Featured Rain on the "Just" and "Unjust" ?

Fallacy of division.

 

Pointing out your fallacies is a FT job, so I'm bowing out. I think you've been sufficiently shown as being deceptive. I'll be praying for you, but I'll no longer be bickering with you.

 

Your replies in red are merely a repeat of the same thing that I've already answered in several DIFFERENT ways. Your denial of the scriptures are simply"

"Nope, thats not true"
"see above"
"same as before"
"That's not true"
"That isn't true either"
"I know you are but what am I"
"I'm rubber you're glue"
"That's poor exegesis"

You apparently (more like, obviously) have no clue how a debate works. A debate has a pattern that adds to the argument as it progresses with new points of view that evolve in rebuttals and surrebuttals. You have merely re-stated your opening argument without any effective or logical cross examination or rebuttal and surrebuttals.

Your trial tactics are like:

Judge: The defense (that would be you since you are attacking the Prosecutors OP) Is the defense ready?

Def: "Yes your honor"

Pros: "Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I will prove that John Calvin promulgated the murder of Michael Servetus"

Def" "ladies and gents, that's not true:

Pros: (First Witness) Did you receive a letter from John Calvin that stated if Servetus ever arrived in Geneva that Calvin swore not to let him leave alive"

(NOTICE how the first question differs from the opening statement and adds to the argument and progresses the prosecution).

Def: "Um...that's not true"

Judge: "Do have any specific arguments that shows the Pros statement is not true?

Def: "Its just not true. I rest my case. I have proven the Pros wrong".

This is how you and the majority of Calvinists on here defend their views. Summary denials with no actual or effectual rebuttals, and circular reasoning.

 

And yet another perfect example of a summary dismissal without any effective explanation as to how the content fits the definition of an argument that YOU CREATED (argument about your wife).

Here, let me help you argue your own case, and then perhaps I'll have a meaningful debate with MYSELF.

A division of fallacy is where a person argues that what is true of one thing must be true for all of its parts or counterparts. But to make this accusation STICK, you have to prove that the remaining elements are NOT TRUE in and of themselves.

Did you prove that God does not eros women or humanity in general? NO
Did you prove that a husband can not AGAPE other women, he simply can not EROS them? No. Jesus told ALL of his disciples to LOVE ONE ANOTHER (AGAPE) so not only CAN a husband love other women, he is COMMANDED TO as a brother in Christ. Did you refute that? No.

When proving the fallacy of division, you failed to show how each of the divisions were themselves not true. You offered no logical or factual basis for your conclusion and certainly no Biblical evidence. Just a summary accusation of a fallacy that you don't understand. If you are going to use certain fallacy arguments, you need to learn the rules of how they apply within a debate context instead of just relying on the simple definitions. Fallacies of logic and philosophy do not prove someone's argument wrong simply because you site one of them. THEY HAVE RULES AND APPLICATIONS TO THEM and the burden of proof is on YOU to show HOW THEY APPLY.

 

Nobody said that it was "salvation" that was elected. What was elected were persons as "you" is the direct object of "chosen" while "salvation" is the indirect object of "chosen." These person where chose UNTO salvation as "salvation" is the direct object of the preposition "eis" and "salvation" is found in accusative case thus showing the point of termination is "salvation."

"sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" are the direct objects of the preposition "dia" not "eis" as you are attempting to teach. Thus both the persons and the means are chosen by God.

You are skewing the argument by erroneous statements. Election is NEVER found in scripture in connection with damnation. That is a complete misrepresentation by Arminimains. Damnation needs no election as it is the just consequences of the fall for all mankind equally. Hence, no election is necessary or is it logical to claim such.

Again Romans 3:20-23 presupposes the whole lump represents the totallity of fallen mankind. If not, then "mercy" is not necessary as a lump representing unfallen mankind is in no need of "mercy." Hence, the idea that God elected men to damnation ascribes the cause of sin to God rather than to mankind. The Bible NEVER attributes damnation to election.

However, the Bible does attribute salvation to election and an act of "grace" (Rom. 11:5). You may not like that fact, and it may mess up your system of belief but nevertheless it is a FACT of Scripture that cannot be honestly overthrown.

Based upon your illogical and unbiblical assertion that damnation is by election then your conclusion would be true. However, your assertion is false and therefore there is nothing found in the elect that is not found in the non-elect - equally sinful - equally deserving of justice. Hence, no respect of Persons as the reason is found only IN GOD not in the elect.

There is no such thing as absolute "free will" in the universe as God Himself does not have such a "free will." His nature dictates his choices. There are things the Bible says God cannot choose because they are contrary to his nature - He cannot lie, He cannot sin, He cannot create an "everlasting God."

