] <Sylvester> And even if a conclusion will be reached the terms in question will have become so ragged that distinguishing between them will render any conclusion less than clear.
[19:06] <Verga> but weas it his choice or was he forced to
[19:06] <Nomos> back.
[19:06] <Sylvester> Define "is"
[19:06] <Nomos> Duke77: heh
[19:07] <Sylvester> Define "Choice" define "nature", define "what"
[19:07] <Nomos> Verga: You mentioned 'genetics' in regard to the nature of our self?
[19:07] <Verga> Nomos free choice is one not done under duress
[19:07] <Nomos> Sylvester: I don't apologize for precision.
[19:07] <Nomos> Sylvester: Especially on highly controversial words.
[19:07] <Sylvester> Nor should you.
[19:07] <Nomos> on=woth
[19:07] <Nomos> with
[19:08] <Verga> Nompos there are certain genetic predispositions you will agree
[19:08] <Sylvester> Such precision enabled our former president to escape punishment quite neatly.
[19:08] <Nomos> Verga: Again, I don't understand how you use the term 'free choice'. So far the explanation equates to 'we choose that which we choose' - but that's more tautological than it is helpful.
[19:08] <Sylvester> "Nature"
[19:08] <Sylvester> Natura
[19:09] <Nomos> Verga: Well perhaps I will agree - do you agree that our genome is determined by God's sovereign decree?
[19:09] <Sylvester> Physis
[19:09] <Verga> No I don't
[19:09] <Duke77> the genome descibes the container, not the "person"
[19:09] <Nomos> Duke77: hold that thought.
[19:10] <Nomos> Verga: If God doesn't determine our genetic composition, then what does?\
[19:10] <Nomos> Verga: the tainted water my mom drank while pregnant?
[19:10] <Verga> It is method of design not a cut and dried cut and paste
[19:11] Sylvester tentatively suggests that our genetic composition is dictated by the genetic composition of our parents.
[19:11] <Nomos> Verga: method of design by what designer?
[19:11] <Nomos> Sylvester: ad infinitum
[19:11] <Sylvester> no, ad adamum
[19:11] <Sylvester> :-)
[19:11] <Nomos> Sylvester: heh
[19:11] <Verga> Nomos you are trying to get me to agree to predestination and I can't because we do have free will/
[19:12] <Verga> Adam had the choice in the Garden and I had the Choice wheni came back to the Church
[19:12] <Nomos> Verga; I'm not trying to get you to agree with anything actually - people agree for different reasons. I'm trying to understand where you stand, or what you think on the topic.
[19:12] <Nomos> Verga: Repeating the phrase 'freewill' or 'freechoice' without explaining what you mean by those terms doesn't help the discussion.
[19:13] <Nomos> Verga: You say that our choice is contingent upon our being, and that our being is contingent upon our genetic composition - I'm trying to follow the chain of though - naturally, I'm curious as to what our genetic composition is contingent upon.
[19:13] <Verga> Well given your use of the lingistics before it is faily clear that things not done under duress are free
[19:13] <Sylvester> Free will is the innate ability of the human creature to choose God or reject Him.
[19:13] <Verga> but that is not all it is contingent upon ther are the other condideratins i named
[19:14] <Nomos> Sylvester: Appealing to biologically-given abilities doesn't help if I don't understand the nature of the ability.
[19:14] <GRAMafk> or to chose pizza or reject it :)
[19:14] <Nomos> Sylvester: The ability to choose or reject God is probably not random in your view, so clearly the choice is contingent.
[19:14] <Nomos> Sylvester: Obviously that's what I'm getting at.
[19:14] <GRAMafk> sorry feeling silly first day I've feld well in a week :)
[19:14] <Verga> why isn't it random
[19:14] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I choose pizza.
[19:14] <Verga> with mushrooms
[19:14] <Nomos> Verga; Well, perhaps in your view it is random - is that what you're advocating?
[19:14] <GRAMafk> :)
[19:15] <Verga> random as in the motion of toms or random as in thought patterens
[19:15] <GRAMafk> nomos the H.S. draws us
[19:15] <GRAMafk> and we say yes or now
[19:15] <Sylvester> I choose ham and pineapple on my pizza.
[19:15] <tollhouse> i like pineapple and canadian baccon
[19:15] <GRAMafk> pizza draws the tummy and we say yes or no
[19:15] <Nomos> Sylvester: amen to that.
[19:15] <Verga> then I want anchovies
[19:15] <GRAMafk> yuck pineapple on pizza
[19:16] <GRAMafk> anchovies ikkk
[19:16] <Sylvester> Yes, GRAM, right where it belongs.
[19:16] <Verga> Nomos how doyou define random?
[19:16] <Nomos> GRAMafk: If the HS draws everyone, and not everyone chooses God, what factor led one to one camp and the other to the opposition?
[19:16] <Verga> there own choice
[19:16] <GRAMafk> freewill nomos
[19:16] <Verga> there freedomt o choose
[19:16] <Nomos> Verga: as it is commonly understood, that without any specific pattern, purpose, design, objective, et cetra.
[19:17] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Ok. And what is 'freewill'?
[19:17] <Nomos> GRAMafk: No one has explained the tenets of that term yet.
[19:17] <GRAMafk> Nomos we are going in a circle
[19:17] <Nomos> GRAMafk: btw, pineapple is very tasty on pizza.
[19:17] <Verga> sure i did anything not done under duress
[19:17] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Yes, but its not my circle.
[19:17] <Sylvester> Nomos, no, it is not random...every human being is born restless until he or she rests in Him (Augustine) so i posit as a first principle that every human being is born with a desire for communion with God...
[19:17] <GRAMafk> Nomos stop thinking go have your pizza :)
[19:18] <Sylvester> Original sin corrupts that, but the choice may still be made, and it is made by the human person, not by God.
[19:18] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I wish. Im not in a position to do that. :]
[19:18] <Nomos> Sylvester: And is the choice non-contingent?
[19:18] <Sylvester> Sylvester, no, not absolutely.
[19:19] <Sylvester> err, Nomos...heh
[19:19] <Nomos> heh
[19:19] <Nomos> Sylvester: what does it mean to be 'not absolutely contingent'?
[19:19] <Verga> Nomos again anything not done under duress is free will
[19:19] <Nomos> Sylvester: If something is contingent in any respect or capacity, then by defintion, such is contingent.
[19:19] <Sylvester> It means that God grants the grace to accept with the offer.
[19:20] <Nomos> Verga: So if you're not threatened into something, its a free choice?
[19:20] <Sylvester> So, one cannot hear the offer of the Gospel in a vacuum as it were.
[19:20] <Sylvester> The Grace is there with it.
[19:20] <Verga> duress is not alwqays a threat
[19:20] <Nomos> Sylvester: God grants the grace to accept? Does that mean that the choice is contingent upon God's grace?
[19:20] <Sylvester> The Grace acts more effectively on the conscience relatively unseared by sin and neglect.
[19:20] <GRAMafk> Nomos you are assuming that God cannot be loved
[19:20] <Nomos> Verga: OK, so no coerced?
[19:20] <GRAMafk> interesting
[19:20] <Sylvester> Nomos, of course.
[19:20] <Verga> that is better
[19:20] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Where have I made that assumption?
[19:21] <Nomos> Sylvester: Do all receive that grace?
[19:21] <GRAMafk> it seems that you think that a person accepts God out of fear
[19:21] <Sylvester> But even so, a selfish soul may reject the offer.
[19:21] <Nomos> Sylvester: I've not stated such.
[19:21] <Verga> some do
[19:21] <Sylvester> Everywhere the gospel is preached
[19:21] <Nomos> Sylvester: I wasn't the one that used the word 'duress'.
[19:21] <Verga> Pascals waqger comes to mind
[19:21] <Sylvester> Nomos, um, nor was I.
[19:22] <Nomos> Sylvester: sorry
[19:22] <Nomos> <GRAMafk> it seems that you think that a person accepts God out of fear
[19:22] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I wasn't the one that used the word 'duress'.

[19:22] <Sylvester> In any case, the responsibility for damnation is that of the one who rejects the gospel.
[19:22] <Verga> I was
[19:22] Duke77 has no bones about admitting I fear God.
[19:22] <Nomos> Duke77: Well said.
[19:22] GRAMafk thinks Nomos needs a hobby :)
[19:22] <Nomos> Verga: Pascal's wager wasn't meant to be a proofset.
[19:23] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I have many. :]
[19:23] <Verga> No but it expalins the acceptance based on fear
[19:23] <Verga> do you fear hell/damnartion
[19:23] <GRAMafk> whats one of your hobbies unrelated to thinking too much Nomos?
[19:23] <Nomos> Sylvester: You believe that God grants the grace that enables people to choose Him wherever the Gospel is preached? Have I understood you correctly?
[19:23] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I'm an avid scuba diver.
[19:23] <Verga> If you choose God based on that fear/ respectwell.....
[19:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: mountain biking.
[19:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: tennis.
[19:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: moutain climbing.
[19:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: snowboarding, water skiing.
[19:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: more?
[19:24] <GRAMafk> ah too cold to do those things?
[19:24] <Sylvester> The grace to accept comes with the offer, but the choice is the persons whether to accept it or not. In this choice he or she is free and uncoerced.
[19:24] <GRAMafk> snowboarding is good
[19:24] <Nomos> GRAMafk: sometimes.
[19:25] <Nomos> Sylvester: Then that leads us back to my initial inquiry - what factor leads one to choose and another to reject?
[19:25] <Nomos> Sylvester: Is that choice random?
[19:25] <GRAMafk> freewill nomos
[19:25] <GRAMafk> what else do you want?
[19:26] <Nomos> The claim was that it was based upon our being, and our being was based upon our genome - but what our genetic composition is derived from is beyond me at this point.
[19:26] <Sylvester> nomos, the inclination of the individual, his or her conscience, several factors...
[19:26] <GRAMafk> we are drawn and we eighter accept or reject
[19:26] <GRAMafk> does ANYONE understand what Nomos is getting at?
[19:26] <GRAMafk> scott did you go again?
[19:26] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I don't understand how appealing to 'freewill' as to the causation of our 'freechoice' is illuminating to my inquiry given the misunderstanding I have of your use of the term 'freewill'.
[19:26] <Verga> Nomos i listed three you are harping on one it is acombination
[19:26] Savonarola understands. :-)
[19:26] <Duke77> here
[19:26] <Nomos> Sylvester: And those factors, are they contingent or random?
[19:26] <Duke77> in and out...
[19:26] Savonarola is now known as Calvinist
[19:26] <GRAMafk> I don't misunderstand freewill you do
[19:27] <GRAMafk> stay here :(
[19:27] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Yes, read what I said.
[19:27] Calvinist is on IRC
[19:27] <Sylvester> i don't think those are the only choices.
[19:27] <Verga> Nomos you understand it you don't accept it
[19:27] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I said I misunderstand how you're using the term 'freewill', hence *my* misunderstanding.
[19:27] <GRAMafk> oic
[19:27] <Duke77> Who is drawn? (hint John 12:32)
[19:27] <Nomos> Verga: How can I accept something I don't understand? (I don't use the term myself)
[19:27] <GRAMafk> Is english your second language Nomos?
[19:27] <Calvinist> Duke, all of those given to the Son?
[19:27] <Nomos> Duke77: ALl that the Father gives the Son - John 6
[19:28] <Sylvester> But for the sake of simplicity, I will say that they are contingent, but not coercively so.
[19:28] <Verga> As i said you understand it you don't accept it
[19:28] <Verga> you have a Meta understanding
[19:28] <Duke77> Cal, what does John 12:32 say?
[19:28] <Nomos> GRAMafk: No, it is my native tongue.
[19:28] <Calvinist> Duke, and those given to the Son are not the world at large (John 17:9).
[19:28] <Nomos> Verga: Actually, I think the term is meaningless, primarily since I've yet to see any coherent meaning attributed to the term.
[19:28] <Calvinist> Duke, don't you have a Bible? :)
[19:28] <GRAMafk> then I don't understand why you don't understand Done of one's own accord; voluntary.
[19:28] <Sylvester> there is a complex of events and considerations which lead the individual to the nexus, but the choice made there is made in the human will and nowhere else.
[19:29] <Duke77> I didn't ask who is given, I asked who is drawn... (James made that same mistake in our debate).
[19:29] <Nomos> Sylvester: Again, you're doing nothing more than presenting a tautology.
[19:29] <Verga> That is what i said you have a Meta underastnding you don't accept the proposition of free will so you claimnot to understand it
[19:29] <Sylvester> tautology schmautology...
[19:29] <Calvinist> Duke, those given are the ones drawn, it is really very simple.
[19:29] <Sylvester> language is inadequate
[19:29] <Calvinist> No more, no less.
[19:29] <Nomos> Sylvester: Appealing to the 'human will' as the source of the choice begs the question as to the nature of the human will and if such nature is contingent or random.
[19:29] <Duke77> Cal... it doesn't say that.
[19:29] <Sylvester> because even behind all this there IS an election.
[19:29] <Calvinist> Sure it does, Duke.
[19:30] <Nomos> Sylvester: I avoid tautologies and other fallacies myself in my strive for clarity and precision. ;]
[19:30] <Verga> Nomos if i did not know he was already dead i would be certain that you are Richard LaCroix, (that is a compliment by the way
[19:30] <Duke77> well... yes... those given are among the drawn
[19:30] <Duke77> the drawing happens first
[19:30] <Calvinist> And that is where you were wrong in the debate (probably a misunderstanding).
[19:30] <Nomos> Verga: I do not know Mr. LaCroix.
[19:30] <Calvinist> Duke, drawing then giving?
[19:30] <Duke77> no... not a misunderstanding at all...
[19:30] <Duke77> on my part anyway
[19:30] <Verga> please consider it a complment he was a rtruely fine human being
[19:31] <Nomos> Sylvester: Do we will randomally?
[19:31] <Nomos> randomly rather
[19:31] <Sylvester> no we do not will randomly, but we can will perversely.
[19:31] <Duke77> yes... 1) drawing 2) giving 3) Coming to Christ on the Last Day
[19:31] <Duke77> in that order
[19:31] <Nomos> Sylvester: Are will is perverse, hence the actions of the will are perverse?
