Featured To Cals/Arms here on BB.. What is hardest Point to refute of each position held?

I've searched BB often enough to prove what others have said. One put me on ignore after I proved what he said to which he replied; 'I'm exhausted and getting of this merry go round' as parting words. I still savor that moment to this day.:thumbsup: :love2: :laugh:

You? You're just making excuses. You should be aware that when you make an accusation then you need to back it up. Then there's the context thing as well.

You got gold in dem thar olympics! It's not everyday a person erects a strawman as huge as you have!!! Be proud. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Who originally posted what I responded to?

Also, Benjamin in another thread right now is saying that there IS some other god that the God of the Bible must conquor and defeat before the God of the Bible (have to clarify these days) can win the victory.

 

Along with the 'it's a mystery' response there is also:

"God can do what ever He wants to do."

"God hasn't revealed that to us."

"God is sovereign, we are nothing. We shouldn't ask such questions."

 

This is the merry go round we get with some.

 

To be honest, both sides in this debate have surrendered to the ultimate mystery of God at one point or another. That is not unfounded biblically. We are told rather plainly that "My ways are not your ways; My ways are higher than your ways..." and also, by Paul, that we see right now through a glass (or mirror) dimly. We certainly do not know all there is to know about God and more so, we certainly cannot hold all things in harmony with finite minds that our God with an infinite mind can hold.

Do you agree or are you merely in this for the fight?

 

Are any of those statments true?

Your last statment? Biblically founded.

The others? They are also true. God does what He wants and all His 'wants' are holy.

He also hasn't revealed all things to us, we look through a glass darkly.

You've used the truth of the mysteries of God to accuse others and as a basis for finding fault. Anyone making the above claims are correct in so doing. You're simply supplying a red herring and a strawman to boot.

More gold for you. :thumbsup:

 

Sure, I agree with you--there are some things that we cannot know about God.

 

Thanks...

Then can you see your way to eliminating this press on God's mystery?

 

Settle down. Read the OP's question:

What is hardest point to refute of each position held?

The hardest point to refute in an argument is when someone appeals to the unknowable. My answer is not a strawman or a red herring.

 

I see no need to apologize or "see my way" to anything. The hardest argument to refute is when someone appeals to the mystery of God. Original OP question: asked and answered.

 

I think we have completely missed the point of the OP: I believe he was saying, if you are a CAL, what part of Non-cal is hard for you to prove wrong? (correct me if I'm mistaken).

It is sad if each side cannot even come up with something the other side says that is at least somewhat difficult to argue against.

I'll go: I'm a (mostly) Calvinist. I find the most sticking point on the verse where Jesus says to Jerusalem: (I"m paraphrasing from memory here, so go easy...):

"I would (literally "WILLED") that you would come to me, but you willed it not."

That' not to say I don't have a answer for it, but it does make me think...and yes...appeal to the mystery of 2 truths working together (sovereignty & human choice)

 

I'd say you're mistaken. We've simpy addressed some of the things one side has accused toward the other as their 'example.'

That would be in line with the OP.

Thus, others have 'gone' before you came in with the pseudo rescue attempt.

 

Perhaps, that's simply how I read his wording.

ARBO, care to clarify your OP?

Thanks,

 

ok, so what does ARBO mean? I found ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY BOARDS OF OPTOMETRY but I doubt that's what you meant

 

If that is the case (and I think you are right), then I find John 20:31 to be difficult as a Calvinist. It seems to put faith as the cause for regeneration whereas Calvinism would say that regeneration is the cause for faith.

I have answers to this, but I'm not altogether convinced of my own. I have used this against Calvies in times past when I was "acalvinist" (love the alpha privative; closer to semi-pelagian then).

 

I've found that in the case of sin and belief, Christ layed out our roles as if we had control of them while at the same time also laying out the fact that we do not in some of the ways we think.

He said that no man comes to Him unless the Father draws them, and he also asked us to believe. That would indicate that the Father is drawing some, and that WHEN He draws, we ought to respond in belief. If anything, proof positive that God is not fatallistically determinitive, yet in sovereign control of all things -- which IS the Calvinistic position.

 

In another thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1818082&postcount=6


Well, that didn't take long...

 

He who has ears to hear, let him hear. The natural man does not have ears to hear, only God's sheep, John 10:27. All mankind is not God's sheep as indicated at the last day when He seperates the sheep from the goats. Matt 25:32. There are many more. In explaination of 1 Cor 3, We all are born into this world as natural beings, void of the Spirit, without any righteousness. We are not babes in Christ until God has quickened us to a spiritual life. Even though we have been quickened to life, we still carry the baggage of our fleshly nature which causes us to be carnal at times. We do not lose our eternal salvation but we do, at times, lose our fellowship with God by yeilding to the desires of the flesh. These carnal men spoken about in chapter 3 are children of God in Christ but still babes in Christ.

 

Or A Really Bad Odor?? J/K ARBO...please do not take offense..get it? offense..... oh brother....:laugh: