Frustration over debate about Calvinism

[Jarthur001]

No I didn't make the same mistake.

hummm

He asked for information about who thought what.

Nope....it was not who thought what, but who thought his view of election. I asked this for way back a year or so ago Allan said his view was held by many. I asked for books to understand it, and he has not been able to name one book. I asked for schools that teach this theology...and still have no school.

Ok...where do you go to learn more about Allan's theology? Is it only on the message board?

He said the doesn't know anyone who thinks that way.

Not true. Allan thinks this way. Im asking for others. Do you get it now?

Why would someone responding to his request be guilty of his fallacy?

1st..your not Allan. Need i say more??

Try to focus.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

How embarrassing

yep..

I never said I agreed with the topic, so I have no skin in the game.

No...you just post to make others laugh. You are a hoot. Keep them coming.

 

[BaptistBob]

Let me understand you. Are you saying it is childish to see if others believe as you?

No, I am saying that it's childish to suggest that your position is correct or better. You did not say "I'm going to SEE if TONS of people agree with my position."

ok...then please state what election is.

In the metaphysical, philosophical sense, I agree with Allan. In the biblical sense, it depends upon the passage under consideration, most of which are the typical Jewish corporate election issues.

Does McCall have a book? I would love to read it

Yes, but not on that topic.

 

[Jarthur001]

No, I am saying that it's childish to suggest that your position is correct or better. You did not say "I'm going to SEE if TONS of people agree with my position."

I do have tons that agree with me. Is that better? Maybe....but I didn't say so...now did I? You come in on something you don't have a clue about Bbob. This is not the 1st time I have asked to understand his views.

In the metaphysical, philosophical sense, I agree with Allan. In the biblical sense, it depends upon the passage under consideration, most of which are the typical Jewish corporate election issues.

ok....but do you know of a book that I can read that teaches Allan's views? I'm not sure why you feel you must talk for Allan. Maybe you wrote a book for him...I don't know.

Yes, but not on that topic.

:laugh::laugh: good one bob.
You never stop making me smile bob. Why bring him up, if that was what I was asking for?

 

[Jarthur001]

Bob...

Please don't overlook this.

What is election as you see it?

Thanks..

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

McCall may not have a book on the subject, but the Fall 2008 edition of Trinity Journal has an exchange between John Piper and him. It's worth reading if you're near a library that subscribes to it, or you could order a copy here: http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/connect/trinityjournal/?

 

[BaptistBob]

I do have tons that agree with me. Is that better? Maybe....but I didn't say so...now did I?

Yes you did. Here is what you said:

I can show you TONS of good men that believe as I. I'm in no way...out in left field by myself.

Since no one accused you of being out in left field, you were making the suggestion that Allan was, and that you were not because you have "TONS" of people that agree with you. Childish.

You come in on something you don't have a clue about Bbob. This is not the 1st time I have asked to understand his views.

So? Why are you telling me this?

ok....but do you know of a book that I can read that teaches Allan's views?

I don't know everything about his views. I only saw the comments he made in the past few hours. I can only comment on those to the degree that I understand what he has said.

To some degree the view might be expressed in Jack Cottrell's God the Ruler, or to some degree William Lane Craig's writings, not to mention Alvin Plantinga's stuff.

I'm not sure why you feel you must talk for Allan. Maybe you wrote a book for him...I don't know.

I'm not talking for him (why always the childish jockeying?). I talked to YOU about what YOU said. Do you know the difference?

:laugh::laugh: good one bob.
You never stop making me smile bob. Why bring him up, if that was what I was asking for?

You asked for a lot more than books, silly. You mentioned people and seminaries. "TONS of people...." :laugh:

Please don't overlook this.

What is election as you see it?

I just told you in my last post. Don't overlook it.

 

[BaptistBob]

McCall may not have a book on the subject, but the Fall 2008 edition of Trinity Journal has an exchange between John Piper and him. It's worth reading if you're near a library that subscribes to it, or you could order a copy here: http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/connect/trinityjournal/?

Yeah, but it's not really directly related to this topic.

 

[Jarthur001]

Yes you did. Here is what you said:
Since no one accused you of being out in left field, you were making the suggestion that Allan was, and that you were not because you have "TONS" of people that agree with you. Childish.

The fact is...I do have tons of books that I can tell you of, and tons of churches....and tons of schools....and tons of men. I'm not taking that back, because it is true. All I have asked for was just one book from Allan. One writer that agrees. Somehow you think that is childish.