[19:31] <Nomos> are=our
[19:32] <Calvinist> Duke, those given to the Son will be drawn. Let me ask, what is the nature of this drawing?
[19:32] <Nomos> Sylvester: Let me reask that intelligibly
[19:32] <Sylvester> We can will contrary to our own inclinations...we can will suddenly for what we heretofor did not desire.
[19:32] <Nomos> Sylvester: Our will is perverse, hence the actions of the will are perverse?
[19:32] <Sylvester> Nomos, not always.
[19:32] <Nomos> Sylvester: What causes the Will to go one way and not the other?
[19:32] <Calvinist> Coming to Christ on the last day? Is this your own interpretation, Duke?
[19:32] <Duke77> no, it doesn't say those who are drawn will be given, it says those who are given will not fail to come to Him.
[19:32] <Sylvester> Sometimes we will according to our desires, and sometimes according to our needs and sometimes not.
[19:32] RCatholic is on IRC
[19:33] RCatholic [newbie@AC8976AA.ipt.aol.com] has joined #CathApol
[19:33] <RCatholic> hello
[19:33] <Nomos> Sylvester: Ok, but naturally then my next question is: Where do our desires or our needs come from?
[19:33] <Sylvester> Nomos, the choice of the individual, influence from our enemies three.
[19:33] <Nomos> Sylvester: Are our desires and needs random?
[19:33] <Calvinist> Duke, I never said that ... again, a misunderstanding obviously.
[19:34] <Calvinist> Sylvester, how can one choose against their inclinations?
[19:34] <Sylvester> No, our desires and needs are not random, but our decisions concerning them can be perverse.
[19:34] <Duke77> <Calvinist> Duke, those given to the Son will be drawn. Let me ask, what is the nature of this drawing?
[19:34] <Nomos> Sylvester: Where do our desires and needs come from?
[19:34] <Sylvester> Calvinist, perversity
[19:34] <Duke77> Cal, you said the giving happens first
[19:34] <Sylvester> Nomos, they come from God who made us and they come from our own flesh.
[19:35] <Calvinist> Of course I said that, NOT: no, it doesn't say those who are drawn will be given.
[19:35] <Calvinist> Yes, sure I did/
[19:35] <Duke77> John 6:37 All that the Father gives to me shall come to me, and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
[19:35] <RCatholic> Busy night in here, how nice.
[19:35] <Nomos> Sylvester: Our desires come from our flesh ... then that leads one to wonder what determines the flesh and the influence the flesh has over our desires ... are you using 'flesh' as ontologically distinct from *our* selves?
[19:36] <GRAMafk> hmmm
[19:36] <Nomos> RCatholic: hi :][
[19:36] <Nomos> :] rather
[19:36] <RCatholic> Hey nomos
[19:36] <Calvinist> Those given to Christ will come (because they are drawn), and will be raised the last day.
[19:36] <GRAMafk> RCatholic are you in to endless phylosophical discussions with no end in site????
[19:36] <Duke77> right... Cal, the drawing happens first...
[19:37] <Duke77> and nowhere does it say that ALL who are drawn WILL come...
[19:37] <Nomos> GRAMafk: It's hard to end a discussion when answers are question-begging.
[19:37] <RCatholic> gram, is there any other kind of philosophical discussions? Oooops, I just added another query to the problem.
[19:37] <Sylvester> Depends on what you mean by "ontologically distincet" certainly not as something wholly divorced from our selves, but certainly something capable of acting upon and influencing the will contrary to the desires of the heart. I think Romans 7 lays this out nicely.
[19:37] <GRAMafk> they aren't begging, you are thinking too much
[19:37] <RCatholic> gram, I hate when I do that!
[19:37] <GRAMafk> :)
[19:37] <Nomos> Sylvester: But romans 7 doesn't present an ontological dualism - the sin nature and the sanctified nature are still the same being.
[19:38] <GRAMafk> you have some good company here RCatholic if you are good at that kind of thing and want something to do, engage Nomos :)
[19:38] <Duke77> Cal???
[19:38] <RCatholic> Actually, I just received an Introduction to Philosophy book from TAN publishers.
[19:38] <Calvinist> Duke, does it not say that Christ will lose none of them (those given to Him)?
[19:38] <Sylvester> Nomos, nor have I...i just said "not as something wholly divorced from our selves"
[19:38] <RCatholic> Yes, I have spoken with nomos on previous occasions
[19:38] <Duke77> yes... but the giving and the drawing are NOT the same thing! Again, you are confusing the two
[19:39] <tollhouse> Calvinist, was Judas given to Jesus?
[19:39] <Nomos> Sylvester: The point I wish to clarify is how we, or our 'sin nature' as you mentioned, influences our desires, and what influences our sin nature (as consequentially, you're saying that the sin nature and God determine our desires and our needs which ultimately determine our Will)
[19:39] <Calvinist> Duke, who said they were? Maybe you should explain why you assume I am saying this?
[19:39] <Calvinist> tollhouse, no.
[19:39] <Sylvester> The flesh must be conquered. It is unruly and it's desires are impertinent.
[19:39] <Duke77> Cal, you keep changing back and forth between the giving and the drawing... without making distinction.
[19:39] <GRAMafk> well then, dive right in RCatholic :)
[19:39] <Calvinist> You made the same claim in the debate/response, Scott.
[19:39] <Sylvester> The flesh must be disciplined.
[19:39] <Nomos> GRAMafk: You could always put me on ignore, I've only engaged you in dialogue at your initiation (since you claimed to get frustrated on the topic).
[19:40] <tollhouse> Calvinist, do you believe Jesus made a bad choice when he chose Judas? Do you believe he was acting out of the Father's will when he chose him?
[19:40] <Calvinist> lol
[19:40] <Nomos> Sylvester: Do you see how that doesn't answer my question?
[19:40] <Nomos> tollhouse: JEsus tells us why he chose Judas.
[19:40] <Duke77> 24Calvinist24: not all who are drawn WILL come..
[19:40] <GRAMafk> hey Nomos I just invited RCatholic to join you, I'm an op can't put you on ignore
[19:40] <Nomos> tollhouse: It was done to fulfill prophecy and to bring glory to God.
[19:40] <RCatholic> gram, the pool seems very crowded, so I will just watch the swimmers and hopefully no one will drown.
[19:40] <Nomos> GRAMafk: ah. apologies.
[19:40] <Sylvester> Well, i was remembering my indoctrination as an evangelical and recalled that "flesh" and "sin nature" (an expression I never used BTW) were synonyms.
[19:40] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Well, nonetheless, my point remains.
[19:41] <RCatholic> doesn't it always nomos.
[19:41] <Nomos> Sylvester: And I assumed you were using them as synonymous, but your answer doesn't have anything to do with my query.
[19:41] <Duke77> 41312Calvinist134: all who are GIVEN will COME - that's what John 6 says
[19:41] <Nomos> RCatholic: Not always. :]
[19:41] <tollhouse> So when Jesus said that he chose judas, he meant that he chose Judas to betray him?
[19:41] <Calvinist> Duke, lets read in context, Jesus will lose none of those drawn.
[19:41] <Sylvester> Our flesh influences our will negatively.
[19:42] <Sylvester> And i do mean that "negatively" in the moral sense.
[19:42] <Nomos> tollhouse: No, as Jesus said, it was to fulfill prophecy.
[19:42] <Duke77> 124
[0,2Calvinist4,]12 it doesn't say that
[19:42] <tollhouse> Nomos, what prophecy?
[19:42] <Duke77> 24Calvinist24: the context says Jesus will not lose any of those who are GIVEN....
[19:42] <Calvinist> John 6:39: `And this is the will of the Father who sent me, that all that He hath given to me I may not lose of it, but may raise it up in the last day; (YLT)
[19:42] MUDVAYNE has left IRC
[19:42] <Nomos> tollhouse: The OT patriarchial prophecies - specifically, Isaiah.
[19:42] <Calvinist> Heh
[19:42] <Duke77> I rest my case.
[19:42] <Nomos> tollhouse: Malachi.
[19:42] MUDVAYNE is on IRC
[19:43] <Calvinist> Duke, you have no case, you just said that He will lose none that are given.
[19:43] <Duke77> thanks for quoting... I don't have a biblebot yet
[19:43] <Nomos> Sylvester: Ok, so you said that God and our flesh determines our needs and our desires, right?
[19:43] <tollhouse> Nomos, what was the prophecy?
[19:43] <Duke77> Cal, you said he wouldn't lose any DRAWN...
[19:43] <Duke77> <Calvinist> Duke, lets read in context, Jesus will lose none of those drawn.
[19:44] <Nomos> tollhouse: I don't have it off the top of my head - if you're actually disputing the point, I'll be happy to take it up with you later.
[19:44] <Calvinist> Yes, those given will be drawn, those drawn will come, those that come will be raised the last day.
[19:44] <Duke77> 46
[12Calvinist6]4 again, you mixed the drawn and the given
[19:44] <tollhouse> Nomos, I'm not disputing it. I'm trying to sort it out. I'm undecided on the issue.
[19:44] <Duke77> no Cal... the drawing must happen first
[19:44] <Calvinist> Duke, they are not one and the same, I do not mix them.
[19:44] <Nomos> tollhouse: then hold the thought and I will provide the prophetic citations.
[19:45] <Duke77> <Calvinist> Duke, lets read in context, Jesus will lose none of those drawn.
[19:45] <tollhouse> okay
[19:45] <Duke77> the context says no such thing Cal
[19:45] <Calvinist> Duke, why "must" it happen first?
[19:45] <Nomos> Sylvester: did you see my last question?
[19:45] <Calvinist> lol
[19:45] <Duke77> verse 39... you quoted it...
[19:45] <GRAMafk> hmmm
[19:45] <Sylvester> Yes, i saw it.
[19:45] <Nomos> Sylvester: What do you think?
[19:46] <Duke77> <Calvinist> John 6:39: `And this is the will of the Father who sent me, that all that He hath given to me I may not lose of it, but may raise it up in the last day; (YLT)
[19:46] <Calvinist> Why must the drawing preceed the giving?
[19:46] <Sylvester> I said that.
[19:46] <Nomos> tollhouse: matthew 13 (specifically vs 14) is a related example.
[19:47] <RCatholic> what is YLT?
[19:47] <Duke77> 124
[0,2Calvinist4,]12 When John records the part about whom Jesus will not lose, it is refering to those GIVEN not those who are DRAWN... and yes, those given are among the drawn... (that's a given)
[19:47] GRAMafk wishes we had a bible bot
[19:47] <Verga> young literal translation
[19:47] <RCatholic> thanks verga
[19:47] <Nomos> <Nomos> Sylvester: Ok, so you said that God and our flesh determines our needs and our desires, right?
[19:47] <Calvinist> Matthew 13:14: and fulfilled on them is the prophecy of Isaiah, that saith, With hearing ye shall hear, and ye shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and ye shall not perceive, (YLT)
[19:48] <Nomos> Sylvester: There is no response from you after my question on my screen ... did I somehow miss it?
[19:48] <Duke77> Cal... don't change the subject just yet...
[19:48] <RCatholic> gram, is there any way to get a bible bot?
[19:48] <Nomos> Sylvester: ugh. apologies.
[19:48] <Calvinist> Heheh
[19:48] <Sylvester> Youasked me did I say what i said and I said i did.
[19:48] <Duke77> we will have one soon
[19:48] <Nomos> Sylvester: I was misreading lines.
[19:48] <Duke77> it's in the works
[19:48] <Sylvester> 'sokay
[19:48] <GRAMafk> I don't know I understand that Duke77 is working on it RCatholic
[19:48] <RCatholic> duke, see that is the problem, it should be in the faith! <g>
[19:48] <Calvinist> And why do you differenciate between those given and those drawn?
[19:49] <Nomos> Sylvester: So God and our flesh determine our desires and our needs, and our desires and our needs ultimately determine our WIll. Is that correct?
[19:49] <Calvinist> There is no warrent to do such, Duke.
[19:49] <Verga> night all
[19:49] Verga [~pirch@roc-24-169-126-89.rochester.rr.com] has left #CathApol
[19:49] <Nomos> night verha
[19:49] <Duke77> Cal... because they are not one and the same
[19:49] <Nomos> verga rather
[19:49] <Sylvester> I would not say that they "determine" our will, but they act upon it.
[19:49] <Calvinist> Duke, you have yet to explain why. The text certainly doesn't say that.
[19:50] <Nomos> <Sylvester> Sometimes we will according to our desires, and sometimes according to our needs and sometimes not.
[19:50] <Duke77> 46
[12Calvinist6]4 John 12:32 says He draws ALL to Him... since surely not ALL are saved (heresy of Universalism) then the "given" does not include all of the "drawn."
[19:50] <Sylvester> Right, sometimes is operative there
[19:50] <Calvinist> Sylvester, wouldn't our desire also be our need?
[19:50] <Nomos> Sylvester: If our Will is brought about according to our desires or needs, wouldn't that entail that our will is, or at least can be, determined by our desires or needs?
[19:51] <Nomos> Calvinist: I think we would always desire our needs, but our desires may not always reflect our needs.
[19:51] <Nomos> Calvinist: hence the dichotomy.
[19:51] <Nomos> reflect *only* our needs rather.
[19:52] <Calvinist> Duke, I agree. Christ will lose none, but will save all of those given to Him.
[19:52] <Nomos> Calvinist: I desire a new drysuit, but that's hardly a need.
[19:52] <Duke77> 124
[0,2Calvinist4,]12 we would concur that all those given will come... but you keep saying that all those drawn will come... and that you're extrapolating from somewhere else, certainly not John 6
[19:52] IrishKing has left IRC
[19:52] <Calvinist> Nomos, ever read Jonathen Edwards on the subject? :-)
[19:53] <RCatholic> Can one's need be another's desire?
[19:53] <Nomos> Calvinist: No, but if he distinguishes the two then I wouldn't agree with him (unless we're using the terms differently).
[19:53] <Sylvester> Nomos, it cannot be empirically determined from the actions of our desires and needs because the human will is free. A fasting man may refuse food even though he both needs and desires it.
[19:54] RCatholic jsut jumped into the pool.
