You can call me anything you want, but this is exactly what your doctrine amounts to, and any clear-headed person can see this. You guys must truly believe people are stupid.
I know for a fact if I asked you if God asks a person permission before he changes their will that you would say NO! You can't have that, that would be man saving himself in your view. Well, that means God forces or imposes himself on the person.
This is not one bit different from a fellow slipping a drug into a girl's drink to make her willing to sleep with him. We put these guys in jail and rightfully so.
The only difference is that you have God using his supernatural powers instead of a drug.
How any sane and intelligent person cannot see this is beyond me!
You simply have no clue what you're talking about.
We who hold to reformed theology say this: We begin as persons unwilling to come to Christ, but God draws us in such a way that we--though once unwilling--become willing and run to Christ. OK. That should be clear.
What your hideously stupid example of "date rape" suggests is that there is never a time when the person becomes willing. In a date rape situation, where the victim is given a roofie or some other drug, they (the victim) are passive. What reformed theology states is that the unwilling person whom God makes willing is active in their repentance and faith.
Therefore, you example, analogy, whatever, is hopelessly flawed.
We have told you this time and time again--hence the word "ignoramus." If you are going to persist in describing our position as something it is not, and if you are going presume to tell us what we actually believe, then you are, in fact, demonstrating your vast ignorance. To continue to be intentionally ignorant as you are demonstrating is to move further down the continuum between ignorance and stupidity. One hopes you will remove your head from the sand and disagree with what we actually believe, not insult us by saying we believe something that we don't.
You might imagine all the Calvinists who claim you follow a works-based religion by being more of an Arminian. You will notice that I have never leveled that accusation. Why? Two reasons: 1.) I don't believe that believing in Christ to be a work and 2.) Those of your theological persuasion take offense at the idea--all the while telling us you don't actually believe it is a "works" salvation.
Yet, despite the deference I and other (though not all) Calvinists show you by our restraint in calling your system of faith "works salvation," you seem unable or, more likely, unwilling to afford us the same courtesy--always sending offensive and incendiary comments our way that are based on your ignorance and your unwillingness to "play nice" with those you are supposed to regard as "brother."
So, to recap, date rape and God's work to make the unwilling willing are
NOT the same thing. Therefore, if you are to demonstrate your charity, you will not refer to "Irresistible Grace" as "Date Rape" again. If you persist in your errant and indefensible analogy, we will all see a clear example of someone who fancies himself a Christian yet is unable or willing to display Christian charity to his brothers and sisters in Christ.
The Archangel
