• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Fallacy Vol 2

Winman

Active Member
:thumbs::thumbs:.....Although there is a problem with your analysis.....many reasonable people do and have agreed with it......go figure.

Thank you for sharing that with me! :D

Now, how about sharing what is wrong with it. I am not saying I am not wrong, but it doesn't do a lot of good to tell someone they are in error and not explain why. I would be interested in knowing, perhaps you are correct.
 

Siberian

New Member
Yet another attack on my character, rather than addressing my position. That is all they have, folks, just disparagement. I have never met a Calvinist, except EWF, who would posit that salvation is based on holding the correct doctrine. As I have posted dozens of times, salvation is all of God, He saves us, we do not save ourselves with "the right doctrine" except the part about trusting in Christ with all our heart, holding nothing back.

Why not just answer his question and give your whining a rest? He did not attack your character - he asked you a question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cypress

New Member
Thank you for sharing that with me! :D

Now, how about sharing what is wrong with it. I am not saying I am not wrong, but it doesn't do a lot of good to tell someone they are in error and not explain why. I would be interested in knowing, perhaps you are correct.

Sorry if the reference was unclear......it was to this part of your post....."So, this is pure nonsense by Calvin which no reasonable person would agree with."


Seems like lots of otherwise reasonable people agree with it , you and I don't.:love2:
 

Winman

Active Member
Sorry if the reference was unclear......it was to this part of your post....."So, this is pure nonsense by Calvin which no reasonable person would agree with."


Seems like lots of otherwise reasonable people agree with it , you and I don't.:love2:

Do you really agree with it? If you were selected to be on a jury trying a man for armed robbery, and the robber's attorney argued the victim willingly gave the robber his wallet, would you find the robber not guilty?

Never mind, I missed that you do not agree. Sorry 'bout that Chief!
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
You seem to be going down the road of questioning my behavior rather than the content of my posts
BINGO!
First you said everyone is a minimalist and now you say you are not a minimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.
Poor reading comprehension. Never said everyone is a minimalist.
All the "leaning in the wrong direction" is based on you attributing meanings to words that are not real. You equated theological excrement with fiction. That does not pass the smell test. :)
Both describing someone's theology "stink".
A false teacher could be saved or unsaved, the test is do they love the Lord and do they walk the talk. When Jesus says "depart from Me, I never knew you" to some professing Christians, He will also greet some misguided with "welcome home, faithful servant."
Scripture that the Bible uses false teacher to describe the saved?
To say I hate Calvinism is correct, but you also slandered me when you said I hate Calvinists. It is time to part company, I have no interest in defending myself from one false charge after another.
What false charge? I never said you hated calvinists...supply where I ever said that. THAT is a false charge.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hi Webdog, here is what we said:

Van: I am a minimalist, which means I try to stick with what scripture and logical necessity requires and then not go beyond that.

Webdog: ...yet every believer states this, but does not do it in actuality. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. The "minimalist" view on this passage is what the calvinists claim...you just take it at face value. Do you agree?

Van: Every believer does not state or accept this!! The doctrines that divide are all based on unwarranted extrapolations of the text.

Webdog: Accept what...the minimalist view? The key is context, not minimalism or maximalism (if there is such a thing)

Van: First you said everyone is a minimalist and now you say you are not a minimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.

Webdog: Poor reading comprehension. Never said everyone is a minimalist.

Question what part of “every believer states this [I am a minmalist] did my poor reading comprehension miss.

Webdog, you started out saying you agree with me but did not think my use of “fiction” was appropriate. Lets leave it there, I have no interest in your contentless posts.
!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As far as scripture using folks whose doctrines miss the mark, do a study of Apollos. He listened and learned and corrected his views.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Hi Webdog, here is what we said:

Van: I am a minimalist, which means I try to stick with what scripture and logical necessity requires and then not go beyond that.

Webdog: ...yet every believer states this, but does not do it in actuality. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. The "minimalist" view on this passage is what the calvinists claim...you just take it at face value. Do you agree?

Van: Every believer does not state or accept this!! The doctrines that divide are all based on unwarranted extrapolations of the text.

