As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:30-32
If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 14:15-17
Experience and degrees?
Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Protestant, Jun 5, 2016.
Page 2 of 9
-
-
-
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I'd be that guy giving 'winner' to each of the Calvinists' posts. I make no bones about whose posts I find more God-honoring.
In the free will schema, ppl have drawn a line in the sand...anything past that line equates to God violating their free will...and God will not violate their free will...will not cross that line. Now, what does that mean? It means that God has done everything possible to save them, but because they did not do their part, they die lost. It has neutered God. It has emasculated Him. -
I have attempted before to engage in dialogue with Calvinists. Only one (of four) has stayed civil with me in PMs. And that was in an attitude that I truly wished to learn what they believed. Not so I could debate, but so I could decide for myself. So, I have decided that discussion is impossible.
Pointing out the ratings only serves to further my point that there is no real discussion to be had. it doesn't matter how valid I believe my points to be, unless I swallow everything the Calvinist is serving I am criticized. Even TC, who before I had thought to be somewhat gentlemanly, decided he needed to show me my error by denigrating my education, rather than allowing his argument to stand on its own merit.
My only aim, my entire goal this thread has been to balance the playing field. To show that the arguments the OP used against non-Cals could also apply to Cals. -
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:10,11
At the moment the Savior was being born in the city of David another little aborigine child was being born in a hut in the outback of Australia.
Whether you be Cal or Arm, what is your spiritual opinion?
Was that child born in the city of David good tidings and great joy to that aborigine child? Is he the Savior of that aborigine?
My answers: Yes. Yes. -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Then what did God do?
Heb. 5:7
Heb 5:8
John 3:16
Gal 1:1 Rom 5:9, Rom 8:29 -
Sovereign,
This is the kind of response that I can respect. I'm not saying I agree, but I didn't feel any attitude from your post, other than a desire to discuss. Even debate is fine with me (after all, this is a debate forum). But attacks I do not tolerate.
Now, as far as answering your post, I'm not going to get into the heart of the issue, but there are a couple comments I'd like to make.
-
Are those verses good tidings and great joy to that aborigine, whether he knew it or not. Are those verses, the faith of the following? These all died in faith, not having received the promises, from Heb 11:13 -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
In Jeremiah 31:3, the word draw means to draw (and lift out), drag along, lead along, drag or lead off, draw down, to draw (the bow), to proceed, march, to draw out or give (a sound), to draw out, prolong, continue, to trail (seed in sowing), to cheer, draw, attract, gratify, to be drawn out, to be drawn out, be postponed, be deferred, to be tall. So you can see the prevailing meaning is usually that which is forceful in application. Just as the soldier drew out his sword. Now, did the sword choose to come out of its scabbard or did the soldier effectively draw it out of its scabbard? We, as sinners, were dead in transgressions and sins[Ephesians 2:1] and had not the ability to choose that which was good. God, lovingly draws us, compels us unto Himself.
The Greek word used for 'draw' in John 6:44 means to draw, drag off, metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel. It shows that there is an effectual force in the drawing of His lost sheep unto Himself. It is not to be meant as dragging one kicking and screaming all the way unto the foot of the cross, but rather, lovingly drawing them.
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"Sapper Woody
-
Sapper Woody said: ↑I was not offering options.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑I merely pointed out how his argument could (and does) also apply to his side, and therefore is moot.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑You keep using this,Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑I have never offered any choices or options.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑I have only shown that what applies to one side applies to the other.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑TC, I'm honestly at a loss here. How can you not see this? I could turn this right around and ask, "Praise me for being chosen?". If it applies to the non-Cal side (which it doesn't), it applies to the Cal side. There's no getting around it.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑But, if there were any boasting to be made, it would be on the Cal side, not the non-Cal side. Being chosen as part of a small group is much more to boast about than accepting something offered the entire world.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑I've re-written this section several times before posting, hoping to say what I want to say without sounding like I am attacking you, personally. But, as I cannot do so, suffice it to say that at the least you are being patronizing, while also denigrating my education and experience.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑It's a classic appeal to authority fallacy.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑Right, we believe different things, and understand verses to mean different things or have different applications. And that's as close as you'll get me to debating the Cal/Arm issue, other than to point out fallacies.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑Except when you felt the need to denigrate my education? Or flaunt your experience? At the very least you were patronizing.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑Or instead of discussing, just dismiss someone because they're not as old or as experienced as they are?Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑This is part of the attitude that I am talking about, TC. In the same post, you managed to claim to be open to discussion, yet demonstrated your closure to discussion by dismissing me because of your perception of my lack of experience.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑I may not have 50+ years in the ministry, TC. But I have an education. Not only in the Bible, but in problem solving and debate. I also have world experience. I've led troops into battle, had to assess a situation and make split second decisions based upon what information I could gather.Click to expand...
Sapper Woody said: ↑I say all that not to brag, but to get two points across. First, you're insinuation that my education is inadequate is not welcome. Second, I've learned a lot more than book knowledge. And when I see someone using an argument that destroys his own side's argument, I've learned to recognize it.Click to expand...
Now, would you like to get back to the subject at hand? I would be glad to discuss each of the points of Particular Redemption with you, one at a time, in an orderly and Christian manner. :) -
Internet Theologian said: ↑The scoffers aren't the elect. How you fail to distinguish these from the elect and conclude it was Paul speaking in Peters epistle is quite telling considering your theological absurdities.Click to expand...
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9 NASB)Click to expand...