Please don't dodge the plain truth and try to change the subject. You have chosen to speak for Allan, therefore give me a book.

So? Why are you telling me this?

Because you don't

I don't know everything about his views. I only saw the comments he made in the past few hours. I can only comment on those to the degree that I understand what he has said.

:laugh::laugh:

good one Bob.

How could you say that the majority of the people posting on theologyweb would agree with him if you don't know what his views are?

Why say... Thomas McCall is one that may agree with him...... if you have no clue.

To some degree the view might be expressed in Jack Cottrell's God the Ruler, or to some degree William Lane Craig's writings, not to mention Alvin Plantinga's stuff.

1) Please state Craigs views on election. Keep it short.

Craig is a Arminian. Arminians love him and quote him.
Have you read his book....A Calvinist-Arminian Rapprochement?

You will kind this quote..

"The action of prevenient grace is followed by a response of the human will, either assenting to or dissenting from the operation of grace."

However, I do not know much about Craig, so I could be reading him wrong.

At any rate, I'm sure Allan is not with him on this. But Allan can speak for himself.

2) Please state Cottrell's views.

Cottrell is indeed a Arminian. Have you ever read him?
Arminian Today Site

3) I know Plantinga's for I have alot by him. I can tell you this bob that Allan does not believe as Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga is a Calvinist

Sorry this didn't work for you Bob. Do you have any others?

I'm not talking for him.

Good one Bob....:laugh:

I just told you in my last post. Don't overlook it.

good one Bob...

In other words...this is election?..


BOB SAYS election is......

In the metaphysical, philosophical sense, I agree with Allan. In the biblical sense, it depends upon the passage under consideration, most of which are the typical Jewish corporate election issues.

funny guy

 

[Jarthur001]

Yeah, but it's not really directly related to this topic.

all joking aside....

What is YOUR view of election?

Please don't play games...just state it.

 

[BaptistBob]

The fact is...I do have tons of books that I can tell you of, and tons of churches....and tons of schools....and tons of men. I'm not taking that back, because it is true.

I never suggested it wasn't true, and you know it. I said your premise was fallacious and your motivation was childish. One Calvinist tried to come to your aid by suggesting that I was childish because I did the same thing. He misunderstood what I was doing, but at least he understood you were being childish.

The issue was not whether or not you had any books, and you know it. No one asked, and no one cared. You did not make the comment because there was any question about that. Sheesh!

All I have asked for was just one book from Allan. One writer that agrees. Somehow you think that is childish.

I never said that nor suggested that.

Please don't dodge the plain truth and try to change the subject. You have chosen to speak for Allan,

No I did not, and if you are going to say so you should be able to prove it.

therefore give me a book.

I already did.

good one Bob.

How could you say that the majority of the people posting on theologyweb would agree with him if you don't know what his views are?

Why the games, JA? Do you want to be taken seriously, or do you want to be the Forum Jester? Look at my exact wording. I said I don't know EVERYTHING he believes, but what he HAS said is agreed with by a number of people.

Why say... Thomas McCall is one that may agree with him...... if you have no clue.

I never said I have no clue. I said I don't know everything about what he (or ANYONE) believes. You do know what "may agree with him" means, right? Specifically, you know what "MAY" means, right?

1) Please state Craigs views on election. Keep it short.

Same as Allan's as far as I can tell.

Craig is a Arminian. Arminians love him and quote him.
Have you read his book....A Calvinist-Arminian Rapprochement?

Some do. Some Calvinists are Molinists. So?

However, I do not know much about Craig, so I could be reading him wrong.

Ok.

2) Please state Cottrell's views.

Cottrell is indeed a Arminian. Have you ever read him?
Arminian Today Site

So? He believes in the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity, are YOU Arminian? Rather, I said that Allan agrees with his philosophical approach as expressed so far. He may or may not agree with anything else.

3) I know Plantinga's for I have alot by him. I can tell you this bob that Allan does not believe as Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga is a Calvinist

Actually, he's Molinist Calvinist who has a perspective of free will that is no different than the non-Calvinist. What makes him Calvinist are other beliefs he has.

.

 

[BaptistBob]

all joking aside....

What is YOUR view of election?

Please don't play games...just state it.

Christocentric, corporate election.