Webdog: Accept what...the minimalist view? The key is context, not minimalism or maximalism (if there is such a thing)

Van: First you said everyone is a minimalist and now you say you are not a minimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.

Webdog: Poor reading comprehension. Never said everyone is a minimalist.

Question what part of “every believer states this [I am a minmalist] did my poor reading comprehension miss.

Webdog, you started out saying you agree with me but did not think my use of “fiction” was appropriate. Lets leave it there, I have no interest in your contentless posts.
!
Yes...this is what I said "yet every believer states this" Every believer BELIEVES they are a minimalist, but in actuality none of us are. Like I said, I never said every believer IS a minimalist.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Lets see, every believer says they are minimalists, which is a fact not in evidence, but no believer is a minimalist, which is a fact not in evidence. First you said everyone is a minimalist in that they believe they are minimalists, and now you say you are not a minimalist, in that you do not believe you are a mimimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.
 

jbh28

Active Member
Lets see, every believer says they are minimalists, which is a fact not in evidence, but no believer is a minimalist, which is a fact not in evidence. First you said everyone is a minimalist in that they believe they are minimalists, and now you say you are not a minimalist, in that you do not believe you are a mimimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.

"Me" thinks you're not reading this correctly. I understand exactly what he is saying.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"...the will is [either] free , bound , self-determined , or coerced . People generally understand a free will to be one which has in its power to choose good or evil…[But] There can be no such thing as a coerced will, since the two ideas are contradictory. But our responsibility as teachers is to say what it means, so that it may be understood what coercion is.

Therefore we describe [as coerced ] the will which does not incline this way or that of its own accord or by an internal movement of decision, but is forcibly driven by an external impulse. We say that it is self-determined when of itself it directs itself in the direction in which it is led, when it is not taken by force or dragged unwillingly.

A bound will , finally, is one which because of its corruptness is held captive under the authority of its evil desires, so that it can choose nothing but evil, even if it does so of its own accord and gladly, without being driven by any external impulse.

According to these definitions we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it.

We deny that choice is free , because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion . For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced.

We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. (John Calvin, BLW pp 69, 70)


1) First Calvin attempts to redefine the meaning of will such at a will arising from a "hardened heart" has not been coerced. Fiction.

2) Next, if God hardened the heart such that the person would never seek God, but only sinful activity, then God by logical necessity is the author of that behavior.

3) If a fallen person is predisposed to sin, but seeks not to sin, but still continues to sin, clearly the will is not "free" but the product of the attitudes and attributes of the wretched person seeking God. Paul in Romans 7 presents himself as such a fallen, unregenerate person.

4) Calvin does not do away with coercion and force, he just backs up and hardens the heart using the coercive force of the curse of the Fall, and then claims that such a coerced heart's will is not also coerced. Fiction on top of fiction.

Now lets present what scripture actually says: All mankind was made sinners as a consequence of Adam's sin, and our "heart" was corrupted such that we are predisposed to sin. We were conceived in iniquity, in a sinful separated from God, spiritually dead state. All that is true. But that fallen condition did not result in "total spiritual inability" of all mankind at all times. We all sin, but we also (some of us some of the time) seek God. Thus the will is not so corrupted as Calvin claimed.

Calvin says man because of the fall is unable to seek God and therefore always chooses sin. Yet this does not make God the "author of sin." With this perverse logic you could pull the wings off a fly and then punish the fly for not flying. It is simply absurd. A moving the goal post argument and everyone knows it.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Does Romans 9:14-18 say God punishes man for what He compels man to do?

This passage does not say God causes you to sin and still hold you responsible. Here is what is actually being said, according to the light God has given me:
a) God has mercy on some people and God hardens other people for His sovereign purposes.

b) This is not injustice because those hardened get justice and giving mercy is also not injustice.

c) If God hardens a person, why does He still find fault? This question Paul addresses indirectly, the person is "finding fault" with God saying God should not punish someone whose heart God hardened. But who is the man to judge God. So even if we do not fully understand why God does what God does, we should not suppose God's actions are not just and perfect and holy.

