Ruckman

Not at all. The issues regarding Calvinism and Arminianism are EXEGETICAL. This thread is about Ruckman, not White. You introduced the topic in order to either assert guilt by association or deflect the issue away from the one at hand. White's assertions regarding soteriology are not germaine to the issue. Ruckman's behavior and false teachings simply are germaine, because they are the subject of this thread. You chose to defend Ruckman's KJVO stance.

Let's see, did He direct Paul, Silas, Barnabas, and the apostles in the spread of the gospel in Acts or not? By directing them some places and not others, some persons were, by definition, not given the chance to believe. Since Gentiles died in their sins from Pentecost through the conversion of Cornelius, God was unjust then, since your system requires that all persons do, in fact, deserve a chance to believe.

However, the truth is the Bible never allows us to say that unbelievers had no chance to believe or deserve such a chance anyway. When people rejected Jesus it was by their willful choice. You entire system turns on two falsehoods: 1. men DESERVE a chance to believe. It is not unloving, unfair, or unjust for them not to get such a chance if they never deserve it from the start, and according to Scripture, they don't, and 2. that Jesus paid for all the sins of the world, because unbelief is a sin too, so, if Jesus paid for it, then God is unloving and unjust for sending them to hell at all, because Jesus paid for ALL their sins, including unbelief. In your system double jeopardy becomes true. Now, if you want to discuss those, there is an appropriate forum on it, where you can face the rest of the Reformed persons on this board. I will answer no further questions here in order to honor C4K's statement. I will happily respond to you further in a thread there.

Honestly, I know of one member on this board that claims to have a doctorate, but I know for a fact it is false. What exactly are your credentials? All a doctoral degree means is that you have written a large thesis, that is all, sir. I too have graduate level training, as do many other Calvinists. Dr. White has several doctorates. Peter S. Ruckman has a doctorate and states patently unbiblical doctrine and says he arrived at KJVOnlyism from careful prayer and study, et.al., as well. Any person that is KJVO and holds a doctorate probably understands a caricature of Reformed theology, and from everything you've posted you've hit most of the major ones.

No, the issue is exegetical: John 6:44, 8:43, Rom 8:9, and 1 Cor. 2:14. On the other hand, libertine free will is never taught in Scripture. If it was present it was present prior to the fall, not after. We do not believe man has no natural ability. The problem is moral. Just as God's character prohibits Him from sinning, so man's character prohibits him from choosing Christ on His own. By the way, the original Arminians said they believed the same thing. Apparently, you haven't read the Remonstrance and the Opinions.

On the contrary, there is a subject and a predicate, and the form is complex and compound.

Let's test this..."Let's not forget." Is this a sentence? "Let us not forget." Hmmm, well, let's try a simple imperative using "Let's," e.g. "Let us." Let's look at the Baptistboard. Yes, that is a sentence. It contains a subject and and a predicate and is imperative. Is this form in the Bible? Why, yes, it is! It is! "Come, let us reason together..."

Sir, I scored a perfect verbal score on the Graduate Record Exam. "Let us" is an imperative statement implying the pronoun "you" or "we." "Let" is the primary verb that indicates a grammatical form called a tag question, indicating a request. "Forget" is a portion of the predicate, because it indicates that which one is requesting be done. "Let us not forget," is the negative command/request; you diagram that to the right side of the perpendicular line. You can leave the subject side blank, or you can fill it in with "you," "we" or even "us," because in tag constructions "us," though usually an objective pronoun is an exception and can qualify as a subject. "That" states a direct object, and the conclusion explains the direct object which takes the form of a demonstrative statement expressed in compound sentence structures. When you arrive at ", and," the second sentence begins; this construction continues until the thought ends. That's basic grammar. You have a doctorate and can't recognize a complex-compound sentence. That doesn't bode well.

Now, that said, attacking another's use of English is the ad homineum fallacy of argumentation. You use of fallacious argumetation continues to grow.

If you understood Calvinism, you would understand that there is no coercion, no force at all. Everybody comes into the kingdom willingly, and nobody is kept out that does not want to enter. God does not believe and repent for a person, He simply changes their dead, enslaved, God-hating hearts in such a way that they naturally and voluntarily believe. Nobody is dragged "kicking and screaming" into His family without their voluntary consent.

You act as if those damned to hell deserve such a chance and that those so damned do not deserve to be damned. That's just salvation by works and justice. Salvation is about mercy, not justice. God said that all the events of the crucifixion were predestined. They murdered Jesus. They are still morally culpable. Rather than basing my theology on an unbiblical concept of free will, I prefer to base it on the exegesis of the text. The will is only free to do what it is morally free to do, the same exact way as God's will is free to do only what it morally is free to do. Where does Scripture ever say that our choices have to be free from external influences, in order to be real or genuine? Even if a person is coerced, they are still doing what they want to do. The individual has simply changed the conditions upon the other person so that they value that choice more than the other.

If you believe prayer changes things, then when you pray that God move in such a way that a particular outcome occurs, you must believe that God is exerting some influence on the human heart in order to make that outcome certain.

If you understood Reformed theology, you would know that compulsion is never taught. We think, decide, and choose. The problem that you have is an unbiblical view of what constitutes real freedom and a soteriology that, if consistently applied, leads to Open Theism, or, at a minimum, involves a logical contradiction to the nature of an absolutely actual ground of all being (God) that has no potentiality in Him whatsoever.

Very likely, you believe that election is based on "foreseen faith." However, that is no less fatalistic than Reformed soteriology. In fact, it is more fatalistic, because you end up believing in salvation by chance, an impersonal force.

Since not all persons are saved, you must say that God wills something more strongly than He wills the salvation of all people. You must necessarily affirm that God wills to preserve the free will of man more than He wills to save them. In other words, He values man's freedom more than His own glory and more than their very lives. Now that is unloving.

Let's put it this way. If free will necessary for a real choice to be morally responsible, you are also saying that God is unjust for condemning Satan to hell, since he can not not sin, and you are also saying God is not making real, responsible, genuine choices, because His moral character prohibits Him from doing some things. The question I'd like you to answer in the Calvinist/Arminian forum is "why do some believe and others not believe?"

On the contrary Arminianism is man-centered, depends on philosophical objections to exegetical conclusions, God-limiting, and indirectly illogical, just like KJVOnlyism! Well, KJVOnlyism is actually directly illogical. That's the only difference.

Some of you do believe that, not all of you. There is no bifurcation fallacy here. The fact remains Arminian soteriology is Roman Catholic to the core. The fact that you may believe in eternal security is simply proof you are inconsistent and illogical in your theology. Ironically, some Catholics do affirm eternal security as well, although the Magesterium itself contradicts them. I dialogued with one such Catholic at www.carm.org in the Catholicism forum not long ago. However, as I pointed out, it is inconsistent to believe that on his part.

Okay, just so we're clear here. James White, whose theology is EXEGETICAL is "heresy" in your book, but Peter S. Ruckman who has absolutely no exegetical basis for his KJVO stance, his false prophecies or his behavior "has problems." That is a true double standard. For somebody that claims to know logical fallacies, you embrace them with aplomb.

Note to C4K: I replied to his inquiry as requested. I will not respond further on Calvinism here. (Though I'm sure he won't be able to resist having the last word). I maintain that if this individual wants to discuss it, I will gladly discuss it with him in the appropriate forum.

 

Sorry folks, but a warning was issued and this has become a Calvinism debate.Thread closed.