Let someone else discuss it for you. I will be happy to do so with them. I can't stand your antics any longer.

 

[Jarthur001]

I never suggested it wasn't true, and you know it. I said your premise was fallacious and your motivation was childish. One Calvinist tried to come to your aid by suggesting that I was childish because I did the same thing. He misunderstood what I was doing, but at least he understood you were being childish.

One thing is sure. I asked for a Group, or a book and got nothing.

The issue was not whether or not you had any books, and you know it.

well, what do you think I meant by...I have tons of books that agree with me?

No one asked, and no one cared.

I care..I want to read Allans views. GET IT? YET?

No I did not, and if you are going to say so you should be able to prove it.

read this thread

I already did.

Which one? God the Ruler????

Cottrell is Arminian. Lets ask Allan. Do you agree with Cottrell the Arminian?

Why the games, JA?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I never said I have no clue.

no...I said it two times.

I said I don't know everything about what he (or ANYONE) believes.

yep...and yet you have taken the time to post men that MAY believe. how silly is that bob?

You do know what "may agree with him" means, right? Specifically, you know what "MAY" means, right?

Yes...Allan MAY agree with this guy....or MAY agree with that guy. Why not ask Allan? Why post the majority of the people posting on theologyweb would/MAY....(whatever word you wish to us) agree with him ....when you don't know?

Same as Allan's as far as I can tell.

BINGO!!!
That would be the point Bob. Craig is a Arminian. Allan says he is not. GET IT? YET?

So? He believes in the Trinity.

that's good bob, but it has nothing to do with the subject

If you believe in the Trinity, are YOU Arminian?

poor logic Bob.

Rather, I said that Allan agrees with his philosophical approach as expressed so far. He may or may not agree with anything else.

why guess? Why not ask him as I did. Better yet..lets ask him for a book.

Actually, he's Molinist Calvinist who has a perspective of free will that is no different than the non-Calvinist. What makes him Calvinist are other beliefs he has.

Which Allan is not. GET IT? YET?

 

[Jarthur001]

Christocentric, corporate election.

Let someone else discuss it for you. I will be happy to do so with them. I can't stand your antics any longer.

Group election.

ok..well we can talk about that on another thread.

 

[BaptistBob]

well, what do you think I meant by...I have tons of books that agree with me?

You didn't say that. You said "TONS of good men that agree with me." Now drop it if you understand, or go back to the earlier posts and try to understand the issue.

Which one? God the Ruler????

Yeah, that one. I believe (although it has been 15 years) that it talks about God's actualization of history. Borrow it, don't buy it, because I'm not sure if that's the book by Cottrell that I'm thinking of.

Cottrell is Arminian. Lets ask Allan. Do you agree with Cottrell the Arminian?

I may be wasting my time by saying this, but agreeing with someone on a topic does not mean that you agree with everything they believe. You do understand that the Trinitarian theology expressed by Justin Martyr is the same as yours, for example. Yet his theology was non-Calvinist.

no...I said it two times.

Like I said, I don't have time for your games.

yep...and yet you have taken the time to post men that MAY believe. how silly is that bob?

That isn't even intelligible sentence. Sorry, I don't know what it say to it.

Yes...Allan MAY agree with this guy....or MAY agree with that guy. Why not ask Allan?

Because I don't want to. He said something I agree with, so I commented that is makes sense to a lot of people.

Why post the majority of the people posting on theologyweb would/MAY....(whatever word you wish to us) agree with him ....when you don't know?

I don't say "MAY" with regard to them. I said "would." I selected my words carefully with regard to what he DID say. I said they WOULD AGREE with him (commenting on what he DID say, with no implications regarding ANYTHING else he might believe).

You see, JA, this is yet another example of why it's futile talking to you. You don't know what I said, or what you said, so we never progress. This simply are not worth the time. You are most certainly not unworthy of my time, but I simply don't have the energy to go in circles for several miles, just to gain an inch.

BINGO!!!
That would be the point Bob. Craig is a Arminian. Allan says he is not. GET IT? YET?

Allan didn't say anything about Craig. Yet again, you are circling the wrong planet, chasing windmills, COGNITIVE SALAD! Allan hasn't mentioned Craig, yet in your imagination he has. And if I were stuuuuuuuuupid enough, I would continue to try to clarify things with you.

You will kind this quote.

Really? Whatever (that means...)