[19:54] <Nomos> Sylvester: Right, hence your previous qualification of the effect that the desire and need has on the Will (ie, it doesn't *always* determine the will), but you seemed to be saying that those two in effect at times did determine the will (in addition to God).
[19:54] <Calvinist> Duke, if some that are given are not drawn, then they will be lost.
[19:54] <Calvinist> "A man never, in any instance, wills anything contrary to his desires, or desires anything contrary to his will" (Freedom of the Will, Pg. 139, Jonathan Edwards).
[19:55] <Nomos> Sylvester: So in addition to the flesh and the Sovereign decree of God - is there anything else in which the Will is contingent upon?
[19:55] <GRAMafk> if I be lifted up I will draw ALL MEN unto me
[19:55] <Duke77> 125Calvinist12 again, you're mixing terminology... like I said before ALL the given are PART of the drawn... you cannot be given without first being drawn...
[19:55] <Calvinist> 28Calvinist says:rnGram, I agree. Christ will lose none, but will save all of those given to Him.
[19:55] <Calvinist> Oops
[19:56] <Sylvester> Nomos, I don't know and I am getting very tired of this discussion...
[19:56] <RCatholic> Can any not given been drawn?
[19:56] <GRAMafk> lol Sylvester
[19:56] <GRAMafk> you lasted longer than me
[19:56] <RCatholic> syl, he has that effect on people. <g>
[19:56] <Calvinist> RC, no, and that is the point.
[19:57] <Duke77> RC, since all men are drawn... yes....
[19:57] <Calvinist> lol
[19:57] <Duke77> and see that's where Cal misses the boat
[19:57] <GRAMafk> only those who chose God are given RCatholic
[19:57] Sylvester lies down on the floor and passes out.
[19:57] <Nomos> Sylvester: Alright. I think though, if you were to work out the disucssion with me, you would find your view wanting.
[19:57] <GRAMafk> hee hee Sylvester
[19:57] <GRAMafk> lol Nomos
[19:57] <Nomos> Sylvester: I think I could show you its incoherency if we were to continue.
[19:57] MUDVAYNE has left IRC
[19:57] <RCatholic> nomos, I think he is wanting no more discussion.
[19:57] GRAMafk doubts it Nomos
[19:58] <Nomos> GRAMafk; ye of little faith.
[19:58] <Nomos> :]
[19:58] <GRAMafk> RCatholic your *quick* lol
[19:58] <Nomos> RCatholic: I realize that, but unfortunately we've made little progress due to an enormous regression of contingency.
[19:58] <GRAMafk> hey Sylvester do you see why I absoutely hate discussions on like that
[19:59] <RCatholic> nomos, oh my
[19:59] <GRAMafk> there you go again Nomos
[19:59] <Nomos> RCatholic: I think, if pursued, the regressive track would have to loop (as in the previous plethora of tautologies), or come to an end somewhere.
[19:59] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I have an idea why. ;]
[19:59] <Sylvester> *snrk...snoooooooore...*
[19:59] <GRAMafk> lol
[20:00] <RCatholic> nomos, unfortunately, time is such an enemy to pursuance
[20:00] <Duke77> 12[4Calvinist12]: do you see how you missed the boat?
[20:00] <GRAMafk> hee hee RCatholic
[20:00] <Nomos> RCatholic: Time may be one factor.
[20:00] <GRAMafk> boredom another I think Nomos
[20:00] <RCatholic> lol
[20:00] <Nomos> GRAMafk: True indeed.
[20:01] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I find the topic highly significant to call boring myself, but each of us places different values on the various issues at hand.
[20:01] <GRAMafk> tell me are you any fun at parties?
[20:01] <Nomos> GRAMafk: You might be surprised. :]
[20:01] <GRAMafk> perhaps but I doubt it
[20:01] <Duke77> Nomos is the one wearing the lampshade, I am guessing... hehe
[20:02] <RCatholic> 'Depends on what you mean by party?
[20:02] <GRAMafk> what do you do for a living if I may ask Nomos
[20:02] <Duke77> j/k Nomos... ;-)
[20:02] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I'm a shephard of many books. :]
[20:02] <Nomos> Duke77 :]
[20:02] <RCatholic> Party is such sweet sorrow!
[20:02] <GRAMafk> a librarian?
[20:02] <Duke77> a librarian? an accountant?
[20:02] <GRAMafk> lol RCatholic
[20:02] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I shephard my own books.
[20:03] <RCatholic> a recluse?
[20:03] Nomos doesn't like to disclose too much about himself.
[20:03] <Duke77> one who takes bets?
[20:03] <Duke77> that's understandable Nomos...
[20:03] <Nomos> that would make Nomos less mysterious. ;]
[20:03] <GRAMafk> the only person in my life who thinks like you is an atheist genius who drives a delivery truck
[20:03] Sylvester sits up...a bookie?
[20:03] <Nomos> lol
[20:04] <Duke77> LOL
[20:04] <GRAMafk> no I'm not kidding
[20:04] <GRAMafk> he could send you round and round in the philosophical discussions
[20:04] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Lots of people think like me, you just have to visit the right places.
[20:04] Duke77 ^5's Sylvester
[20:04] RCatholic thinks nomos might be no more exciting than the topic of tautology
[20:04] <GRAMafk> he has to spen his major brain power in idle discussion leading nowhere
[20:05] <Nomos> heh
[20:05] <GRAMafk> lol RCatholic and then again, maybe not :)
[20:05] Duke77 likes philosophical talk...
[20:05] <RCatholic> true
[20:05] <Sylvester> smartypants smarty pants smartypants
[20:05] <RCatholic> Calvinism - the religion of TAUNTology
[20:05] <Duke77> now now...
[20:06] <Nomos> RCatholic: At least calvin's views were coherent. (jab jab)
[20:06] <Sylvester> RC, it needn't bee
[20:06] <Sylvester> err, be
[20:06] RCatholic starts bobbing and weaving
[20:06] <Sylvester> I know of a few Calvinists who are not taunters...
[20:06] <Duke77> I don't mind proving them wrong... but let's be respectful and mindful of 2 Peter 3:15
[20:06] <Calvinist> Duke, sorry, was downloading off of Napster. I thought you were a Thomist, Scott.
[20:06] <Sylvester> On the other hand I know a few Catholics who taunt and jab mercilessley and show no signs of charity at all.
[20:07] <GRAMafk> Nomos someone thought that I was belittling you. It was my attempt at teasing you and I apologize if you were offended
[20:07] <Nomos> Duke77: And I don't mind the attempts of those that try to prove him wrong (though I don't have Calvin tatooed on my forehead and thus don't defend him).
[20:07] <Calvinist> Aquinas wouldn't agree that all without exception are drawn.
[20:07] Danr^ [cdreeves@iowa-asc1-cs-59.dial.hickorytech.net] has joined #CathApol
[20:07] <Duke77> 12[4Calvinist12]: from what I know of Thomism, I lean that direction... until shown otherwise, I will claim to be a Thomist... yes.
[20:07] <Calvinist> Or Augustine for that matter, Duke. :)
[20:07] <Nomos> GRAMafk: oh, I don't get offended very easy, no offense taken. :]
[20:07] <GRAMafk> :) Nomos
[20:07] <Calvinist> Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others....
[20:07] <Calvinist> Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'"
[20:08] <Calvinist> ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.
[20:08] <Duke77> Augustine clearly accepted a combination of Free Will and Predestination...
[20:09] <Calvinist> lol
[20:09] <Duke77> but the context WE were discussing was the book of John.
[20:09] <Calvinist> Duke, thats nice. So do I.
[20:09] <Nomos> Duke77: Augustine clearly accepted Mary being born with sin.
[20:09] <Calvinist> How did Augustine define free-will in the context of all his writings?
[20:09] <Duke77> 124
[0,2Calvinist4,]12 You, like James, kept confusing the drawing with the giving... and did that several times tonight...
[20:09] <Calvinist> Nomos, but he was only fallible. :)
[20:10] <Calvinist> Duke, I never once did that. You keep making that claim, but have yet to prove it.
[20:10] <RCatholic> nomos, he did?
[20:10] <Calvinist> RC, yeah. :)
[20:10] <Duke77> Cal... I quoted you
[20:10] <Nomos> Calvinist: well true.
[20:10] <Calvinist> Heheh
[20:10] <Nomos> RCatholic: Yes, quite so.
[20:11] <Nomos> RCatholic: Explicitly stated in numerous places, especially in Contra Julianum.
[20:11] <Calvinist> I do not believe that, and never once said they were one and the same, Duke.
[20:11] <Nomos> RCatholic: As did Ambrose (to which Augustine appeals to in his own position).
[20:11] <Duke77> Cal... you said that none of those who are drawn will be lost...
[20:11] <Duke77> are you denying you said that now?
[20:11] <Calvinist> Nomos, contra Julianum, eh?
[20:11] <Nomos> Calvinist: among other places - but most appropriately there as it deals with the Pelagian heresy.
[20:12] <Duke77> Cal?
[20:12] Danr^ [cdreeves@iowa-asc1-cs-59.dial.hickorytech.net] has quit IRC ()
[20:12] <Calvinist> Duke, please. I agree that all those drawn will not be lost, I don't think (like you said I do) that the drawing and givine are one and the same.
[20:12] <Nomos> Calvinist: See Book 2, chapter 9.
[20:12] <Calvinist> Nomos, I was just quoting Against Julian the other night. :)
[20:13] <RCatholic> nomos, are you aware of what he said in "Nature and Grace"36,42?
[20:13] <Nomos> Duke77: Do you believe that 'drawing' is similar to 'enabling' in the context of John 6.44?
[20:13] <Nomos> Calvinist: Its my favorite Augustinian work.
[20:13] <Duke77> 12D13Calvinist12D4: but the text of John 6 NOWHERE says "all those drawn will not be lost" - if DOES say "I should lose nothing of what He has GIVEN Me..." (v 39)
[20:14] <Duke77> 4611,12Calvinist6,4: so there, AGAIN you have confused the terms!
[20:14] <Calvinist> Duke, and those given will also be drawn.
[20:14] <Nomos> RCatholic: Im not familiar with that work, what's its latin title?
[20:14] <Calvinist> Heh, okay. What can I say?
[20:14] <Nomos> Duke77: Do you believe that 'drawing' is similar to 'enabling' in the context of John 6.44?
[20:14] <Duke77> 24Calvinist24: those given will be among the drawn
[20:14] <Nomos> Duke77: Or rather, even synonymous - drawn and enable?
[20:14] <RCatholic> De natura et gratia ad Timasium et Iacobum contra Pelagium
[20:14] tollhouse [tollhouse@dial216.tyler.net] has left #CathApol
[20:15] <Nomos> RCatholic: I haven't read that work.
[20:15] <Duke77> 24Calvinist24: the word "draw" is used in 44, yes...
[20:15] <Nomos> RCatholic: Do you have some quotes for consideration?
[20:15] <Sylvester> Ooh, latin
[20:15] <Nomos> Duke77?
[20:15] Playing pingpong.wav by Local.
[20:16] <RCatholic> I get it from Jurgen's FAith of the EArly FAthers
[20:16] <Duke77> 44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him...
[20:16] <Nomos> duke?
[20:16] <RCatholic> please forgive my typos, but I will type some of it
[20:16] <Nomos> Calvinist: ask Duke77 if he equates the term 'drawn' with 'enable'.
[20:16] <Calvinist> John 6:65: and he said, `Because of this I have said to you--No one is able to come unto me, if it may not have been given him from my Father.' (YLT)
[20:16] <Nomos> RCatholic: okie, thanks.
[20:16] <Duke77> Nomos, I provided the quote
[20:16] <Calvinist> brb
[20:17] <GRAMafk> Calvinist we believe that
[20:17] <Nomos> Duke77: Yes, I am familiar with vs. 44 and I was wondering if you equated the use of 'drawn' there synonymously with 'enable'?
[20:17] <Duke77> Nomos, I do not see the word "enable" in there
[20:18] <RCatholic> having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins - for how do we know what abundance of grace for the toatol overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to convceive and bear him in whom there was no sin? so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathers together
[20:18] <Nomos> Duke77: I am not asking you if you see it there, I'm asking you if you equate the meaning of 'enable' to the term 'drawn' in that context.
[20:18] <Nomos> RCatholic: Thats an interesting citation, especially in light of his position in CJ.
[20:18] <Duke77> Nomos... the "drawing" that the Father does is a drawing... I guess one could say it is an enabling too...
[20:18] <RCatholic> all those holy men and women, when there wer living here, and had asked them whether they werer without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?
[20:18] GRAMafk thinks Nomos intends another word game
[20:19] <Nomos> RCatholic: It seems to be inconcistent with his position there, or perhaps his position in there or the work you've cited is somehow unclear.
[20:19] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Im not playing games.
[20:19] <Nomos> Duke77: The reason I ask, is that in vs 65, some translations use the word 'enable'.
[20:19] <GRAMafk> Nomos they are word games like I said I have a friend like you
[20:19] <RCatholic> nomos, have you seen jurgen's book?
[20:19] Calvinist [soli_deo_g@bal-cas1-cs-31.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Calvinist[bal-cas1-cs-31.dial.airstreamcomm.net])
[20:20] <Duke77> 65?
[20:20] Calvinist has left IRC
[20:20] <Nomos> Duke77: thus, some translations go "...this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"
[20:20] <Nomos> Duke77: yes.
[20:20] <Nomos> Duke77; the NIV for instance.
[20:20] <Nomos> Duke77: How does DR translate it?
[20:21] <Nomos> kjv uses 'given', rsv uses 'granted
[20:21] <Duke77> 65 But there are some among you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the very beginning who they were who did not believe and who it was who should betray Him. (DRV)
[20:21] thinker [~pirch@d150-58-7.home.cgocable.net] has joined #CathApol
[20:21] <RCatholic> good night all
[20:21] <Duke77> hello thinker...
[20:21] <Nomos> Duke77: That is not vs 65 of chapter 6.
[20:21] <Nomos> night RCatholic
[20:21] <thinker> hi
[20:21] <Duke77> Nomos, it is in my Bible...
[20:21] <thinker> hows eveyrone tonight
[20:21] RCatholic [newbie@AC8976AA.ipt.aol.com] has quit IRC (Read error to RCatholic[AC8976AA.ipt.aol.com]: Connection reset by peer)
[20:21] RCatholic has left IRC
[20:22] <Nomos> Duke77: Then its wrong.
