Extremely Derogatory to Human Pride

This title may ring a bell:
Non-Calvinists, why is your God so small?

In the meantime, I assume from the tone of your different responses, you don't feel like I have any points either. OK, so be it.

 

I have not posted here what I consider nonsense. My points were real, at least to me, and my questions also real, which you simply made fun of.

 

I'm not Bob, and it seems to me that all you are doing is spending time avoiding and real discussion here.

 

Thanks for the questions, Jacob.

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. I believe that Calvinism accurately describes the gospel message. Therefore, I see no difference between evangelizing the simple gospel message and Calvinism.

I hope this helps.

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Ken, I appreciate your answers to 1 & 2; however, I have a followup question. Your answer to 3 implied that your believe Calvinism = The Gospel.
If this is true, how can you answer "Yes" to question 1? Afterall, according to your logic Arminians would be distorting the Gospel and that is not a secondary issue.

Personally, I believe one could (and should) accurately present the Gospel without getting into inability, predesination, dying for some only, etc.

Jacob.

 

Thanks for the background information Ken even though I was already aware of all that.

Do you really believe Calvinism = The Simple Gospel? Doesn't seem to me that you really do.

The Calvinists I have aquaintances with believe Calvinism = the Gospel and evangelize TULIP to Non-Christians and Christians alike. (at least they're consistent)

Jacob.

 

#1. There are no slurs in the scenario I posted.

#2. The point about the "luxury" of ignoring the case of the lost is apparent in EVERY calvinist post that addresses the lost as an "unknown" group that God simply does not love - INSTEAD of KNOWN loved ones.

#3. This is so patently obvious that the attempts to pretend that it "Can't be seen if we say it is inane" - just doesn't work.

I am asking that the Calvinist response be cogent and substantive and that "1001 ways to dodge the bullet" should be dropped for the sake of this pointed argument that is so devastating for the Calvinist case.

My hope is that there is some desire to defend Calvinism on this issue and "SHOW" (not simply complain) how it can be worked out in the favor of Calvinism by really Addressing the points raised. Come to the table - bring something that will stand up to review.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 30, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Hellen - you are being calm and objective - but still that casts Calvinism in a negative light -

totally unnacceptable!

INdeed Helen. When will you learn to express an opposing view to Calvinism in a way that always makes Calvinism "look good"?

Figure it out - and then maybe we can talk.

Ok - maybe "we" can talk anyway.

In Christ,

Bob

 

To the contrary.

The response has already been posted for this - but the calvinist practives of 'not responding' when a devastating case is made - results in the stalled response above.

So here it is again. Let us try to carry it another step forward -

===========================================

So why "keep assuming" that the problem is the same for Arminians in the case of lost loved ones?

Why not read the answer above and then SHOW what you see as a problem instead of consistently dropping the point when it is time for the Calvinist response??

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are closing your eyes when you see a non-Calvinist challenge instead of taking the time to respond.

The above statement is a classic example. The "salient point" behind the scenario is that Calvinists ARE like all of us and DO care about their loved ones. The POINT was to show that the typical calvinist response dealing with the lost - and YES - AS POSTED on these boards, is to NEVER state the response in terms of a known loved one. It is ALWAYS to exault the grace of God in saving those who are saved and to pretend that NOT saving the lost is 'just fine with me' when we KNOW that it is not fine with Calvinists to view their own loved ones lost.

It is the calvinist "habbit" of trying to "ignore that point" (the fact that they never proclaim the grace if God in view of a dear loved one lost) that is the fuel driving that scenario - and it is what stops Calvinists from actually addressing the point raised.

As I said - this is patently obvious to any reader of the dialogue.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I do not view "Arminian" or "Arminianism" to be pejorative or derogatory in the least.

I am shocked that anyone would come to these boards on the stated topic of Amrinianism vs Calvinism with the starting assumption that either of those terms is bad.

I do not find it "harmful" to meantion 5-point-calvinism or the TULIP acronym.

However - I am "guilty" of using all of those terms - as is everyone else on this board.

If these are viewed by you as "slurs" maybe another topic is better suited for your study.

My point in meantioning 5-point-Calvinism in some of my posts to very explicitly to show a body of beliefs that do agree with what I am claiming or that I am opposing on some point. I readily admit that some (like you) are not actually 5-point-Calvinists and so I am asking that you take that into consideration when viewing my post that IS a statement about a full 5-point-position and not necessarily about all points in between.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 30, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]