 

[Allan]

But I want to see a list of non-Calvinist groups that are "more in line with scripture" as you see it.

All those who are born again Christians that are Not Calvinist and are Not Arminian, and who also do not hold the heretical premise of Pelagain nor semi-pelagain views with respect to salvation. SBC and IFB churches are a good start

While you find the statement that was just before you made this statement, are you saying this is simply "Allan's Theology"?

Nope. Never made that statement nor have I ever implied it. If others agreed with it, and if I learned it from former pastors I have had then by logical conclusion it did not derive from me. My theology is derived from scripture regardless of 'what men have written' about what scripture is saying. If they agree then great! If not, Oh well.

can show you TONS of good men that believe as I. I'm in no way...out in left field by myself.

Neither am I. The only thing I have found different in my understanding of election is in the area of when it transpired.

Calvinists state God chose first (1) whom He will save, then (2) detemined how he would save them.

The typical non-cal view is that God first (1) decided 'how' to save men. Then (2) looked down time to 'find' who would believe, and then (3)determined these shall be saved.

My view is that when God determined (1) 'how' He would save man (by grace through faith) also knew simultaniously (1) all those of faith. Thus God is the one who determined who would be saved and man had no say in it. It was His choice to save in the manner He chose, and to save whom He chose - those of faith.

Now can you find me any books who disagree with what I said, apart from the presumed chronology of when election transpires? I haven't found any that disagree with me on what I stated, only the chronology of when it might 'logically' occur. Thus so far I an not out in left field but quite firmly still on the in field (pitcher was my position).

As a matter of fact I am curious as to just what it is about my view of election that makes it, in your view, out there and not in the norm?
You keep saying you can't understand it, but I can't find anything that contradicts my view, with the exception of logical chronology.

You know as well as I do that scripture does not give us a chronological order with respect to God's decrees and His foreknoweldge. The only thing we know is that His foreknowledge works in conjuction with His determining to decree.

 

[BaptistBob]

Oh yeah, here's my favorite book on the topic.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0567030733/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[canadyjd]

That isn't even intelligible sentence.

What a wonderful job correcting his grammar. You must have majored in English.

peace to youraying:

 

[BaptistBob]

What a wonderful job correcting his grammar. You must have majored in English.

How old are you?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Christocentric, corporate election.

What do you mean by Christocentric, corporate election, please ?

 

[Me4Him]

My view is that when God determined (1) 'how' He would save man (by grace through faith) also knew simultaniously (1) all those of faith. Thus God is the one who determined who would be saved and man had no say in it. It was His choice to save in the manner He chose, and to save whom He chose - those of faith.

You know as well as I do that scripture does not give us a chronological order with respect to God's decrees and His foreknoweldge. The only thing we know is that His foreknowledge works in conjuction with His determining to decree.

The differences betwen Cal/non Cal isn't so much when/what God "foreknew", but whether man's "belief" and "unbelief" plays a role in God deciding whom he will/will not save.

Cal say it doesn't, non cal say if does.

For whatever reason, Calvinist can't believe God can "foreknow" who will, of their own volition, chose to believe and who will not.

Having Faith will not save a person, people have faith in many different gods, but Cals say having faith is impossible unless God "enables" by first saving,

on this point, they're wrong, If that faith is in the "true God" (Jesus), we're saved,

"OUR Faith" is the only tunnel "THROUGH" this "mountain of sin" in which Grace can reach us. (By Grace "Through" Faith)

Abraham "believed God" and "IT" (his faith) was counted to him as "Righteousness". (grace)

The scripture "warn" about being "deceived" by lying "Spirits", and it's possible to "believe a lie" (False God) and be damned,

Such warning are of no value to us, or in the scriptures, if our "Beliefs/Unbeliefs" doesn't influence God one way or the other to save or not.

Of course God can "foreknow" what each person will "CHOSE", without predestine whatever choice they make.

I think "God's will" is clearly expressed when he said he loved the world, didn't sent Jesus to condemn the world, and died for the sins of the whole world that the world might be saved, the "free gift" to all men, not willing any perish,

"Knowing God" involves a little more than "knowing about God",

It involves knowing God on a personal level, what kind of God he is,

to what extent he would go to help a person up, any/all people, who are helpless themselves, (sinners)

or is he the type who would kick a person when they are already down, (condemn a sinner to hell)

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not... knoweth not God;... for God is love.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world,