[20:22] <Nomos> Duke77: ;]
[20:22] <Duke77> LOL
[20:22] <Nomos> Duke77: I think you're online bible is off.
[20:22] <Nomos> nasb uses 'granted' as well.
[20:22] <Duke77> 66 says it...
[20:22] <thinker> so what are you chatting about tonight
[20:23] <Nomos> Duke77: You're not citing John 6.65 - I can cite it to you in greek if you like.,
[20:23] <Nomos> Duke77: Or in 8 other translations.
[20:23] <Duke77> 66 And he said, "This is why I have said to you, 'No on can come to me unless he is enabled to do so by my Father.'"
[20:23] <thinker> well then go ahead Nomos
[20:24] <Nomos> Duke77: If the DR uses enabled (and vs. 65 [66 in your case] is reflecting upon vs36), then it would seem that John is using the terms synonymously, would you agree?
[20:24] <Duke77> John6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
[20:24] <Duke77> John6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (NIV)
[20:25] <Duke77> whatever... the number is different... but the context is there... let us move on.
[20:25] <Nomos> Duke77: okie. so would you equate the terms in this context?
[20:26] <Nomos> Duke77: Since vs 65 is drawing upon vs 37.
[20:26] thinker [~pirch@d150-58-7.home.cgocable.net] has left #CathApol
[20:26] <Duke77> Yes
[20:26] <Nomos> Duke77: ie, is the 'giving' and the 'enabling' the same process here?
[20:26] <Duke77> No
[20:27] <Nomos> Duke77: Jesus said, "...this is why I told you" in vs 65 - do you believe that He was referring back to vs 37?
[20:28] thinker [~pirch@d150-58-7.home.cgocable.net] has joined #CathApol
[20:28] <Duke77> the drawing and the giving are not one and the same...
[20:28] <Nomos> or at least contextually referring to
[20:28] <Duke77> those given are among the drawn...
[20:29] <Nomos> Duke77: ok, so the enabling of vs 65 isn't referring to the drawing of vs 35?
[20:29] <Nomos> rather, vs 37?
[20:29] <Duke77> the "enabling" must take place before the giving or the coming....
[20:29] <Nomos> Duke77: so when Jesus said "...this is why I told you", what do you think he was referring to?
[20:29] <Duke77> everyone who is given will come...
[20:29] <Nomos> Duke77: right, and I understand why you don't agree why "everyone who is drawn will come".
[20:30] <Nomos> Duke77; But I'm trying to understand what you think Jesus was referring to in vs 65 when He says, "this is why I told you"
[20:30] <Duke77> froze for a second there...
[20:30] <Nomos> no problem.
[20:31] Emanon has left IRC
[20:31] <Nomos> the previous verse says something to the effect that Jesus knew who would believe and who wouldn't - and earlier he said, "you do not believe, because you are not my sheep"
[20:31] <Duke77> because everyone is drawn... John 12:32 (same author) makes that clear.
[20:31] Sylvester [Sylvester@ts042d02.det-mi.concentric.net] has quit IRC ()
[20:31] <Duke77> You can't mix the drawing and the giving... they are not synonomous
[20:32] <Nomos> Duke77: ok, so do you have an idea what Jesus is referring to in vs 65 when He says "this is why I told you"
[20:32] <Nomos> Duke77: I'm not mixing anything - I'm merely inquiring into your position.
[20:32] <Duke77> OK
[20:32] <Nomos> Duke77: You mix, I'll drink. ;]
[20:32] <Duke77> but you also asked <Nomos> Duke77: right, and I understand why you don't agree why "everyone who is drawn will come".
[20:33] <Nomos> Duke77: ActuaLLY, that was a statement, not a question
[20:33] MUDVAYNE is on IRC
[20:33] <Duke77> those words are not in the text
[20:33] <Duke77> right, you stated that...
[20:33] <Nomos> Duke77: right.
[20:33] <Nomos> Duke77: I wasn't implying they were in the text, rather, that you disagreed with the proposition itself.
[20:34] <Duke77> nowhere does it say "everyone who is drawn will come" that's the error Cal made tonight and James made in my debate with him, are you making it as well?
[20:34] <Nomos> Duke77: Are you reading what I said?
[20:34] <Nomos> Duke77: Calvinist didn't make that error either, I have the log here.
[20:34] <Duke77> I have it too... and he did say it...
[20:35] <Nomos> Duke77: I am not presenting a view, the quotation marks indicate a proposition in which I realize you do not agree with.
[20:35] <thinker> I have finished Duke
[20:35] <Nomos> Duke77: I realize you don't equate the two ... therefore, I'm asking what you think Jesus is referring to in vs 65 when he reflects upon an earlier comment.
[20:36] <Nomos> Duke77: You apparently don't think He's referring to vs 37, since that would equate the terms - what then do you think Jesus is referring to?
[20:37] <Nomos> hullo?
[20:38] <Duke77> Nomos... the "enabling" of 66 (or 65) says, essentially that no one can come unless the Father has drawn them... the condition still lies with the COMING not the drawing.
[20:38] IrishKing is on IRC
[20:38] <Nomos> Duke77: So now you're equating 'enable' with 'draw' of vs 37?
[20:38] <Nomos> or rather
[20:39] <Nomos> that enabling is a precondition to drawing?
[20:39] <Nomos> or that drawing is a precondition to enabling?
[20:39] <Duke77> somewhat... the drawing is a precondition to the coming and the giving...
[20:40] <Nomos> The passage says that no man can come to the Father unless the Father has enabled that person - hence, we probably both agree that 'being enabled' is a necessary precondition to 'coming to Jesus'.
[20:40] <Nomos> in other words, you can't come to Jesus if you're not able.
[20:40] <Nomos> that seems like common sense.
[20:40] <Duke77> we agree
[20:41] <Nomos> in verse 37 it says that all those that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus - therefore, being given to Jesus is a precondition to 'coming to Jesus', agree?
[20:42] <GRAMafk> yep and only those who freely chose Jesus will be given to Jesus
[20:42] <Nomos> GRAMafk: sure you want to go there?
[20:42] <Nomos> :]
[20:42] <Duke77> Nomos, I said that earlier too
[20:42] <Duke77> 1) Drawing 2) Giving 3) Coming
[20:43] <Duke77> in that order...
[20:43] <Nomos> Duke77: I wasn't following your conversation earlier. And I thought it would be best to see where we agree first.
[20:43] <Duke77> yes... it is good to start with a common premise
[20:43] <Duke77> otherwise we'll just be beating the air...
[20:43] <Nomos> Duke77: Do you derive that order from Scripture, or do you impose it on Scripture?
[20:44] <Nomos> Further, the 'drawing' isnt mentioned in vs 37 or 65, its actually referred to in vs 47
[20:45] <Nomos> or rather, vs 44
[20:45] <Nomos> ie "no one can come unless he's drawn'.
[20:45] <Nomos> hence, for preconditions we have as follows:
[20:45] <Nomos>
[1] drawn,
[2] enabled, [3] given
[20:46] <Duke77>
[1] drawn,
[2] enabled, [3] given [4] come
[20:46] <Nomos> ok
[20:46] <Duke77>
[1] drawn,
[2] enabled, [3] given [4] come [5] not lost
[20:46] <Nomos> Does God draw all?
[20:46] <Duke77> yes
[20:46] <Nomos> Does God enable all?
[20:46] <Duke77> yes
[20:46] <GRAMafk> "I will draw ALL MEN unto me"
[20:46] <Nomos> Does God give all to Jesus?
[20:47] <Duke77> no
[20:47] <GRAMafk> nope only those who chose Him
[20:47] <GRAMafk> hmmmm
[20:47] <Nomos> so disparity exists between being enabled and being given.
[20:47] <Duke77> yes
[20:48] <Nomos> Duke77: interestingly, and as a side note, it seems rather rhetorical that Jesus would comment on the drawn and enabled if all men held those qualities.
[20:48] <Duke77> but once "given" they will "come" and will "not be lost"
[20:48] <Nomos> Duke77; If Jesus said, "you can not believe" or "you could not believe" - would you consider that person to be *enabled*?
[20:50] <Duke77> Nomos... not sure what you're refering to...
[20:50] <Nomos> Duke77: Let me site specific examples then.
[20:51] <Duke77> actually... I need to step away again...
[20:51] <GRAMafk> hmm
[20:51] <Nomos> Duke77: Jesus asks in JOhn 8, "why is my language not clear?", the question is rhetorical because he answers it himself in the same verse, "because you cannot hear what I say". Does the inability to hear classify someone as enabled or unabled?
[20:51] <Nomos> Duke77: Ok. I'll wait. :]
[20:52] <Nomos> Duke77: I'll type the examples while you're away.
[20:52] <Duke77> ok
[20:52] <thinker> so hows it going in here
[20:52] You are now known as Duke77_awy
[20:53] <Nomos> Duke77: In John 3 Jesus said that those (the unbelievers) were unable to see unless they were born again. So is a spiritually blind person considered enabled or not able?
[20:53] <thinker> sorry Nomos I am not sure what you are chatting about
[20:53] <thinker> I was chatting with Duke about apostasy
[20:53] <Nomos> Duke77: 1corinthians 2.14 says that the unregenerate are *not able* to understand, so likewise, is someone that is not able to understand classified as 'enabled' (in the context of John 6.65)?
[20:54] <Nomos> thinker: scrolling might help.
[20:54] <Nomos> 2nd corinthians says that unbelievers, like john 3, are blind and not able to see.
[20:55] <thinker> ok
[20:55] <Nomos> duke: so when you say they are 'enabled', yet Jesus and Paul say they are not able to, metaphorically, 'see', 'hear', or 'understand' - what precisely do you think the 'enabling' refers to in John 6.65?
[20:55] <GRAMafk> Nomos they are not able to understand that doesn't mean that they are not able to be drawn and if they believe they will understand
[20:55] <GRAMafk> they are able to be drawn
[20:56] <Nomos> GRAMafk: okie, but duke said that they were 'enabled'.
[20:56] <GRAMafk> "If I be lifted up I will draw ALL MEN UNTO ME"
[20:56] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Duke said the drawing occurs before the enabling.
[20:56] <GRAMafk> even those who do not understand spiritual things
[20:56] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Im not addressing the 'drawing' right now though.
[20:56] <GRAMafk> drawing occurs before anything
[20:56] <Nomos> GRAMafk: I'm dealing with
[2] enabling.
[20:57] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Do you believe all are enabled (John 6.65)?
[20:57] <GRAMafk> hold on
[20:57] <Nomos> sure.
[20:57] <Nomos> In fact, I'll take advantage of the hold and use the facilities.
[20:57] <Nomos> brb
[20:58] <thinker> so how are you Gram
[20:59] <GRAMafk> Nomos we don't need to know all that
[20:59] <thinker> I think he as a good point
[20:59] <GRAMafk> I don't know what you are getting at but Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe or not believe that isn' so difficult
[21:00] <thinker> I think he has left and will be back
[21:00] <thinker> so not chatting tonight Gram?
[21:00] <Nomos> back
[21:00] <thinker> OK
[21:00] <Nomos> GRAMafk: But that's not the point of contention.
[21:01] <thinker> I think you have a good point
[21:01] <Nomos> GRAMafk: The point of potential contention is that Duke said that the Father enabled all men, yet Jesus said that unregenerate men did not have certain abilities, (ie, to see, hear or understand the Gospel).
[21:01] <Nomos> thinker: danke.
[21:01] <thinker> what?
[21:02] <Nomos> GRAMafk: danke=thanks
[21:02] <thinker> yes
[21:02] <thinker> sorry I am sleeping here
[21:02] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Do you believe that the Father enables all men to come to Him (a precondition afore mentioned in vs 65 of John 6)
[21:02] <Nomos> GRAMafk: Or do you diagree with Duke?
[21:03] <thinker> Nomos are you a catholic?
[21:03] <Nomos> thinker: Not in the historical sense of the term.
[21:03] <Nomos> thinker: I would be labeled as reformed.
[21:03] <thinker> OK
[21:04] <Nomos> thinker: are you catholic in the modern sense?
[21:04] <thinker> a reformed catholic smile
[21:04] <thinker> yes for sure
[21:04] <Nomos> thinker: reformed catholic ... interesting. :]
[21:04] <Nomos> thinker: What does that mean?
[21:05] <thinker> I do not know LOL
[21:05] <Nomos> oh
[21:05] <Nomos> heh
[21:05] <Nomos> :]
[21:05] <thinker> just a little joke
[21:05] <Nomos> gotcha.
[21:05] <thinker> yes I am a R Catholic
[21:06] emanon is on IRC
[21:06] <thinker> a writer and teacher of this faith
[21:06] <Nomos> thinker: the others don't seem too interested in the discussion - so if you're wanting to pick it up, I'm more than happy to continue with you.
[21:07] <thinker> I would love to be I have been working very hard tonight and I am off to bed soon
[21:07] <Nomos> alrighty.
[21:07] <thinker> but maybe another time
[21:07] <thinker> thanks away
[21:07] <Nomos> sure enough.
[21:07] <Nomos> de nada.
[21:07] <thinker> peace be with you all
[21:07] <thinker> good night
[21:07] thinker [~pirch@d150-58-7.home.cgocable.net] has left #CathApol
[21:10] Nomos [kashubian@] has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Nomos
[21:13] Nomos [kashubian@] has joined #CathApol
[21:13] <Nomos> re
[21:14] <Nomos> my computer crashed big time.
[21:15] IrishKing has left IRC
[21:17] <Nomos> Scott, I take it you didn't take up James' challenge to a live debate on his web broadcast?
[21:19] Playing pingpong.wav by Local.
[21:19] <Nomos> hey duke, you should put our discussion on your web page.
[21:19] <Nomos> I'm thinking about adding it to mine. :p
[21:20] <Nomos> haus-von-nomos.com/logs.html
[21:20] <Nomos> of course, it will be better if we continue it when you get back.
[21:21] Nomos waits patiently.
[21:28] <Duke77_awy> back but only for a few... need to take my wife to work shortly...