Likewise, the will of the fallen nature is limited by that fallen nature as explicitly spelled out in Romans 8:7 - "neither indeed CAN be"

The Non-elect are simply left to their own FREE WILL or a will that is free to operate within their fallen nature and its limitations.

The will is not an independent agent, but is the servant of the mind and emotions. You will NEVER choose anythng contrary to what you think or feel. If a man points a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, you may not feel like giving it to him but your mind tells you if you do not there will be consequences and so you choose intellectually to override your emotions or vice versa. There is no such thing as a "will" free of the absolute control of either intellect or emotions whether in God or in man.

The means of salvation is equally chosen as the persons of salvation and so this text proves nothing.


.

This is not a context dealing with creation or the purpose of creation. This is a context dealing with ALREADY CREATED AND FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with FALLEN CONDEMNED MANKIND what he wills. To do what HE WILLS is the whole point of this illustration. Your position denies that fundemental fact of this illustration.

This is irrational and unbiblical. As said, this is an illustration of already FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with them as He pleases. Your argument is based upon the irrational and unbiblial idea that God elected people to hell and thus is responsible for sin and its consequences rather than sinners. The Bible does not attribute or connect election with the fall or with sin.

Again, you are ignoring the contextual fact that This vessel was formed by separating it from the FALLEN lump of clay. Time does not change either the source from whence it is being separated from nor the eternal purposes of God.

You are confusing two different contexts about two different subjects. The former context has to do with the actual forming of the vessel while the latter speaks of the use after already having been formed. Again, the usage of "dishonor" cannot be attributed to God as that is found in the nature of the lump prior to forming and using which is a FALLEN condition. Hence, God cannot be held responsible for either their fallen condition or their choice in a fallen condition that results in "dishonor."

However, the latter passage does not include the lost but only the saved and the various uses God has for only the saved as only the saved are in His "house" and only the saved are "prepared unto every good work." Saved people can honor or dishonor the Lord.

Confession is good for the soul. The problem with your whole line of reasoning is found in your confession "These vessels were not marred by the Potter himself." Hence, the marring represents the fallen condition of each and every vessel WHILE ON THE POTTER'S WHEEL. Hence, every vessel while on the potter's wheel is fallen BEFORE they are formed into a vessel of wrath or mercy. Moroever, this formation into a vessel of wrath or mercy occurs while on the potter's wheel instead of afterwards. They come off the potters wheel as vessels of wrath or mercy rather than afterwards at some subsequent event in their life.

Again, you are conflicting a NATIONAL application with a PERSONAL application. Paul is not speaking about NATIONS in Romans 9:20-23 as verse 24 demonstrates very clearly:

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Furthermore, a nation can turn from their evil but that does not mean the nation experiences SPIRITUAL salvation of all its citizens so your analogy breaks down. However, the gifts and callings of God in regard to salvation is "without repentance."

Paul is neither quoting the whole context of Jeremiah or using the specific application by Jeremiah. He is borrowing this story to illustrate a different point than used by jeremiah.

 

Your problem is that there are NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE and so there are none to vindicate who are "non guilty." God is dealing with FALLEN mankind on the potter's wheel not INNOCENT mankind.

Again, this is not my position at all and election to damnation cannot be found in the scriptures. This is your argument which is not only unbiblical but irrational. Nor does "election to salvation" require election to damnation IF those elected to salvation are chosen out from the TOTALITY OF FALLEN mankind. This is the case.

Again, this is your imagination at work. The very doctrine of a PREFALLEN mass of mankind from which some are chosen to salvation repudiates the very basis of your reasoning. There is no need to elect to damnation those already in a fallen condition and thus all equally condemned. If election to salvation is about those chosen out of FALLEN mankind, if the vessel of mercy is equally marred on the potters wheel as the vessel of mercy then your reasoning and argument simply vanish into irrationality.

Only because your argument is not based upon either Scripture or the suprainfralapsarian view of election.

You are simply in error. The same Greek term "agape" is used for various levels of relationships that are not equal. To "agape" your enemy is not the same level of "agape" between Christ and His church or between a husband and his wife and yet it is the very same word used to describe all of these relationships.

I asserted it is the SAME word used in all instances but represents different LEVELS of relationship. Agape for enemies and agape for your spouse are not equal levels of agape. Simple let a man place a gun to the head of your enemy and the head of your wife and you will demonstrate exactly what I mean. You have agape for both but not at the same level.

