@TurretinFan vs @DavidSzara79671 LIVE DEBATE🍿 📖 Did Jesus confirm the Jewish OT canon? 📅 TODAY, OCT. 24 ⏰ 5PM ET | 4PM CT LIVE:👇 youtube.com/live/Y14RmH9xD8E… LIVE👇: 📱 TT: officialjesustalks 🎮 Twitch: jesustalkspodcast 📘 FB: Ary Martinez #fyp #Catholic #Protestant #LIVE

This is a terrible response because. 1- It is not an instance of "rock so big he can't lift". --Rock so big-- The problem with the rock so big God can't lift it, is actually that it miss identifies Gods power. Rocks can or can not be lifted based on physical strength, vs Gravity. Where as God is able to accomplish work through the power of His Word. He speaks and it is so. So then the question is to misunderstand his power. -Applied- That miss characterization is not at play here. There is no reason to think that God is not capable of creating LFW beings. It is no more controversial that God can create a being similar to Himself with the power of volition, then that God can create a being like Himself with the power of Love or reason. This is even less controversial as LFW is necessary for both of those concepts to be coherent. (See @TSXpress "Free thinker argument" in relation to reason) 2- Self Existing, is not in view or an element of LFW. -The OP contrasts "Being sustained" and interaction with Gods "Permissive will" as though it would negate the Logical Coherence of the existence of a LFW being. This is not the case. God sustaining the existence of a thing =/= determining the self origination of choices of that thing. (see #5) 3- Freedom FROM God. - LFW does not hinge on a thing being Free from Gods sustaining power. Rather it is established in it's basis in a real distinction of origination of choices. - If the choice is originated in God, then it is Gods choice carried out by (whatever) and there is no distinction between a creatures will and Gods will. However, if the choice is originated in the self, then it is coherently distinct from Gods will. This is what is generally recognized as being a different person or an "individual". - Both processes are consistent with God's sustaining power. 4- Gods sustaining power. The way Gods sustaining power is portrait in the OP is only consistent with a "Occasionalism" and Continued creation view of sustaining. Where God is nearly or outright creating each moment in time as a special creation. -It is not the only game in town for understanding God's sustaining power. The moment God speaks a thing into existence, the enduring power of that one creative word is sufficient to sustain the existence of that creation, until God acts a second time and ends it or amends it. -"Let there be light" is sufficient for light to endure for ever, and its existence is dependent on that creative word. There is no need for God to continually be maintaining the existence of light by mumbling to himself "let there be light.. let there still be light, let there still be light.. let there still be light". Yet this is the kind of "sustaining" necessary to the OP. 5- The OP is completely incoherent in its use of "permission", as relies on a thing being distinctly originated from a individual not God for God to interact with. This is in direct conflict with the argument of the OP. - The fact that God Knows what a LFW being WILL DO, and the removal of "permission" to continue to exist, does not change who is originating the choice. In that instance it is still assumed that the choice is originated by the LFW individual. The power of pre-emptive annihilation does not change the assumption that the OP is hiding. -Instead, the OP must maintain a stronger Claim that God could change/dictate the choice in the exact same circumstance (IE-PAP and LFW for God) and in so doing would erase the concept of the individual itself. - If God chooses all your choices, you are little more than an avatar of God. The concept of allowance would be equal to the concept of special creation and all cause/effect relationships would be reduced to simply occasions of God will. -Close The OP confuses "Self Originated choice" with a "Self existence". The LFW assertion is that God Specially creates individuals distinct from himself, with the power to self originate choices. So "Rock so big" equivalent of God creating another self existing being is simply not in view.

By definition, to be blameworthy someone must have been able to act in a manner not worthy of blame. It’s common sense. For instance, a man who developed a brain tumor causing him to desire typically unacceptable acts would not be blameworthy, given his inability to control that behavior. Likewise, theologians who insist mankind is born unable to desire God’s appeals for reconciliation, due to an innate nature beyond their control, undermine the blameworthiness of unbelievers. I see no convincing or rational argument otherwise.

No. Calvinism’s implications offend Christians because it paints God as the cause of unbelief and unbelievers as victims. T - God decreed all can’t believe from birth, U - unless He chose them before creation, L - paid for them, I - and irresistibly caused them to believe P - for their lifetime.

Calvinists assume (wrongly) that those of us who reject their dogma haven’t read their theologians or confessions. Many of us have. I have. Some of us like @Soteriology101 used to BE Calvinists. We just remain MORE convinced by scripture that Calvinism is false.

God’s will is not always done here on earth as it is in heaven.

No, I can’t, because in a few short weeks I’ve heard about 37 Calvinist definitions including: Decree means decree. Decree sort of means decree. Decree is decree but without the implication of a command. Decree means “decree to permit.” Decree means permit.