[21:28] <Nomos> hi
[21:28] <Nomos> oh. ok.
[21:29] <Duke77_awy> 1 Cor. 2:14 does not say the man is unable... only that things of God are foolishness to him...
[21:29] <Nomos> Do you want to tackle my inquiry in that 'few'?
[21:29] <Duke77_awy> I'll try
[21:29] <Nomos> yes, it says 'cannot understand them'
[21:29] NA27 is on IRC
[21:29] <Nomos> wouldn't 'can not' = unable?
[21:30] <Nomos> maybe you define unable differently.
[21:30] <Duke77_awy> it could... but you are making the mistake of attempting to apply Paul's writing to the Corinthians to John's account of the Gospel...
[21:31] <Nomos> perhaps I am making a mistake.
[21:31] <Duke77_awy> different audiences...
[21:31] <Nomos> so you feel the enabling of john 6.65 is not related to the cognitive/spiritual ability to understand the Gospel?
[21:32] Playing pingpong.wav by Local.
[21:32] <Duke77_awy> I think the understanding Paul speaks of is not the same as the "enabling" that John speaks of.
[21:32] <Nomos> okie. what do you think the enabling refers to in John?
[21:33] <Duke77_awy> the ability to come to Him...
[21:33] <Nomos> you agree though that 'to enable' means 'to make able', right?
[21:33] <Duke77_awy> Paul is speaking of men who reject the drawing
[21:33] <Duke77_awy> "sensual men" in my version
[21:33] <Nomos> you agree though that 'to enable' means 'to make able', right?
[21:33] <Duke77_awy> of course
[21:34] <Nomos> So John is referring to the ability to come to God in vs 65?
[21:35] <Duke77_awy> yes
[21:35] <Duke77_awy> we've been through all this
[21:35] <Nomos> ie, that no man can come to God unless He is able - and it is God that makes Him able (though, you said that God makes all men able).
[21:35] <Nomos> But didn't you say that all men were drawn unto Jesus too?
[21:35] <Nomos> The Father draws all men unto Him?
[21:36] <Nomos> all, meaning, every man.,
[21:36] <Nomos> ie, quanitative rather than qualitative.
[21:36] <Duke77_awy> John 12:32 says all men... and yes, I agree with that.
[21:37] <Nomos> so if all men are drawn to Jesus - what inability is Paul referring to?
[21:37] <Nomos> (also, Paul isnt the only one that speaks of inability - Jesus, in the Book of John, speaks of the inability to see, hear, and understand as well).,
[21:37] NA27 has left IRC
[21:37] <Nomos> JOhn 8 for instance deals with their inability to 'hear'.
[21:37] <Duke77_awy> like I already said (because I knew where you were going) Paul was refering to "the sensual man" who has rejected the Gospel...
[21:38] <Nomos> Duke77_awy: That's not what the passage say though, it says they do not have the ability to 'see', 'hear' or in the Corinthian passage, to 'understand' the Gospel. Are you saying that they once had the ability, but then it was taken away from them?
[21:39] <Duke77_awy> Was not Pharoah's heart hardened by God?
[21:39] <Duke77_awy> yes, ability can be taken away...
[21:39] <Nomos> Duke77_awy; Yes it was - and consequentially Pharoah also hardened his heart.
[21:39] <Duke77_awy> agreed (re: Pharoah)
[21:40] <Nomos> Duke77_awy: So you think Paul is saying that they were once able to understand, see and hear, but since they did not accept the Gospel, they cannot see, hear, or understand the Gospel?
[21:40] <Duke77_awy> You're putting a lot there that isn't in the text...
[21:40] <Nomos> SUch as?
[21:41] <Duke77_awy> Paul refers to the "sensual man" a man who has chosen the world over the Lord.
[21:41] <Nomos> The specific passages cited, ie 1cor 2.14, says they are not able to understand spiritual things (which I would assume you include the Gospel with).
[21:41] <Nomos> Are you saying they once had the ability to understand spiritual things, but since they rejected spiritual things, they cannot understand spiritual things?
[21:42] CService.StarLink-IRC.Org sets mode: +o CStar
[21:42] CStar changes topic to "The Truth Proclaimed, His Church is Triumphant!"
[21:42] <Duke77_awy> 1Cor2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (NIV)
[21:43] <Duke77_awy> "does not accept..." again implies the will of man..
[21:43] <Nomos> Jesus said in Matthew 13.13 that the reason that He even spoke in parables was so that they could not see, hear, or understand.
[21:43] <Duke77_awy> once the man is open to the will of God... receptive to the gift, he will understand...
[21:43] <Nomos> yes, but you would agree that the 'will of man' is dependent upon the 'ability of man' wouldn't you?
[21:43] <Duke77_awy> time to go now...
[21:43] <Duke77_awy> wife is waiting...
[21:43] <Nomos> bummer.
[21:43] <Duke77_awy> tapping her feet
[21:43] <Nomos> thanks for the chat.
[21:43] <Nomos> heh
[21:43] <Duke77_awy> I'll be back...
[21:44] <Duke77_awy> :-)
[21:44] <Nomos> I'll wait around then. :]\
[21:44] <Nomos> :] rather
[21:52] Calvinist is on IRC
[21:54] Calvinist [soli_deo_g@bal-iqx1-cs-33.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has joined #CathApol
[21:55] <Nomos> re Calvinist
[21:55] <Nomos> Calvinist: duke, aka bigscott, is away.
[21:55] <Nomos> but he said he would be back to finish the discussion.
[21:56] Fiddler [sgys@ip-207-155-84-68.cybertime.net] has joined #CathApol
[21:57] <Nomos> re Fiddler
[21:57] Fiddler [sgys@ip-207-155-84-68.cybertime.net] has left #CathApol
[21:57] <Nomos> well then
[21:57] Calvinist [soli_deo_g@bal-iqx1-cs-33.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Calvinist[bal-iqx1-cs-33.dial.airstreamcomm.net])
[21:57] Calvinist has left IRC
[21:58] Fiddler [sgys@ip-207-155-84-68.cybertime.net] has joined #CathApol
[21:58] <Nomos> re Fiddler
[22:03] Calvinist [soli_deo_g@bal-iqx1-cs-33.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has joined #CathApol
[22:03] Calvinist is on IRC
[22:11] <Nomos> re Calvinist
[22:17] Nomos looks to the roof
[22:19] GRAMafk [_______@pool0753.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net] has quit IRC (Leaving)
[22:28] *** Disconnected ***
[22:29] *** Disconnected ***
[23:34] Duke77_awy [CathApol@1Cust227.tnt3.prescott.az.da.uu.net] has joined #CathApol
[23:34] Duke77_awy has changed the topic to "The Truth Proclaimed, His Church is Triumphant!"
[23:34] <Nomos> re Duke77_awy
[23:34] <Nomos> :]
[23:35] CStar sets mode: +o Duke77_awy
[23:35] You are now known as Duke77
[23:35] <Duke77> hello
[23:36] <Nomos> you would agree that the 'will of man' is dependent upon the 'ability of man' wouldn't you?
[23:36] <Nomos> :p
[23:37] <Duke77> well... the will of man is part of the nature of man... the ability can be affected by the choices man makes.
[23:37] <Nomos> <Duke77_awy> once the man is open to the will of God... receptive to the gift, he will understand...
[23:38] <Duke77> that is consistent with what I said earlier too
[23:38] <Nomos> Duke77: Paul and Jesus say he, the unregenerate man, doesn't have the ability to see, hear, or understand spiritual things (which would naturally include the GospeL) so wouldn't the will of man (to believe the Gospel), depend upon the ability of man?
[23:39] <Nomos> Duke77: The ability is effected by the choices, but wouldn't the choices, specifically in this context, also determine the choices?
[23:39] <Nomos> rather
[23:39] <Nomos> determine the ability
[23:39] <Nomos> restated:
[23:39] <Nomos> Duke77: The ability is effected by the choices, but wouldn't the ability, specifically in this context, also determine the choices?
[23:40] <Duke77> the ability is not affected by the choices... the latter choices are affected by the earlier ones
[23:40] <Duke77> the ability is part of the nature...
[23:41] <Nomos> Duke77: Would you say that our choices, specifically in relation to spiritual things, is dependent upon our ability to choose?
[23:41] <Nomos> Duke77: Because Jesus and Paul are saying they are not *able* to do things, hence, choosing the things is clearly not possible given the inability.
[23:41] <Nomos> I can't *choose* to see if I am blind.
[23:42] <Duke77> no... just the opposite... our relation to spiritual things is dependent on our choices... if we choose to reject the gift to begin with, then things spiritual will be incomprehensible.
[23:42] <Nomos> Duke77: can a blind person choose to see?
[23:43] <Nomos> Duke77: or a deaf person to hear?
[23:43] <Duke77> but that's not the scenario... that's a false analogy... the drawing is to all men, so somewhere some men "choose" to be blind... deaf or dumb...
[23:44] <Nomos> ok, so, using the biblical analogy - if someone 'cannot understand spiritual things', does that mean they once understood, rejected it, and now don't understand?
[23:44] <Duke77> it's a "gift" it's not something "forced" upon some
[23:44] <Nomos> or that they once 'saw', rejected, then went blind?
[23:45] <Duke77> that happens too
[23:45] <Nomos> really? you think that's what Paul and Jesus are saying?
[23:45] <Duke77> but is not the same thing as rejecting the gift to begin with
[23:46] <Nomos> I don't follow - to begin with, we were dead in sin.
[23:46] <Nomos> you're not pelagian are you?
[23:47] <Duke77> James 5:19-20 shows that some "among you" can "stray from the truth" (they had to be "in" the truth to begin with to stray from it) and IF someone brings such a person "back" (again implying they were once "in") then you have "saved a soul from death and covered a multitude of sins"
[23:48] <Duke77> but again, that's a completely different scenario than one who rejects the gift in the beginning.
[23:48] <Nomos> but James 5 is referring to the regenerate, not the unregenerate that Paul and JEsus are referring to.
[23:48] <Duke77> right.. that's what I just said... :-)
[23:48] <Nomos> hence, Titus 1.9, an exhortation to lead and direct people to truth, is written to christians, not to the unregenerate.
[23:49] <Calvinist> Saving faith and saving knowledge are two different things, Duke.
[23:49] <Nomos> right, but then Paul and Jesus, in regard to the inabilities previously mentioned, are referring to the unregenerate, not to Christians.
[23:49] <Duke77> Cal... that's another whole discussion... :-)
[23:49] <Nomos> They say they cannot see, they cannot hear, and they cannot understand.
[23:50] <Nomos> Duke77: Do you believe those that Jesus and Paul are referring to are eternally damned with no chance of salvation?
[23:51] Playing pingpong.wav by Local.
[23:51] <Duke77> Nomos... since when He is "lifted up" He will draw "all men" (or all things - which encompasses even more!) then obviously, some who are drawn refuse the gift, remain unregenerate and thus are "handicapped" in such a way as to not understand...
[23:52] <Duke77> Nomos, if they willfully reject the gift, then my impression is yes, they are lost and damned for all eternity...
[23:52] <Duke77> but that is not for "me" to judge.
[23:52] <Nomos> Duke77: okie, but you said that
[1] all men are drawn, and
[2] all men are enabled - both preconditions for coming to Jesus. Given that Paul shows us that the unregenerate do not have the abilities to enable them to come to Christ, I'm not sure why you hold that position.
[23:53] <Nomos> Duke77: They willing reject it because they cannot accept it - those are Christ's words.
[23:53] <Nomos> Duke77: Jesus' says, "You don't believe *because* you are not my sheep"
[23:54] <Nomos> Duke77: IN relation to his comment in Chapter 8, about how the unregenerate *cannot* hear, he says in john 10:27 (the verse the comes after the "you dont believe because you're not my sheep) *My* sheep hear my voice and they follow me.
[23:54] <Duke77> both
[1] and
[2] are the same thing... and just because one is "enabled" does not mean they will accept the "gift" - remember, it is a "gift" and part of the concept of "giving" is "receiving."
[23:55] <Nomos> Duke77: Right, and we receive according to our ability.
[23:55] <Duke77> "receiving" or "rejecting" -
[23:55] <Nomos> Duke77: Paul, nor JEsus said these people had the ability, then lost it.
[23:55] <Duke77> right... and we are ALL given the "ability" to begin with...
[23:55] <Nomos> Duke77: Paul, and JEsus, said they were *dead*, they had never had life in them.
[23:55] <Duke77> John said it...
[23:55] <Duke77> John 12:32
[23:56] <Duke77> actually, Jesus said it... John records it.
[23:56] <Nomos> He didn't say that.
[23:56] <Nomos> You're the one that equates drawing with enabling
[23:56] <Nomos> Or, at least you are now.
[23:56] <Duke77> "When I am lifted up, I will draw ALL MEN..."
[23:56] <Nomos> Jesus said, in vs 32, that when he's lifted up, he will draw all men
[23:56] <Nomos> you assume he's speaking quanitatively rather than qualitatively
[23:56] <Nomos> but the burden of proof is on you
[23:57] <Duke77> the proof is in the puddin'
[23:57] <Nomos> but nonetheless, we are speaking of ability, not drawing.
[23:57] <Nomos> you're switching topics though
[23:57] <Nomos> we aren't addressing the 'drawing', but the 'enabling'.
[23:57] <Duke77> no... we were talking about the drawing...
[23:57] <Calvinist> Heh
[23:57] <Nomos> before, and I have the log, you said you didnt equate the enabling of john 6.65 with the drawing of john 6.44
[23:57] <Nomos> are you saying that those two passages are connected now?
[23:57] <Duke77> 12:32 says WHO is drawn... nowhere in John 6 is that "group" identified.
[23:58] <Nomos> john 6.44
[23:58] <Duke77> I didn't deny it... I didn't commit to it at the time... and the two verses are not identical...
[23:59] <Nomos> You didn't deny that they were related? I asked you more than once if the "...this is why I told you" of Jesus' words in vs 65 were related to the previous proclamations he was making in the passage.
[23:59] <Nomos> you said no it wasn't - but then didn't elaborate on what exactly Jesus was referring to.
[00:00] <Nomos> but nonetheless, I don't want to sidetrack on something that may not help illuminate the difference in our views.
