Exactly. But they will never see this nor will they accept these facts.
Other than this I disagree with your conclusion on the Calvinists. Your conclusion is a baseless final statement.
- Blessings
Hunt vs White
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Grasshopper, Jun 12, 2013.
Page 4 of 13
-
-
-
-
- Blessings -
Show how Hunt's or White's use of Scriptures were correct or incorrect by not only restating what was said, but show other supporting Scriptures to validate the truth or untruth.
However, to could it be that the non-cal have no real authoritative Scripture to rest their view?
I used a few quotes that would support a cal view, can the non-cal demonstrate that what I stated is faulty by appropriate use of Scriptures? -
The usage of Scripture to defend either side is not the point. The point is proving either of them wrong in their usage of Scripture.
Beyond this, DH has failed to prove his point and has failed miserably. You see, the burden of proof lay upon him, which is the objective of the debate, and he, as he has stated, has no true knowledge of the Reformed position on Calvinism. That said, he only brings an caricature of calvinism and straw man arguments in addition to this.
For Hunts or White's failures on their usages of Scripture, you'll have to show them yourself as you've condemned both sides, thus the burden to prove such lay upon you. You brought this into the argument, don't turn on others to answer your own baseless conclusions, instead perhaps answer them yourself? You've condemned the Calvinists in this thread as you have the non. Prove all of these accusations and don't pass the buck onto me or anyone else to prove them.
- Blessings -
That accusation is that neither side had used any Scriptures to support their views, but had resorted to labels and demeaning statements that do not edify.
The accusation is not arbitrary, but is evidenced by the thread, itself.
Can you actually find a post in which the Cal side has used Scriptures to defend White's views in this thread or refute Hunts?
Can the non - cal actually find a post in which the non-cal side has used Scriptures to defend Hunt's views in this thread or refute White's?
I never particularly "claimed a side" in the thread but demonstrated a few verses that did support a side as an example in hopes that the thread posters would move the discussion along to something of real substance. -
If all you value is off topic never-ending scriptural food fights, fine, but personally I, and I'm sure many others are not interested in going into those circular arguments during the discussions of this topic...thanks. -
You've completely dismissed my prior response, thus your editing out of which I said this:
Again, you're still attempting to reach for unity of error on both sides and again frankly it is not there though I appreciate your attempt for such unity, but it is unfounded.
All you've said up to this point is arbitrary. Offer solid proof with quotes to support your accusations please.
- Blessings -
Ok, now I have both sides attention.
Don't I feel popular!
I have placed the problem of the thread as I have seen it.
Because both sides are willing to continue with pointless discussion couched in "debate tactics" and which side is more honorable, I will respectfully withdraw from the thread.
Folks, let's just not get so zealous in debate tactics and honorable -ness that the Holy Spirit is grieved by what you post.
Always remember that many eyes look at the BB who never register and who might stumble over the words used on a thread like this. -
Total depravity is not a French phrase and would not start with T.
"depravation totalie"
"election inconditionnelle"
"grace irresistible"
"expiation limitee"
"La perseverance des saints"
DEGEL = TULIP For Calvin there was no TULIP, even if he believed the same points. And that is doubtful.
However, the neo-Calvinistic position is not "total depravity," it is "total inability," a rather new doctrine, not the orthodox doctrine of the depravity of man that has been held throughout the ages. This modern "Reformed" position is almost a new religion, at least for Baptists. -
Second, I am not going to waste my time doing a search, but I will give you one example.
There is a poster here who refuses to debate me because "I am ignorant, and refuse to be taught."
He comes to that conclusion because I refuse to read the links to his confessions, creeds, etc. IOW, he won't debate with Scripture. His creeds and confessions are his authority seemingly, not the Bible, or so it seems.
That is one good example.
I am not going to debate a creed or a confession. -
Calvinists deliberately obfuscate even their own definitions of Calvinism because half of their tactics are attempting to convince the opposition that they don't understand Calvinism, and if a Calvinist can avoid getting pinned down to a definition of Calvinism that can be compared to the Bible, they will be at a loss because Calvinism is a philosophical system, not a Biblical one. -
There is just as much out there AGAINST Calvinism, if not more so, then there is for it. How much time would a Calvinist spend on reading the opposition? Even in this thread, they were all willing to read the debate with James White, but none of them commented hardly at all to the video that was posted that contained the entire lecture Hunt gave on "What Love Is This".
Calvinists refuse to accept the possibility that they could be wrong. But yet Calvin got baptism wrong-he sprinkled babies. Calvin got the millennium wrong and wouldn't touch the book of Revelation with a 10 foot pole (ditto for Luther). Since prophecy covers 2/3 of the Bible, how can anyone claim that a person so far off of what God considered a very important element of Scripture (" for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" Rev 19:10) and then claim God used this man (and Augustine) to clarify the truth of the gospel that no fundamental church held to for 1500 years before Calvin showed up? Such is the exact same mentality that the Watchtower, Catholics, and other CULTS use. -
Go garner solid proof Calvinists use your alleged sources as their 'final authority' which implies being above even Scripture. You've failed in your endeavor up to this point.
There are several admins here who are Calvinists as well. Prove they do the same in your broad brush accusation against Calvinists. Prove they as well accept anything other than Scripture as their final authority. You're on an island and have brought upon yourself a tsunami of fallacy. -
-
This type of appeal is made many times over in many different threads.
They are easy to find. -
If we break the Calvinism threads down to their lowest common denominator it is always party line. No one comes away from these threads having experienced an epiphany that rocks their theological paradigm. That is because no one really is offering an honest inquiry. -
A simple interpretation of these French phrases would translate quite simply into TULIP in the English vernacular. Your argument fails. You have nothing to stand upon in your allegations of TULIP.
Calvin was French thus TULIP isn't true because TULIP is an English acronym? Any person can see at face value these French phrases fitting naturally into TULIP.
'depravation totalie'? :laugh::wavey:
Total Depravation perhaps? Continue this rudimentary process with the balance of your French phrases. The end result is that TULIP is clearly seen.
Yours is an invalid allegation and falls well short of being anywhere near a plausible argument. -
Page 4 of 13