Now, Paul could have answered the question more directly but perhaps he thought the direct answer was obvious and was being ignored on purpose, therefore he answered it as he did. But when God hardens a person's heart to bring about His purpose, the person's opportunity to obtain mercy ends, just like when a person dies, their opportunity ends. They will be punished for the wrath they piled up before God hardened their hearts, at a minimum and so God's action is obviously not injustice.

Another oft cited claim is Paul is talking about his life after he was born again in Romans chapter 7, rather than as an unregenerate. But this is pure fiction. Lets skim over the Romans chapter 7 passage. Verse 5, for while we were in the flesh... this refers to prior to being born again. If you doubt it do a search of all the times Paul uses this phrase. Verse 6, but now we have been released from the law... this refers to after being born again. Verse 7, Paul says he would not have come to know sin except through the Law... this refers to before being born again, before being released from the Law.

Now verse 9 is difficult and many misunderstand it, but what Paul is saying is he thought he was alive, not dead in his sin, when ignorant of the Law, i.e apart from the Law. But when he learned the Law, he became aware he was a covetous sinner, he knew that sin lived in him and he was therefore dead. All this revelation of his actual condition, dead in sin, occurred while he was dead in sin, i.e. prior to being born again and being made alive together with Christ.

Verse 14 again clearly indicates Paul is talking of when he was unregenerate, of the flesh, sold into bondage to sin. Thus the whole passage Romans 7:14-21 refers to Paul's wretched existence before being born again. Then in verse 24 we see how Paul was set free from this wretched condition of wishing to seek God in the inner man, but being governed by the sin in his flesh. Then in Chapter 8, verse 1, Paul says there is therefore NOW no condemnation, because he has now been born again.

Bottom line, Romans 7 refers to Paul as an unregenerate wretch man.

In summary, (1) the Bible teaches unregenerate men, in their inner man, seek to follow God, some of the time, but are unable to not sin, and therefore when they sin, they are not seeking God. There is no support in scripture for the fiction of "total spiritual inability" being the consequence of the Fall, but there is support for some men to have "total spiritual inability" (the first soil of Matthew 13), and that if a person hardens their own heart by the practice of sin, or if God hardens their heart for His purpose, their limited spiritual ability is taken away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Calvin says man because of the fall is unable to seek God and therefore always chooses sin. Yet this does not make God the "author of sin." With this perverse logic you could pull the wings off a fly and then punish the fly for not flying. It is simply absurd. A moving the goal post argument and everyone knows it.

People are accountable for their sin. It is because of the perversity of their hearts that they sin --not because the Lord sets up a perfect environment in which they can sin. Do you think Calvinists believe that God infuses people with sin?!
 

Siberian

New Member
Does Romans 9:14-18 say God punishes man for what He compels man to do?

This passage does not say God causes you to sin and still hold you responsible. Here is what is actually being said, according to the light God has given me:
a) God has mercy on some people and God hardens other people for His sovereign purposes.

b) This is not injustice because those hardened get justice and giving mercy is also not injustice.

c) If God hardens a person, why does He still find fault? This question Paul addresses indirectly, the person is "finding fault" with God saying God should not punish someone whose heart God hardened. But who is the man to judge God. So even if we do not fully understand why God does what God does, we should not suppose God's actions are not just and perfect and holy.

Now, Paul could have answered the question more directly but perhaps he thought the direct answer was obvious and was being ignored on purpose, therefore he answered it as he did. But when God hardens a person's heart to bring about His purpose, the person's opportunity to obtain mercy ends, just like when a person dies, their opportunity ends. They will be punished for the wrath they piled up before God hardened their hearts, at a minimum and so God's action is obviously not injustice.


No, Paul's point is that the potter has power over the clay, and that he can therefore make vessels for honor and vessels of dishonor because he has the right as the potter. Not to be trite, but that is what the text says. The answer is not obvious and left to our reasoning. It is directly and fully addressed.

Keep in mind that Paul goes here because he knew the reader could object to God's choice of Jacob and rejection Esau before either of them were born and before either of them did good or bad. Paul is explaining that it is not injustice because God, the potter, can do as he wishes with the clay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top