[00:00] <Nomos> we agree that"
[00:00] <Nomos> :
[00:00] <Nomos> some people are enabled, some people are not.
[00:01] <Nomos> You stated that all people are enabled to come to Jesus
[00:01] <Nomos> but that some people lose that ability
[00:01] <Nomos> hence, they cannot see, hear, or understand as Jesus and Paul allude to
[00:01] <Nomos> they are 'dead' as Paul says
[00:01] <Duke77> hang on... was away for a sec, let me catch up...
[00:01] <Nomos> okie
[00:02] <Nomos> I'm trying to summarize your view there
[00:02] <Nomos> on the specific topic at hand
[00:02] <Nomos> although, I began with 'we agree:' - then I shifted into summarizing your view
[00:03] <Duke77> I agree with all except: <Nomos> some people are enabled, some people are not.
[00:03] <Nomos> ok
[00:03] <Duke77> the "some are not" part
[00:03] <Nomos> you believe all people are enabled at some point, correct?
[00:03] <Duke77> all have the ability to accept the gift... if they are presented with the gift and reject it... things change.
[00:04] <Duke77> those that have never been offered the gift to begin with are in a different situation...
[00:04] <Nomos> where do you get the idea that all have the ability to accept the gift?
[00:04] <Duke77> John 12:32
[00:04] <Duke77> "the drawing"
[00:04] <Nomos> John 12.32 says that all men will be drawn unto him
[00:04] <Nomos> you're equating drawn with enabled now?
[00:05] <Duke77> I did earlier too... not just now...
[00:05] <Nomos> (not to mention that 'all' clearly isn't defaulted as quantitative in Scripture, but rather, is quite frequently qualitative)
[00:05] <Duke77> I was leary to agree with you earlier... wasn't sure where you were going with it.
[00:06] <Nomos> so all men have the ability to come to Jesus from birth, is that your position?
[00:07] <Duke77> until they reject the gift, I would say yes... once the gift is rejected, it becomes a bit more difficult.
[00:07] <Duke77> that is Grace.
[00:07] <Nomos> ok. so once they reject the gift, they no longer have the ability to come to Jesus?
[00:07] <Duke77> A free gift given to all who will accept it.
[00:07] <Nomos> bit more difficult or impossible?
[00:07] <Duke77> nothing is impossible
[00:08] <Nomos> Paul says 'cannot'
[00:08] <Nomos> Jesus says 'cannot'
[00:08] <Nomos> but you say they can?
[00:08] <Duke77> cannot unless the Holy Spirit moves on them...
[00:08] <Nomos> And who does the Holy Spirit move on?
[00:09] <Duke77> those who accept the gift...
[00:09] <Nomos> huh?
[00:09] <Nomos> but they rejected the gift
[00:09] <Nomos> and Jesus and Paul says they cannot see, hear or understand
[00:10] <Nomos> yet you say they may eventually accept that which they cannot see, hear or understand?
[00:10] <Duke77> Paul himself rejected the gift until that fateful ride to Damascus...
[00:10] <Duke77> Jesus took a special interest in him.
[00:10] <Nomos> yes, Paul was unregenerate and not born again till Damascus
[00:10] <Nomos> Jesus says we don't see until we're born again
[00:10] <Nomos> john 3.3
[00:11] <Duke77> but Saul KNEW what the Truth was and rejected it... he was given another chance... and the rest is history.
[00:11] <Nomos> so only those that Jesus takes a special interest in will be moved on by the Holy Spirit?
[00:11] <Nomos> yet Saul was unregenerate and a hater of God
[00:11] <Duke77> John3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (NIV)
[00:11] <Nomos> He did not know the truth
[00:12] <Nomos> Saul didn't know the truth, He affirmed a lie
[00:12] <Nomos> He persecuted Jesus because he denied Jesus as Messiah
[00:13] <Nomos> so does Jesus take a special interest in all haters of God, like Saul?
[00:13] <Duke77> John 3:3 is not talking about ability to accept the kingdom, but the ability to get to the kingdom... that's what "see" means in that context...
[00:13] <Nomos> the 'see' is metaphorical to the new birth, ie, being born of the Spirit.
[00:13] <Nomos> the second birth
[00:13] <Nomos> Nicodemus was asking how we can be born of the womb twice, because he misunderstood.
[00:14] <Nomos> Jesus was saying the second birth was necessary for sight - for hearing, and for understanding.
[00:14] <Duke77> the "see" is metaphorical, we agree... but it is dependent on the "born again" it is not the "born again" itself.
[00:14] <Nomos> right, we see when we are born again
[00:14] <Nomos> not before
[00:14] <Duke77> agreed
[00:14] <Nomos> hence, 'unbelievers are blind and cannot see' 1cor 2.14
[00:14] <Nomos> 2cor 4.4 rather
[00:15] <Nomos> They aren't believers and then non-believers
[00:15] <Nomos> they hate God - He regenerates them, by the moving of the Spirit as you say, and they *then* have the ability to see, hear and understand..
[00:15] <Nomos> You said Jesus took a special interest in Saul - does Jesus take a special interest in all haters of God?
[00:16] <Duke77> it doesn't say "non-believers" it says "unbelievers" that implies their will to reject again....
[00:16] <Duke77> 2Cor4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NIV)
[00:16] <Nomos> nonbeliever and unbeliever are synonyms
[00:16] <Nomos> there is no morphological disparityt
[00:16] <Duke77> no...
[00:16] <Duke77> non and un are different
[00:17] <Nomos> and in greek it is "apistwn"
[00:17] <Nomos> the prefix is of negation
[00:18] <Nomos> 'un', as a prefix in english means 'in opposite to'
[00:18] <Duke77> that conforms with what I said.
[00:18] <Nomos> its generally synonymous to negation
[00:18] <Nomos> yes, negation and in opposition are clearly synonymous in this context
[00:18] <Duke77> if you "negate" something, you wilfully reject it.... no?
[00:18] <Nomos> not necessarily
[00:19] <Nomos> but yes, I agree that unbelievers willingly reject God
[00:19] <Nomos> but they do so from birth
[00:19] <Nomos> as gen 8.21 says
[00:19] <Duke77> to negate something... one must affirm the positive as well... or there is no logical negation.
[00:19] <Nomos> You misunderstand the prefix
[00:19] <Nomos> its a negation in *meaning*, not in action
[00:20] <Nomos> unhappy doesn't mean you reject happiness
[00:20] <Nomos> it means, *not* happy
[00:20] <Nomos> in can mean a reverse in action, as in undo, but the prefix doesn't demand that.
[00:20] <Nomos> besides, the greek is negation, not a reverse in action
[00:20] <Duke77> same thing... it has no "meaning" if you don't also affirm the positive... as in "unhappy" you know "happy" as well... or "unhappy" has no meaning.
[00:21] <Nomos> rather than quibble over english morphology, the greek prefix means 'not-belief'
[00:21] <Nomos> those that have not belief
[00:21] <Duke77> non-believers and un-believers are two different things....
[00:22] <Nomos> I don't agree, but it doesn't matter
[00:22] <Nomos> we can skip the english prefixation and just deal with the greek so as to avoid the useless quibble
[00:22] <Duke77> non-belief would mean there was no knowledge of the belief to begin with... like the Aborigines...(sp?) unbelief means one chooses not to believe.
[00:23] <Nomos> That's a false view of the human condition - there is no neutral position. Those that don't believe are haters of God - even from the womb
[00:23] <Nomos> gen 8.21 says the intent of the heart is evil from youth
[00:23] <Nomos> david talks of the sin in the womb
[00:24] <Duke77> Ge8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. (NIV)
[00:24] <Nomos> there is no neutral starting point - that's an early greek myth
[00:24] <Nomos> jer 17.9
[00:24] <Nomos> (i wish you had a bible bot here - it would be rather practical)
[00:24] <Duke77> I agree with no neutral starting point... and that the will of man chooses himself over God...
[00:24] <Nomos> from the womb
[00:25] <Duke77> I am "borrowing" the bot in Undernet's #Catholics
[00:25] <Nomos> ah
[00:25] <Nomos> I suppose I could do the same with #apologetics
[00:25] <Duke77> Jer17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (NIV)
[00:25] <Nomos> We are astray from the womb - where is it that you see this 'rejection' process coming in?
[00:26] <Duke77> we need to be careful though too... we are not looking at context, and at times the authors of Scripture a poetically lamenting things...
[00:26] <Nomos> or rather ... how many times must we reject God before we lost the ability to see, hear or understand?
[00:27] <Duke77> yes... the concept of Original Sin is accepted in Catholicism
[00:27] <Nomos> catholicism is semi-pelagian
[00:27] <Nomos> but that's another topic
[00:27] <Nomos> Do you believe we reject God from the womb?
[00:27] ORtho has left IRC
[00:28] <Duke77> I believe Catholicism specifically condemns Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism...
[00:28] <Nomos> I believe they don't do it consistently ... but again, another topic.
[00:28] <Nomos> Do you believe we reject God from the womb?
[00:28] <Duke77> Not a wilfull rejection... but we are unclean from the womb
[00:29] <Nomos> so when does one lose the ability to accept the Gospel?
[00:30] <Nomos> Psalms 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
[00:30] <Duke77> I'm not so sure that that is ever a final outcome... one may continually reject the Gospel... but could, even on their deathbed, convert.
[00:31] <Duke77> Psalms are almost all poetic...
[00:31] <Nomos> how is that possible?
[00:31] <Nomos> yes, and poetry is used to convey truth
[00:31] <Duke77> With God, all things are possible.
[00:31] <Nomos> 2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
[00:31] <Duke77> even deathbed conversions...
[00:32] <Nomos> so someone can convert even though they can't hear, see, or understand the Gospel?
[00:32] <Calvinist> Duke, is this drawing therefore a continual drawing where God is trying to save someone but can't?
[00:32] <Nomos> I'm not saying there aren't deathbed conversions - I'm asking how that is possible in light of Paul and JEsus speaking of the inability of the unregenerate.
[00:32] <Duke77> I believe God never gives up... and gives such a person every chance to convert... and if they never do, then their continual rejection just piles more coals on their head.
[00:33] <Nomos> Duke77: WHat chance is there when they lack all ability to see, hear, or understand the Gospel?
[00:33] <Duke77> Cal... it has nothing to do with God's ability...
[00:33] <Duke77> Nomos... I don't know... but it happens...
[00:34] <Nomos> Duke77: Indeed it does happen - but not because they are gaining the ability on their own.
[00:34] <Calvinist> But is it a continual drawing on God's part?
[00:34] <Duke77> Jesus was able to make the blind see, the deaf hear and the lame walk...
[00:34] <Nomos> Duke77: The ability to see, hear or understand the Gospel on the deathbed comes when the Spirit prompted by nothing but His own grace, chooses those which He wishes to regenerate.
[00:34] <Duke77> Cal... the gift is always out there... yes...
[00:34] <Nomos> Duke77: YEs, he was able - but not by anything they did.
[00:35] <Nomos> Duke77: Blind people don't choose to see, they receive sight.
[00:35] <Calvinist> Duke, that is a good example of this "drawing", making men see, raising the dead, allowing the lame to walk, etc.
[00:35] <Duke77> the drawing didn't end at the cross... it continues on
[00:35] <Nomos> Duke77: in fact, JEsus spoke in parables *so that* the blind and deaf could not understand.
[00:35] <Calvinist> So this "drawing" is also the universal offer of the gospel?
[00:35] <Nomos> Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand
[00:36] <Nomos> Lazarus didn't choose to come back to life and walk out of the cave - Jesus made him alive and called him out.
[00:36] <Duke77> Very good... those not willing to see the truth beneath the parable... don't.
[00:36] <Nomos> Duke77: not willing? we *will* according to our nature, and our nature is in part, determined by our abilities.
[00:37] <Nomos> Duke77: of course, the nature of the unregenerate is nothing but wickedness - do you think wicked people are going to will towards righteousness?
[00:37] <Duke77> our nature is not determined by our abilities... you have that backwards
[00:37] <Nomos> The bible calls these people dead in sin and *unable*
[00:37] <Nomos> yet, you seem to want to give them life - or to equate their first birth with the necessary second.
[00:38] <Nomos> our abilities, what we are able to do is determined by our being, who we are - our Will is determined by our nature.
[00:38] <Duke77> "dead" in sin is a metaphor...
[00:38] <Nomos> yes, it refers to absolute inability
[00:38] <Nomos> it also refers to spiritual death
[00:39] <Nomos> which is not metaphorical
[00:39] <Nomos> as in col 2.13, eph 2.1,5 et cetra
[00:39] <Nomos> 1cor 15..22
[00:39] <Duke77> you seem to be stuck in Calvinism though... the point is that if it is a "gift" then it is something "wilfully" accepted... not forced.
[00:40] <Nomos> says who?
[00:40] <Nomos> a gift is willfully accepted
[00:40] <Nomos> but you assume that all can accept
[00:40] <Duke77> just about every page in the New Testament makes reference to our accepting, choosing, believing, persevering... etc...
[00:40] <Nomos> or will WIll to accept
[00:40] <Nomos> when Jesus clearly says that there are those that are not in a position to
[00:41] <Nomos> yes, but I don't argue that point.
[00:41] <Nomos> we must choose God, and choose Him freely
[00:41] <Nomos> but our choice isn't random, nor is it based upon our good luck, good intelligence, sincerity, or anything else we possess
[00:41] <Duke77> the evidence of the will of man overwhelms the Calvinistic concept of no choice
[00:42] <Calvinist> Duke, who said that man has "no choice"?
[00:42] <Nomos> you don't understand the 'calvinistic concept'
[00:42] <Calvinist> That is not the Calvinistic concept. :-)
[00:42] <Duke77> yes... I understand it quite well...
[00:42] <Nomos> Duke77: No you don't.
[00:42] <Calvinist> Another misunderstanding on your part. :)
[00:42] <Nomos> Duke77: You said Calvinists say we 'have no choice'?
[00:43] <Nomos> Duke77: Where do you get that from?
[00:43] <Nomos> doesn't sound like you've read much on calvinism.
[00:43] <Calvinist> Duke, you understand it better then us? Okay then, we understand Roman Catholicism better then you. :-)
[00:43] <Duke77> perhaps I exagerate to make a point... but Calvinism ultimately places ALL the "choice" on God... nothing on man... hence man becomes a puppet or a robot... not choosing anything... only subcombing to the Puppeteer.
