Thank you for revealing your resource. I'm certain this "Fundamental Baptist" is an objective and trusted resource without bias, or ulterior motive for trashing Calvin, Isn't it true that Fundamental Baptists are primarily emotionally charged theatrical Arminians?
In tulip world the ones who were chosen to come inside from before the foundation of the world would be irresistibly drawn in. The rest would be left outside without cookies, for they were chosen to be without cookies from before the foundation of the world.
Ok Mike for the sake of argument in response to your non scriptural analogy, YES, the rest would be left outside. But, what is that to them? They didn't want the cookies anyway, so why should they begrudge those that get the cookies?
Now please just answer the question by elucidating the text that you quoted to start this conversation with Mike. Show me how that text teaches unconditional election. Or are you finding this too difficult?
I'll be back tomorrow to check for an answer from you.
Oh, I would have no problem defending unconditional election. However, I believe it would be a waste of time with someone who a) disregards the continuity of scripture and b) the arguer decides on want he wants to believe, and then asserts that reality matches that belief. Under these conditions, I would be casting pearls before . . .
You brought up 2 Peter 1.10. Let's just stick with that for the time being before we jump down the next rabbit hole!
So your answer to my question is? Please in your own words without a cryptic scripture reference from which we're supposed to guess your answer.
RK responds, That's why I asked at the beginning if you have regard for the authority of scripture.
Your response suggests that there is a disjoint between what the Holy Spirit said by Peter and what he said by Paul. Did he not say that scripture interprets scripture. If not then there is contradiction. Are you suggesting that Peter contradicts Paul??
If election is unconditional and determined before the foundation of the world, what need to make it sure by OUR doing anything? Is election by God somehow deficient so that it needs OUR input to make it sure?
Do you have any regard for the authority of Scripture? If you do, let's ask Paul what he thinks of OUR input:
Romans 9:16-20 KJV  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy , and whom he will he hardeneth.  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it , Why hast thou made me thus?
This is how honest people conduct themselves. Deceivers level charges which are never specific. They can never produce any evidence when called to do so, and never hang around to be held accountable, or if they do, like SteveR they treat such accountability as inconsequential.
What say you Borill? Can you play the man? Or are you always going to hide behind weasel words and sanctimony?
"Suggestion" or whatever names lies behind this alias,
If you care for evidence of fallacious arguments, I "suggest " you read what you wrote.
Also, regarding your irrelevant conclusion, you are obviously joining this discussion on the tail end here or you deliberately disregard John' s misrepresentations of Presbyterians.
Mike from New York writes: penny wrote: ....and if I announced to a bunch of neighborhood kids that inside I had cookies for every child, what do you all think would happen next? The ones who ask "What must I do to have cookies?" and trust what you say and believe you have cookies, come inside; the ones who don't trust you would thereby go cookieless. In tulip world the ones who were chosen to come inside from before the foundation of the world would be irresistibly drawn in. The rest would be left outside without cookies, for they were chosen to be without cookies from before the foundation of the world.
Mike, how do you Arminians make your calling election sure when you disdain the doctrine of election:
2 Peter 1:10 KJV  Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Bye, it just might be predestinated that I see my daughter in Georgia tomorrow. I guess I'll know when I get there.
James 4:14-16 KJV  Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.  For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.  But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
It is a good thought, and not just presbyterians but also anglicans and catholics and methodists, any who have fallen for genealogical succession, baby sprinkling, false assurance, and misunderstanding biblical doctrine concerning the covenant of grace/redemption.
Still at I see, John. John, John, see if the following characteristics match your behavior associated a priori fallacy: Often the arguer, when faced with reality that differs from the belief, deploys other fallacies and strategies to support a priori.
He seeks out evidence to support his belief, which may be flimsy or suspect or mere rumors. He reinterprets his experiences to support the belief. He flatly rejects counter-evidence and contrary arguments without analysis. He praises or rewards people who have spoken in accord with his belief. He mocks or punishes people who have spoken contrarily e.g. calling them conspriacy theorists or subversives.
The a priori fallacy exists when the arguer decides on want he wants to believe, and then asserts that reality matches that belief. It often takes the form of an assumption that something is true, and a choice to make no inquiry to check facts.
Christopher writes: RK Borill's phone writes: R. K. Borill wrote: I apologize for my phone's spell check and my inability to keep up adequately. I apologize for Borill's inability to spell and generally keep up adequately.
I usually don't do this, but it was kinda funny. : )
Thanks for apologizing for me Chris but I thought that I had done that. Who apologizes for for inabilities?