 

This is my answer to the scenario. Because of the fall there has been a curse put upon this world. The ground is cursed, Gen 3:17. and by the ground being cursed man has to toil by the sweat of his face Gen 3:19. Also by the fall came death to all living Gen 3:19. By the fall of Adam also came sin and murder Gen 4:8. Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. If there is someone to blame in the scenario concerning the girl that grew up and died never knowing kindness or love, blame it on Adam and his transgression. There has been many that question God, why did he destroyed nations of Israel's enemies both woman and children, my only answer is what God chooses to do is always right. If I question God on the above scenario I would have to question God as to why do some Christians live in bodily pain all their life or why do some Christians lose their children to diseases and different things. Who said that life is fair ? Who said that life is supposed to be all fun and games ? The young and the vain person might believe God owes them fame and fortune but the wise know that it is not so.

 

How do you explain this scenario as a non-cal?

I have trouble explaining it regardless of doctrinal stance on either side. I don't claim to know the answer but apparently you do. So please explain.

 

.[/QUOTE]THE BIBLICIST

I have already debated this with Archangel and several others to show that such an interpretation of Greek is erroneous to imply that dia is always used as a means of instrumentality as opposed to en (not eis). And the accusative case of eis has NOTHING to do with the last half of the verse, it only shows the subject of the first prepositional phrase and finishes by showing what they were elected to which was salvation to salvation BY, THROUGH, MEANS OF sanctification. EVERY Greek scholar agrees with this interpretation and the ONE or TWO that don't, agree that they can not PROVE that the Calvinist interpretation of this verse can be forced into such an interpretation.

I never said it election was IN SCRIPTURE about those who are damned, that is the CALVINIST POSITION:

"III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death." WC ch 3

Furthermore, I am not an Arminian. It is funny to hear those accusations when most Calvinists have no idea how much Jacobus Arminius actually AGREED with John Calvin on (he even graduated from the college that Calvin started) included Calvin's view of baby sprinkling.

Now you are mixing scriptures out of context. Romans 3 has nothing to do with the lump of Romans 9. You can not take a verse that says Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the fole of an ass, and then quote David riding across the land in his triumph and show that Jesus may have had access to a sports car.

WE AGREE ON THIS. I DO believe that election is biblical, but it has nothing to do with God predeterming a select group of people to be saved. Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself in one paragraph above arguing that election applies ONLY to a certain class of future believers, and then claiming election does not involve salvation. There very fact that you argue 2 Thess applies to elect who are elected "TO salvation" is a clear demonstration of your self contradictory statements to this effect.

Again, that is not MY assertion, I don't believe that God predetermines or elects ANYONE to hell. That is the clear and unambiguous statement from every Calvinist theologian and creed ever written (as linked above).

Again, as I stated before, if God did not have free will to create, then He created out of necessity because to be God He HAD TO CREATE. That makes God dependent on His creation which shows no difference between Him being God and being equal to His creation because His creation in effect dictates the boundaries of His will which is classic PANTHEISM. If God's will is merely compatible, WHAT OR WHO IS IT COMPATIBLE TO?? You can not argue for a compatibilistic will of God without a standard of comparison, so either there must be some other god to compare God to or you must give creation and equally divine status that has the ability to limit God's freedom and of which FORCES HIM TO CREATE which ultimately makes God DEPENDENT upon evil to demonstrate His holiness.

NO WAY AROUND THAT.

This is a complete misinterpretation of Romans 8. Romans 8:7 has nothing to do with the will of fallen natured men. It is a reference to a person that believes they can please God with a carnal mind "So then they that are in the flesh can not PLEASE GOD" v8. (believers and unbelievers alike, 1 Corinthians 3:3) If this has to do with a person's salvation, then do you also contend that a person is saved by mortifying the deeds of the flesh in 8:13?

Romans 2:14-16 and Romans 1:17-18 show that the law of God is manifest in the conscience of unbelievers. It is not that the will can not be subject to God, it is that the will WON'T BE subject to God, and those who do not subject themselves to God CAN NOT PLEASE HIM. You are reading WILL into a verse that IS NOT THERE.

This is non-sense. The Calvinist view of combatalistic freedom to be consistent would have to show that God puts the reprobate will within the sinner, who then can not ever act otherwise than from the immoral will that is programmed into him which still makes God the author of his sin. However, that will needs to be consistent with his evil tendencies and the Bible is replete with passages that show that evil men perform righteous acts. Matthew 5:20, Matthew 7:11, Proverbs 14:34, Acts 10:35 as well as the example of Cornelius, an unsaved Roman centurion who demonstrated good acts BEFORE he was saved.

For your view of compatibilist freedom to be true, men would have to be CONSISTENTLY EVIL.