[00:43] <Nomos> Duke77: That's not true either.
[00:44] <Nomos> Duke77: You still don't understand 'calvinism'.
[00:44] <Calvinist> Reminds me of an atheist I know telling me what I believe.
[00:44] <Nomos> Duke77: Calvinism teaches that man chooses freely.
[00:44] <Duke77> Calvinism does not give anything to man's will... you are either predestined, or you're not... no choice...
[00:44] <Nomos> Duke77: In fact, Calvinism makes the choice real, whereas non-calvinistic views render choice to incoherency or random chance.
[00:45] <Calvinist> Amazing.
[00:45] <Nomos> Duke77: Again, you don't understand Calvinism.
[00:45] IrishKing is on IRC
[00:45] <Nomos> Duke77: Calvinism say's man's will is contingent upon his heart - and that we choose freely in accordance to our nature.
[00:45] <Nomos> Duke77: Do you believe God can choose to lie?
[00:46] <Duke77> then enlighten me... everytime I have debated a Calvinist they argue that it is completely dependent on God's Sovereignty... you are stating something novel
[00:46] <Nomos> Duke77: Dependence upon God's sovreignty doesn't make a choice any less real.
[00:46] <Nomos> Duke77: Do you believe God can act contrary to His goddly nature?
[00:46] <Duke77> hmmm... that sounds more like the Catholic position....
[00:47] <Nomos> Duke77: ie, can God lie?
[00:47] <Nomos> Duke77; Well I'll show you how it isn't. ;]
[00:47] <Nomos> Duke77: Can God lie?
[00:47] <Duke77> "can" God lie? I suppose He could... as in He is able... but He wouldn't
[00:48] <Nomos> but the Bible says He can't
[00:48] <Nomos> yet, you say He can
[00:49] <Duke77> It would not be in His Nature to do so... but who am *I* to say that "God" can or can't do anything HE chooses?
[00:49] <Duke77> He is GOD! :-)
[00:49] <Nomos> you're not one to say something, but God is
[00:49] <Nomos> if God tells you He cannot lie, can He lie?
[00:50] <Duke77> Is anything "impossible" for God?
[00:50] <Nomos> yes
[00:50] <Nomos> for instance
[00:51] <Nomos> acts 2.24 says that it was impossible for death to overcome him
[00:51] <Nomos> that is, Jesus.
[00:51] <Nomos> God says, in James, that there is no variation in Him - does that limit His free choice?
[00:52] <Nomos> If you believe that God can lie, how do you determine what is more likely, that he's lying, or not lying?
[00:52] <Nomos> surely you didn't just flip a coin
[00:52] <Duke77> No variation... as in He always had the ability to do whatever, whether or not mere man ever realized it.
[00:52] <Nomos> no variation in that God is eternally God
[00:53] <Nomos> duke, would it be limiting God to say that God cannot be not God?
[00:53] <Nomos> are you taking away His freewill?
[00:54] Playing pingpong.wav by Local.
[00:54] <Duke77> You're slipping into a George Carlin argument... "Ah, Father... can God make a rock so large that He Himself cannot move it?"
[00:55] <Nomos> no, that's a fallacious argument.
[00:55] <Nomos> mine is asking if God can do things contrary to His being
[00:55] <Nomos> the bible says God cannot lie
[00:55] <Calvinist> Can God cease to be God?
[00:55] <Nomos> it says He cannot deny himself
[00:55] <Duke77> So is your <Nomos> duke, would it be limiting God to say that God cannot be not God?
[00:55] <Duke77> <Nomos> are you taking away His freewill?
[00:55] <Calvinist> Right.
[00:56] <Nomos> Duke, do you believe the Bible when it says God cannot lie nor deny Himself?
[00:56] <Duke77> Yes.... let us move on.
[00:56] <Nomos> ok
[00:56] <Nomos> Does God lose freechoice since He cannot lie or deny Himself?
[00:57] <Duke77> You asked a hypothetical...
[00:57] <Nomos> okie - but now I'm asking a non-hypothetical
[00:57] <Duke77> No, because it was His choice to say He would not lie or deny Himself to begin with.
[00:57] <Nomos> Its not hypothetical that God cannot lie (though you say He can contrary to what God says)
[00:57] <Nomos> Duke77: would not?
[00:58] <Nomos> where does it say would not ... titus 1.2 for instance, says *cannot*
[00:58] <Duke77> however you want to word it
[00:58] <Nomos> yea, well . they mean different things
[00:58] <Nomos> would not does not mean can not
[00:58] <Nomos> I want to word it the way God worded it.
[00:59] <Nomos> God says He cannot lie. He cannot deny Himself.
[00:59] <Nomos> Because that's contrary to who God is
[00:59] <Duke77> I have agreed
[00:59] <Duke77> next point please
[00:59] <Nomos> :]
[01:00] <Nomos> The unregenerate, by their being, cannot believe.
[01:00] <Nomos> my point was - who we are - determines what we do.
[01:00] <Nomos> unregenerate people don't choose God, and freely so.
[01:00] <Nomos> because, unregenerate people cannot see God, they cannot hear God, nor can they understand God.
[01:01] <Nomos> God doesn't regenerate all people - He tells us this
[01:01] <Nomos> so when you say that God enables all men, yet not all men have the ability to come to Jesus - you engage in a performative inconsistency
[01:02] <Nomos> what you seem to have, is this mystery 'will' that chooses according to something (someone mentioned our genetic composition earlier)
[01:03] Playing pingpong.wav by Local.
[01:04] <Duke77> No Nomos... I stand on what Jesus said in John 12:32... "ALL MEN" are drawn... was He lying?
[01:04] <Duke77> no... we've agreed He cannot lie.
[01:04] <Nomos> Duke77: no, but I don't believe you understand those words.
[01:05] <Nomos> Duke77: It's rhetorical to ask *me* if you think Jesus was lying, because Jesus is the very standard of that which is true.
[01:05] <Duke77> so All men are "enabled" but clearly not "all men" come to Him... the disparity must lie in the failure of men... not in the failure of God, because God, by His Nature, cannot fail.
[01:05] <Nomos> john 14.6
[01:05] <Nomos> How do you know all men are enabled?
[01:05] <Nomos> because you equate enabling to drawing?
[01:05] <Duke77> we've established that earlier too...
[01:06] <Duke77> hours ago in fact
[01:06] <Nomos> You've never shown how you get from drawn - to - enable
[01:06] <Duke77> John 12:32
[01:06] <Nomos> you've simply assumed it
[01:06] <Nomos> john 12.32 doesn't say all men have the ability to come
[01:06] <Nomos> Where does it say all men have the ability to come?
[01:06] <Duke77> it says all men are drawn
[01:06] <Nomos> ok
[01:07] <Nomos> and how do you know drawn is a synonym for enable?
[01:07] <Duke77> the same author equates the drawing and abiltity in John 6
[01:07] <Nomos> then I think you have a problem
[01:07] <Duke77> Not me! :-)
[01:08] <Nomos> because, I agree, that JOhn does make that connection, as a class of people, but John, like Paul points out that all men do *not* have the ability
[01:08] <Duke77> As Aaron said, "As for me and my family, we will follow the Lord."
[01:08] <Nomos> hence, if all men do not have the ability, and you equate enabling with ability, then not all men are drawn
[01:08] <Nomos> at least quantitatively
[01:08] <Nomos> aaron didn't say that
[01:09] <Duke77> I thought it was Aaron... I could be mistaken....
[01:09] <Duke77> it was said...
[01:09] <Duke77> do you agree?
[01:09] <Nomos> yep.
[01:09] <Nomos> it was said by a regenerated person
[01:10] <Nomos> not by the unregenerated hater of God
[01:10] <Calvinist> Joshua? :-)
[01:10] <Nomos> Calvinist: yes
[01:10] <Duke77> while some were not willing to give up their idols... Joshua was "willing" to follow God... and these were of God's "Chosen People"
[01:11] <Duke77> did God "fail" in choosing the decendents of Abraham?
[01:11] <Nomos> Duke77: No, God didn't fail - God said He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy
[01:11] <Duke77> or did some of those "Chosen" fail to follow God?
[01:11] <Nomos> Duke77: ANd he will harden whom He will ahrd.
[01:11] <Nomos> harden
[01:12] <Nomos> Duke77: I don't know who God elects unto eternal life - God said we cannot know that, only the fruit of election
[01:12] <Duke77> You're missing the connection I think... what were the People of Israel called?
[01:12] <Calvinist> Duke, there have always been a remnant according to the election of grace.
[01:12] <Nomos> Duke77: a chosen people, ie, a chosen nation.
[01:12] <Nomos> Duke77: and chosen they were.
[01:13] <Nomos> Duke77; but as a covenantal nation, they were not insured a covenantal relation
[01:13] <Duke77> Yet, these "chosen ones" often committed the worse crimes against God.
[01:13] <Nomos> Duke77: salvation is a personal covenant, not a national one
[01:13] <Calvinist> "Many are called, but few are chosen"
[01:13] <Nomos> :]
[01:13] <Nomos> Duke77: Israel was chosen for nothing of their own.
[01:14] <Nomos> Duke77: They didn't earn God's favor by their sincerity or intellectual pursuit.
[01:14] <Nomos> Duke77: God probably chose Israel to shown His great mercy, by choosing a nation so undeserving.
[01:15] <Nomos> Duke77; Israel did nothing to deserve God's election - that's the point.
[01:15] <Calvinist> Rom11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.
[01:15] <Calvinist> Rom11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
[01:15] <Duke77> Abraham did something though... that Justified him...
[01:15] <Calvinist> Rom11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; (NAS)
[01:16] <Nomos> Duke77: Yea, he believed according to gen 15.6
[01:16] <Calvinist> Uh, here we go.
[01:16] <Duke77> and God passed that on to his descendents.
[01:16] <Nomos> Duke77: and according to John 6 - believing is a work of God.
[01:16] <Nomos> Duke77: God is the author and sustainer of our faith according to the Scriptures.
[01:16] <Nomos> Duke77: God gives, and increases.
[01:16] <Duke77> no argument
[01:16] <Nomos> Duke77: Hence the Apostles cry to 'increase our faith'
[01:17] <Nomos> Duke77; so the 'thing' Abraham did was nothing of his own.
[01:17] <Nomos> Duke77: God gave Him faith.
[01:17] <Calvinist> Faith and repentence are gift's of God.
[01:18] <Nomos> Duke77: Anything you can point to that led to your belief in God, ultimately comes from somewhere - you can deny God's work, or you can affirm it.
[01:18] <Calvinist> And so salvation is of the Lord!
[01:18] <Nomos> Duke77: no choice is non-contingent.
[01:18] <Nomos> Duke77: But how sad people would deny God's sovreignty and appeal to genetic composition as responsible for our salvation (as if genetic combination was random!)
[01:19] <Duke77> I never stated genetic composition had anything to do with it...
[01:19] <Nomos> Duke77: Your choices are free and true because they reflect who you are - and who you are is who God made you.
[01:19] <Nomos> Duke77: you didn't - but another here did.
[01:19] IrishKing has left IRC
[01:20] <Calvinist> Well said, Nomos.
[01:20] <Nomos> Duke77: God uses the figurative image of a potter and clay - the clay doesn't choose or determine how it's made - but the pot acts like pot because that's how its made.
[01:20] <Nomos> :]
[01:20] <Duke77> It was according to God's Sovereignty that man was given choice... Adam "chose" to eat of the fruit after God told him NOT to... that's our nature... and it is God given. This takes NOTHING away from God's Sovereignty, for it was His Will to begin with.
[01:20] IrishKing is on IRC
[01:20] <Nomos> Duke77: You continue to dodge the key point - that is, the contingency of choice.
[01:21] <Nomos> Duke77: or avoid the key point at any rate.
[01:21] <Nomos> Duke77: No one denies that we have 'free' choice, or that we choose freely.
[01:21] <Nomos> Duke77: But we choose according to who we are - and who we are is determined by how God created us.
[01:21] <Nomos> and how sustains us.
[01:22] <Duke77> no argument thus far.. except the last statement... that was vague
[01:22] <Nomos> Duke77: Its merely repetition - we are pots, we didn't choose to be a pot and we do pot things because we are pots.
[01:23] <Nomos> Duke77: God made some pots for honor, others for wrath - those are his words.
[01:23] <Nomos> romans 9.22 speaks of this
[01:23] <Nomos> as does philemon
[01:23] <Duke77> God "knows" that some of the pots will be for wrath...
[01:24] <Calvinist> Romans 9:22: And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, (YLT)
[01:24] <Nomos> that's not what the passage says
[01:24] <Nomos> It says they were formed unto that purpose - read the previous verse
[01:25] <Nomos> 1 peter 2.8 refers to the disobedient people that are a stumbling block - their disobedience being ordained (or appointed in some translations)
[01:25] <Calvinist> Romans 9:19: Thou wilt say, then, to me, `Why yet doth He find fault? for His counsel who hath resisted?' (YLT)
[01:25] <Calvinist> Romans 9:20: nay, but, O man, who art thou that art answering again to God? shall the thing formed say to Him who did form it , Why me didst thou make thus? (YLT)
[01:25] <Nomos> jude refers to those ordained unto condemnation
[01:25] <Calvinist> Romans 9:21: Or has not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour? (Darby)
[01:25] <Nomos> Duke77: So yes, God does know, because God created them that way.
[01:25] <Duke77> I'll stand with St. Augustine in this... Free Will that does not contradict God's Sovereignty...
[01:25] Calvinist shakes his head.
[01:25] <Duke77> We are all born in a fallen state
[01:25] <Duke77> right?
[01:26] <Calvinist> And do you agree with Augustine that not all are drawn, Scott?
[01:26] <Nomos> Duke77: yep ... and we will according to our state.
[01:26] <Nomos> Duke77: Haters of God don't will to be believers in God.
[01:26] <Calvinist> Or Aquinas for that matter?
[01:26] <Nomos> Duke77: Only those that are indwelt by the Spirit, having the second birth mentioned in JOhn 3.3 are willing to believe in God.