Now if you look at verse 8, Peter is addressing not the scoffers, but the elect, the "beloved." Only someone pushing "theological absurdities" would miss the obvious. -
Hi Protestant, consider Matthew 23:13. Those who were entering the kingdom of heaven obviously were not blind and deaf. So your mistaken claim all unregenerate are blind and deaf is in error. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells us of 4 soils, with various levels of receptivity to the gospel. Only the first soil had become blind and deaf through the practice of sin. Thus even the first soil was not conceived blind and deaf, but had lost the capacity to understand the gospel. Ask yourself why Jesus taught in parables if the audience was blind and deaf. (Matthew 13:10-13) Finally, Protestant, ask yourself why God needed to harden the hearts of the unbelieving Jews in Romans 11:7-10 is they were conceived blind and deaf? Hopefully at some point you will come to your senses.
-
Brother Sapper Woody,
I have hopes that instead of stating how Calvinism is in error with certain texts, then resorting to 'you don't debate Cal/Arm' statements would be put to rest.
You most certainly do debate the doctrines of grace -- and here is your methodology: Y
You make a remark about how Calvinism is in error, don't back that up with sound doctrine (which is impossible) then when questioned or asked to do so, you resort to the 'I don't debate Cal/Arm' excuse.
I'm certain you see that as well, as do others. It's a cop out brother. -
Van said: ↑Yes IT, I did misspeak, I wrote Paul when obviously it was Peter.
An obvious understanding arises when this verse is considered contextually. The scoffers were saying "where is the promise of His coming" misleading believers and Peter's inspired answer is that the Lord is being patient toward the elect, giving them sufficient time to evangelize and help win the lost to Christ, because God is not wishing for anyone to perish, but for all humanity to come to repentance.
Now if you look at verse 8, Peter is addressing not the scoffers, but the elect, the "beloved." Only someone pushing "theological absurdities" would miss the obvious.Click to expand... -
Sapper Woody said: ↑But for a long time (for about 6 months) I refused to even read what was on this board because of all the "gang up on the non-Cal" garbage that was on here. Definitely no spirit of love. At that point I even told my Dad that I didn't want to get on the BB, because it was no longer the "Baptist board", but rather, the "bash non-Cal board".
If you want a good example of this, look at the third post in this very thread. Someone posted a detailed response to the OP, and the next person put a meme to show that he thought the poster was stupid, without even commenting on what was said. That's pretty much the definition of trolling.Click to expand...
FYI, Some time ago a few non-Cals got together and discussed these issues privately then began to be focused on starting to call out the trolling practices (thought of as "debate" around here) while taking on the gang mentality and no matter how clearly we laid out the evidence of the thread "crash dummy troll" tactics being used to derail legitimate debate arguments what then happened is we began to be censored by the Admin closing down threads that had been getting successful at weeding out the trolls.
It is a lost cause here. Many non-Cals here no longer engage in the pseudo-debates here knowing the purpose and goals are not to work toward getting to the truth in the matters but to draw any non-cal daring enough to challenge the ideas of the Cals here on this board into senseless fights.
Just to let you and others know your thoughts on the "pretty much the definition of trolling" is all anyone opposed to systematic Calvinism will be met by is not a secret to many here. And it is also very obvious that those who use these tactics are either uninterested or afraid of real and ethical debate.
...As for the Op attempt to reading Hyper-Determinism into the Gorilla story, that is typical of those into that systematic theology whether it be using the Bible or a current event. The strawman arguments to follow in it, if addressed, will never be humbly acknowledged no matter how patient and logical your reasoning is that that is not your position. If you deny their Deterministic Sovereignty doctrines in any way you will be charged with the strawman of denying Divine Sovereignty, even when you can directly link those sort of distorted sovereign determinism doctrines to evil. Saying that God doesn't create evil does not remove sovereignty. But saying He creates evil does remove holiness.
Peace. Carry on... -
Internet Theologian said: ↑Brother Sapper Woody,
I have hopes that instead of stating how Calvinism is in error with certain texts,Click to expand...
You make a remark about how Calvinism is in error, don't back that up with sound doctrineClick to expand...
then when questioned or asked to do so, you resort to the 'I don't debate Cal/Arm' excuse.Click to expand...
I'm certain you see that as well, as do others. It's a cop out brother.Click to expand... -
TCassidy said: ↑Exactly my point.
Except it doesn't. There are other options.
Yes, because it illustrates the crux of the problem.
Again, exactly my point.
Unless there is a third option, in which case it does not apply.
As the elect meet no condition of salvation, but are chosen by God, without consideration of any merit at all, what is there to boast about? When you make the choice, it is all about you. When God makes the choice it is all about God.
When that choosing is entirely without merit on the part of the chosen, what is there to boast of?
No, Woody, I was, perhaps too subtly, pointing out the error of your logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Exactly. You call learned men "ignorant" and when challenged committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
And that is the problem. You make spurious accusations then refuse to defend those spurious accusations. 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
Illustrating the fallaciousness of your appeal to authority. :)
Pointing out the fallaciousness of your calling learned men ignorant and defending that name calling with an appeal to authority. :)
No, I pointed out the paucity of your appeal to authority. And I was, and still am, willing to discuss this with you but you keep throwing up roadblocks and refusing to address the real issues.
Another appeal to authority. I too have such experience. But my military command experience is irrelevant to the discussion. :)
It was you who first brought the accusation that experienced and learned men were ignorant because they disagreed with you. And it was you who defended that accusation using an appeal to authority fallacy.
Now, would you like to get back to the subject at hand? I would be glad to discuss each of the points of Particular Redemption with you, one at a time, in an orderly and Christian manner. :)Click to expand...
Page 2 of 9