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" Eccl 7:29

The will being an independent is exactly what it is or it can not be in any sense of term free in a libertarian OR compatibilistic view. Desires and wants are merely the available options in which the will has to choose from, but nevertheless the choice itself is not the desire. When Solomon gave 2 mothers the option of receiving 2 halves of a child (1 Kings 3) the real mother did not make a choice that she WANTED to make (giving up her child to the unlawful mother to spare the child's life). She WANTED the child in her custody but her will did not determine the outcome.

And furthermore, Paul says the exact opposite in Romans 7 of what he WILLS to do as opposed to what he DOES DO. Romans 7:15-18

Not only does this fail to rebut the lengthy explanation of OT support from which this passage is derived that proves you are misinterpreting it, but the Calvinist view of election is that it was done BEFORE ETERNITY BEGAN. You can not claim that this verse speaks of an ETERNAL DECREE OF ELECTION and yet admit that these vessels were ALREADY CREATED, and done so IN TIME, NOT IN ETERNITY and consistently maintain the Calvinist view of this passage.




Part 2 next post

 

By no means is it 'by all accounts' the young man was unregenerate, although undoubtedly by superficial shallow accounts such as your's he was not elect.

The young man in Mk 10 RAN to Christ, KNEELED before Him, and addressed Him with DIVINE RESPECT, and Christ loved the young man and did not dispute the young man's claim of doing those things of the law, and it was not Christ that the young man rejected, it was Christ's call to discipleship:

"....All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." Mt 19:20,21

This is just a snapshot of this young man, similar to the one given of Nicodemus in Jn 3, they both were attracted to the Saviour. Who knows if he didn't become as one of those in Acts 2 who 'sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need'.

I choose not to judge him harshly, it doesn't appear that Christ did.

 

Part 2

 

You've tried this phony baloney stuff before and NEVER gave answer to the scriptural refutation to your false assertion that it's ALL about DNA Israel after the flesh, that simply is NOT so:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2001912#post2001912

????????

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

.............................

It IS pertaining to individual salvation, it pertains to 'us, whom he has called. from Jews AND Gentiles, the REAL Israel of God, the TRUE Jews:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

..........................................

YOU NEVER ANSWERED!

 

Read post 112 I have answered this SEVERAL times. You isolate one verse that says "and also of the GENTILES" and fail to see that Romans 9-11 is a comparison of the gospel being given to the Gentiles AS A WHOLE compared to the NATION OF ISRAEL being set aside and then again being "risen from the dead" Roman 11:15

I also gave a very lengthy explanation of the HYPOTHETICAL IF (" What IF God...." 9:22) that Paul proposed about the vessels of Romans 9 in several previous posts here. Here's one of them (sheesh, do I have to respond to these arguments AND dig up my own responses? http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2007678&postcount=96

Anyone that thinks Paul is referring to GENTILES "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" needs their eyes examined.

Furthermore, you ignored that ENTIRE POST.

 

Well, you don't really believe that.

You are correct, it shouldn't happen either way.

 

Are you sure, but if that's true, then you don't believe God is omnipotent or sovereign. If could doesn't have power over sin and couldn't have created a sin free world. Not to mention what assurance do we have that heaven will be free from sin if God can't do that.

Needs to happen for something doesn't equal that God couldn't have done something. I do agree with your point that for A to happen, B(sin) needed to happen. And though God doesn't want us to sin, B(sin) was necessary for A.

God's desire is for us to not sin, that is true. but you already answered your own question above. It doesn't make God a liar at all.

No, God does desire that we be holy(He tells us that) but as you have already said, God had something else that he wanted, so therefore was necessary to allow man to not obey His precepts.

No, and you already said the opposite of this. We all have competing desires. It's not "nonsensical" at all. God wants man to be holy, but allows man to not be holy. So either God is powerless over sin(which is not true) or God allows man to sin for another reason.

you contradicted your self.

1. God wants man to be holy. I Peter 1:16
2. All men sin
3. God has power over sin
And even you admitted....This makes the possibility of sin unavoidable and necessary.

 

24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

No, anyone that thinks Paul is referring to ISRAEL ONY "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" needs their eyes examined.

 

Blah, blah, blah. You're windier than a bag of farts.

You asked if she received "rain." Did she get food? God provided it. Did she get drink? God provided it. Did she get shelter? God provided it. Did she get clothes? God provided them.

Did she deserve them? No. Was she thankful for them? You don't say. Considering she deserves dry, raging thirst and naked skin on glowing coals, what other motivation was there that she received good things from the Father of lights? Mercy.

That's love. Not the love of a Father, but the love of a Creator for His creation. Are you now going to try to say that isn't normative?

Go belch your subterfuge somewhere else.