[01:27] <Nomos> Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and h
[01:27] <Nomos> Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (NIV)
[01:27] <Duke77> in essence, we are all created for damnation... but according to His Will, He provided a Savior... and WHOSOEVER (that includes EVERYONE who WILL) believes in that Savior shall not perish but have life eternal!
[01:27] Calvinist has left IRC
[01:27] <Nomos> Duke77: But *WHO* will Will - not haters of God!
[01:27] <Nomos> Duke77: Haters of God don't want God.
[01:27] <Calvinist> Lets take that further, everyone may come, but who will come?
[01:27] <Duke77> You're contradicting John 12:32 again
[01:28] <Nomos> Duke77: not hardly.
[01:28] <Duke77> Cal is closer now...
[01:28] <Nomos> Duke77: And where's the contradiction - the passages I cited?
[01:28] <Nomos> Duke77: if Calvinist is closer - perhaps you'll answer his question?
[01:28] <Calvinist> Building doctrine on one Scripture (which is taken out of context, imo), Duke? :)
[01:29] Calvinist [soli_deo_g@bal-cas1-cs-16.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has quit IRC (Read error to Calvinist[bal-cas1-cs-16.dial.airstreamcomm.net]: Connection reset by peer)
[01:29] <Nomos> Calvinist: good point - when I post the log I'll have to analyze the citation ratio ;]
[01:29] <Nomos> quitter! ;]
[01:29] Calvinist has left IRC
[01:29] <Nomos> Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (NIV)
[01:29] <Nomos> Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (NIV)
[01:29] <Duke77> I didn't build on one verse...
[01:29] Calvinist [soli_deo_g@bal-cas1-cs-16.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has joined #CathApol
[01:29] Calvinist is on IRC
[01:29] <Nomos> Duke77: You dont seem to offer anything other than the one verse.
[01:29] <Nomos> re Calvinist
[01:30] <Nomos> Duke77: and surely you realize that not all uses of 'all' (pas) in Scripture is quantitative?
[01:30] <Duke77> I stated that virtually every page of the NT speaks of man's will, choosing, believing, accepting, following, adhering, persevering... etc.
[01:31] <Nomos> Duke77: And I agree - but clearly only the elect *can* do those things.
[01:31] <Nomos> Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (NIV)
[01:31] <Nomos> 1Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
[01:31] <Calvinist> No man can, unless they are drawn. Only those given to the Son are drawn (-all- of them), etc.
[01:31] <Calvinist> Seems simple enough.
[01:32] <Calvinist> Anyways, good night.
[01:32] <Calvinist> 28(27)28 (27)28 28Good Night and God Bless28 (27)28 (27)

Cal left too quickly for me to answer that, but the context we were discussing does NOT say "Only those give to the Son are drawn." Again he either has it backwards or has mixed the meanings of the actual context of Scripture. John 6:44 says: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:65 says: "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." It is quite clear, that the context does NOT say "Only those given to the Son are drawn" but what it IS saying is "You must be drawn or enabled before you can come." That's ALL this context is saying. So, WHO is drawn? Same author states in John 12:32 "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." So, in chapter 6 we're told you must be drawn, but it doesn't say WHO is drawn (no matter how hard the Calvinist tries to insert the word "elect" - it doesn't exist in this context) and in chapter 12 we're told that ALL MEN will be (now are) drawn to Him. So yes Cal, it is "simple enough" for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

[01:32] <Nomos> night night
[01:32] <Duke77> niters Cal
[01:32] <Nomos> Duke77: WHat causes a man to choose one way over another was never resolved before.
[01:33] Calvinist [soli_deo_g@bal-cas1-cs-16.dial.airstreamcomm.net] has left #CathApol
[01:33] <Nomos> Duke77; You merely regress to the heart, or the desires and needs, or to this or that - never explaining what causes those factors to operate, or their contingency.
[01:33] <Nomos> Duke77: These questions, seem to me, to cause a lot of difficulty to your view.
[01:33] <Duke77> no... I am just getting a bit tired myself...
[01:34] <Nomos> Duke77: Ultimately, what I'm trying to get at is the causation of your faith.
[01:34] <Nomos> Duke77: I don't doubt that, it's quite late. But they were never answered earlier either.
[01:34] <Nomos> Duke77: I have the log that shows regress, but never final causation.
[01:35] <Duke77> I have answered many, many times...
[01:35] <Nomos> Duke77: right, with regression.
[01:35] <Nomos> Duke77: or with tautology.
[01:35] <Duke77> God "causes" the faith... I have no argument with that either.
[01:35] <Nomos> Duke77: He causes everyone to have faith?
[01:36] <Nomos> Jesus even says "you did not choose me'
[01:36] <Nomos> acts 9.15 says God chose us
[01:36] <Nomos> john 15.16 says Jesus chose us (and that we didn't choose him)
[01:36] <Nomos> 2thes 2.13 says something of the same - to give thanks for God choosing us
[01:36] <Duke77> hmmm.... the context of Acts 13 is a bit more inclusive than the one verse you cited
[01:37] <Nomos> john 13.18 says that Jesus doesn't speak to all - but only to those that He has chosen
[01:37] <Nomos> acts 13.48?
[01:37] <Duke77> Acts13:47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
[01:37] <Duke77> Acts13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
[01:37] <Duke77> Acts13:49 The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. (NIV)
[01:37] <Nomos> acts 13.48 says that the gentiles that were ordained to eternal life, believed.
[01:37] <Nomos> that belief was contingent upon ordination
[01:37] <Nomos> all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
[01:38] <Nomos> it spread through the whole region - and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
[01:38] <Nomos> 2tim 1.9 says that we were *called* (not by anything we did) but by his good purpose
[01:39] <Nomos> and in relation to acts 13.48 - prov 20.24 says that *all* of our steps are ordained by the lorf
[01:39] <Nomos> lord
[01:39] <Duke77> Nomos... a few verses here and there "seem" to point to Calvinism... when the overwhelming content of the NT screams against it...
[01:39] <Nomos> ordained means to *appoint* (hence the translational variants between the two) - to prepare or to decree
[01:40] <Nomos> Duke77: Who's been pointing to the overwhelming content of the OT and NT?
[01:40] <Nomos> Duke77: wanna compare citation ratios?
[01:40] <Nomos> Duke77: I bet I have more than 20:1 ;]
[01:40] <Duke77> You want me to start spewing verses? I can just start flipping to ANY page of the NT and find "choice"
[01:40] <Nomos> ok
[01:41] <Nomos> you could - but the word choice itself wouldn't help you
[01:41] <Duke77> that's not "winning" for you... just because you've cited some verses....
[01:41] <Nomos> especially in a passage where Jesus says that you *did not* choose Him
[01:41] <Nomos> no, but its not winning for you to say that anyone can read a few passages in the NT out of context to make a point
[01:41] <Nomos> since I haven't done that - your point is moot
[01:42] <Nomos> Ive just made it clear that I have an *abundant* amount of passages that I can, off the top of my head, appeal to in which to support my view.
[01:42] <Nomos> but regardless - without the passages - the question of contingency still remains for you
[01:43] <Nomos> because, for me, my choice is contingent upon God - yours is contingent upon something else.
[01:43] <Duke77> John 8:19 - If you knew me, you would then know my Father also."
[01:43] <Duke77> Luke 13:24 - Strive to enter by the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able...
[01:43] <Duke77> there's two...
[01:43] <Nomos> ok
[01:43] <Duke77> no bot... I am typing
[01:43] <Nomos> wanna look at those two?
[01:44] <Duke77> Strive implies will...
[01:44] <Nomos> john 8.19 says *if* you knew me (thus issuing a dichotomy of people) - in matthew we read 'depart from me ye that work iniquity, for I never knew you'
[01:44] <Duke77> and some who strive won't make it...
[01:44] <Duke77> according to Calvinism... they won't even strive
[01:44] <Duke77> those "destined" not to make it will hate the Lord...
[01:45] <Nomos> luke 13.24 is a good passage - but John, who uses the exact same imagery of the gate, explains *who* can enter the gate (hence revealing Jesus' intended audience of Luke)
[01:45] <Nomos> That's not true - youre caricaturing calvinism again
[01:45] <Duke77> just going on what you said earlier
[01:45] <Nomos> People may strive, hence the parable of the seed sower, but striving doesn't get people to God
[01:45] <Duke77> you said the unregenerate was incapable of seeking God...
[01:46] <Nomos> well, keep in mind my name isn't John nor Calvin ;]
[01:46] <Duke77> who are these that "strive" but won't make it?
[01:46] <Nomos> the unregenerate is capable of seeking, but not finding
[01:46] <Nomos> Jesus said they would seek, and not find
[01:47] <Duke77> hmmm. in Matthew 7 He said "seek and ye shall find..."
[01:47] <Nomos> Jeremiah said they (Israel - the elect) would seek, and also find
[01:47] <Nomos> right
[01:47] <Nomos> but clealry, all of those passages are intended for a specific audience
[01:48] <Nomos> I believe the unregenerate may try to seek God (or gods) - for whatever selfish motive they may have
[01:48] <Nomos> I also believe that the unregenerate may find God in that search - though, only if the HS regenerates them
[01:48] <Nomos> the regeneration though isn't contingent upon their search - rather, the search manifests the HS working in their life.
[01:49] <Nomos> You said that Jesus had a special interest in Pauls life earlier
[01:49] <Nomos> well, like all regenerate, JEsus has a special interest in them.
[01:49] <Duke77> I wouldn't disagree with <Nomos> the regeneration though isn't contingent upon their search - rather, the search manifests the HS working in their life.
[01:49] <Nomos> Like Paul, the elect are chosen before the foundation of the word
[01:50] <Nomos> Duke77: but you have regeneration contingent upon the 'will' of man (which regressess endlessly to something that causes the will to function, which causes the cause of the will to function ad infinitum)
[01:50] <Duke77> well... they are known, since God knows all...
[01:50] <Nomos> Duke77; Yes, and God chose us before He created us - those are his words
[01:50] <Nomos> rom 9.11
[01:51] <Duke77> but the drawing has to preceed the election... and from OUR perspective, that drawing cannot happen before we exist.
[01:51] <Duke77> From God's perspective... it can...
[01:51] <Duke77> He is not restricted to our view of time
[01:51] <Nomos> yes, God draws us to Him in the process of our regeneration
[01:51] <Nomos> and that drawing can be made manifest in a person's search
[01:51] <Nomos> though, the fact that someone is searching doesn't entail God drawing them
[01:52] <Nomos> God must draw us before we can come to Him - we agreed earlier that this was a precondition
[01:52] <Duke77> the drawing was initiated at Calvary... and continues to this day... for ANYONE who has eyes to see or ears to hear....
[01:52] <Nomos> precisely
[01:52] <Nomos> and *who* has eyes to see and ears to hear?
[01:52] <Nomos> (Im surprised you would use that specific metahor)
[01:53] <Nomos> metaphor even
[01:53] <Duke77> that one is not a metaphor
[01:53] <Nomos> its not?
[01:53] <Nomos> you mean, there are people without eyes and ears?
[01:53] <Nomos> literally?
[01:53] <Duke77> no, and that's the point... but some close their eyes or cover their ears
[01:54] <Nomos> *who* has eyes to see and ears to hear?
[01:54] <Nomos> you agree that there is a set of people that don't, right?
[01:54] <Duke77> we all do... but some of us choose to close our eyes
[01:55] <Nomos> closing eyes is the same as being blind?
[01:55] <Nomos> Paul and JEsus don't say we close our eyes
[01:55] <Nomos> they say we are *blind* and not able to see
[01:55] <Nomos> big difference
[01:56] <Nomos> so are you still going to equate blindness with closing one's eyes?
[01:56] <Duke77> not really if one chooses not to see... "there are none so blind as he who WILL NOT SEE"
[01:56] <Nomos> what are you quoting there?
[01:56] <Duke77> do you accept that point?
[01:56] <Nomos> what are you quoting?
[01:57] <Nomos> did God say that?
[01:58] <Nomos> hullo?
[01:58] <Duke77> searching...
[01:58] <Nomos> did God say that?
[01:58] <Nomos> if God said, I believe it.
[01:59] <Nomos> I dont think God said that
[02:00] <Nomos> and therefore, I dont accept the point - Jesus said they are blind and cannot see - not that they are blind because they will not see.
[02:03] Nomos waits in anxious anticipation
[02:04] <Nomos> scott - I need to get home.
[02:04] <Nomos> I have a lot of work to do and its 3am now.
[02:04] <Nomos> you still there?
[02:04] <Duke77> yes...
[02:04] <Nomos> ok
[02:04] <Nomos> thanks for the chat - its been a lot of fun for me.
[02:04] <Duke77> let's call it a night... and I'll get back to you with a reference or retraction of the statement
[02:05] <Nomos> okie dokie
[02:05] <Nomos> fair enough
[02:05] <Nomos> I'll save the log and review it tomorrow
[02:05] <Duke77> niters...
[02:05] <Nomos> so as to address anything I may have missed
[02:05] <Nomos> and to summarize better your position
[02:05] <Duke77> I have the log... it will be a bit long to review the whole thing!
[02:05] <Nomos> heh
[02:05] <Nomos> :]
[02:05] <Nomos> adieu mon amigo
[02:05] <Duke77> adieu
[02:05] <Duke77> mon ami
[02:05] Nomos [kashubian@] has quit IRC (haus-von-nomos.com/logs.html)
[02:05] <Duke77> hmmm... mixing things again Nomos? (hehe)
[02:06] <Duke77> Darn... missed him... (should have been "adios amigos" or "adieu mon ami")
[02:40] <Duke77> 2Pet1:9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
[02:40] <Duke77> 2Pet1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall,
[02:40] <Duke77> 2Pet1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (NIV)

I found this citation from 2 Peter while searching for "there are none so blind..." (see below for my conclusion on that search), and what is Peter saying here? He is saying you must "do something" in order to make your calling and election sure. Look also at the statement, IF you do these things... places a condition on salvation!


I quoted, "There are none so blind as he who will not see." My recollection was that this was from Scripture - it was not. It was from a song made popular by B.J. Thomas, written by Ray Stevens (he sang it as well). The song is Everything is Beautiful and what I quoted comes from the intro to the main song.