Featured Emotional or Exegetical?

No...but one can (and should) always hope and pray.

The Archangel

 

Agreed brother.

 

No one argued me into Calvinism- I had to argue myself into it.

 

When you tell someone you are weeping because they do not agree with your point of view, it argues this person is in serious error, perhaps damnable heresy, else there would be no need to weep over them. Does this prove their view is correct? NO. So it is a false form of argument.

When you tell someone you are praying that they come to a knowledge of the truth it is the same. Does this prove the person praying is correct? NO. The person praying ASSUMES they are correct and anyone who disagrees with them is in error. It does not prove the person who disagrees with them is in error whatsoever.

But it is a subtle accusation of serious error that attempts to make the person doubt. As Luke said, as he studied the doctrines of Calvinism, at first he was repulsed by these teachings. They went against what he believed was just.

But Calvinism convinced Luke that his sense of justice was depraved. He was not to trust his sense of justice or conscience. To do so was to question God and his sovereignty. This can be very intimidating to a new or unlearned believer. No true believer wants to be a heretic or be in rebellion to God's word. These so called "scholars" hold the upper hand, they easily convince the new or unlearned believer that his views are formed in his depraved mind and are not to be trusted. He is convinced to surrender his own logic and sense of justice and trust what these scholars teach him.

The Catholic church did this for centuries. Any man who questioned the church was accused of being ignorant and a heretic. He was accused of being an enemy of God. Only the church and the church fathers could rightly interpret scripture. Scripture that seemed to disagree with the views of the church was simply explained away, and the questioner was accused of being a rebel and causing division. He was a heretic. And often these men and women paid the price of questioning "orthodoxy" with their lives. Others were told they would perish in hell. It is an OLD trick.

 

Interesting... So you HAVE read Pelagius? Can you provide a link or site the book?

 

He posted his sources at the bottom of his post, he got those statements from Augustine, not Pelagius himself.

 

It would only be a false form of argument if they were using is to prove their view, which they were not.

As said above, no one said it does prove. And of course if one believes they are right(why wouldn't they) they believe the other person is in error. duh!

When it comes to the Bible vs my understanding/what I think I choose the Bible. It doesn't matter what I think is just, it's only what God says is just.

This was not in any way what anyone was trying to do.

 

I was about to respond to Luke's OP, but I happen to stumble on this response, and I don't think I need to now. Well said brother!!! :thumbsup:

 

I'm just wondering if anyone catches the irony (or maybe the word is 'contradiction') of Dr. Bob's statement.

Dr. Bob has pity on those who GOD, for whatever reason, decided not to grant correct soteriology. If Dr. Bob's system is true, then God, not us poor pitied non-Calvinists, decided whether or not we would be reformed believers or not. Dr. Bob can talk all day about what we SHOULD teach and believe but ultimately it is God's DOING, not ours, that determines such things...if His deterministic world view is accurate.

Maybe Dr. Bob should address such posts TO GOD and tell God what he thinks God SHOULD decree for us to believe. :applause:

 

Let's go back and see who is using "emotional" terms.

From Mexdeaf;

Mexdeaf does not refute non-Cals with scripture, he weeps for those who do not see his point of view.

P4T said;

P4T does not refute non-Cals with scripture, he feels disconsolation (beyond consolation, extremely dejected, cheerless, gloomy) to assert he is correct.

Dr Bob said;

Dr. Bob does not quote one line of scripture to refute non-Cals, but he feels pity and sadness for them.

These are perfect examples of this false form of argument Calvinists use constantly. I didn't have to go off this thread to find three such examples. None of these are arguments from scripture, they simply ASSUME the author is correct and imply the person who disagrees with them is in serious error. They are in such serious error that they must be wept over, they are beyond consolation for them, they should be pitied, and there is great sadness over their error.

This is a form of subtle intimidation Calvinists constantly use to attempt to force others to accept their doctrine. They can barely post a refutation without using this tactic. Not one word of scripture was used to refute non-Cals, only this tactic of assuming their opponents are in serious error and should be pitied and wept over. Total nonsense.

So, who uses emotion?

 

Dr. Bob never said anything like your "contradiction" that you attempted to say. but thanks for a very good example of straw man. Believers shouldn't misrepresent other believers.

 

I think the same of you my friend! :thumbsup:

I love you bro, you know I do, but my argumentation is not purely emotive. I reference scripture to support my views as much as any reformed believer, and I always attempt to address the interpretations of texts presented by my opponents. Now, I do appeal to emotional feelings and views of justice on occasion, because (1) God created emotions and feelings, (2) much of our views of justice are directly based upon biblical revelation, and (3) as BORN AGAIN believers we should be in tune to our God given conscience and question teachings that seem questionable.

Fallacy: False Dichotomy

You set this up as if I only could have argued from one OR the other perspective, when truthfully I argued FIRST what scriptures say (in Mark 4; Matt 13; Rom 11; Acts 28; John 12) about God's use of parables and other means to prevent Israelites from being converted AND THEN I argued "WHY."

More specifically I argued, "What is the NEED for this..." Which, Luke, you have to admit is not an emotive question. It is a question of logic and reason.

If your child was born blind and could NEVER see light unless he was first healed from his blindness, would it make any sense whatsoever for you to put a blindfold on him to prevent him from seeing a bright light? Of course it wouldn't. So, would it be an emotional appeal to simply ask you why you put a blindfold on your totally blind son? No. It would be a perfectly reasonable question. Not 'silly' at all, and certainly not emotional. In fact, if you saw someone put a blindfold on a child to prevent them from seeing a light, wouldn't you have a difficult time believing that child was really blind? Sure you would and it wouldn't be at all 'silly' or 'emotional' for you to ask why someone would insist on calling that child blind. It's a logical question...why would you blindfold a totally blind individual to prevent them from seeing something they were born unable to ever see?

 

What specifically I have said that is misrepresentative? Bob believes that all things, including my soteriological views, are unchangeably decreed to be what they are before I'm even born. Thus, for him to express pity for me, is to express pity for an unchangeable decree of God. Telling me what I SHOULD believe is senseless when, according to his own system of thought, God alone determines what I believe or don't believe.

 

You said "I'm just wondering if anyone catches the irony (or maybe the word is 'contradiction') of Dr. Bob's statement."

Where in that statement did he say that? Or was there no real contradiction or irony in the statement?

 

Contradiction with HIS expressed deterministic views, not contradiction with his quote.

 

Dr. Bob didn't have to say anything contradictory (but he did), it is obvious. Skan is correct, if a person believes that God has determined what every person believes, then why should a Calvinist pity this person? This person is actually doing the will of God as God determined he would do. So it is indeed a contradiction to feel pity or sadness over those who hold false doctrine if Calvinism is true.

Skan was absolutely correct.

 

Who has said that God determines what everyone believes? Who has said that God determines if someone will believe Calvinism or Arminianism???

 

But your gross error is that God determining all events doesn't mean that we don't make choices or that God forces us to make choices. It's not God's fault that you me or anyone is wrong in theology on certain points. You of course know this very well, or at least should.

So there was no contradiction with this views. The only "contradiction" happens is when you take part of what Dr. Bob believes and filter it through your theology.

 

No one. Some on here like to take a portion of what one believes and skew it to make it look bad. There are two here that have made a living doing that. The problem happens is that they look at one aspect of what someone believes and filter it through their own perspective. Calvinist do not believe that we are all robots and God makes all our choices for us. This however doesn't stop some here from posting such garbage like that.