Featured Conditional Election

Correction: I'm out of your league.

 

They haven't been. Not without obfuscation and avoiding addressing the verses posted and the argument profferred squarely. As usual, they are ignored and any passages proferred have been ignored and rather alternative "proof-texts" thrown in instead. Also, my favourite objection is this one:

"Ever and anon the argument is "who hath resisted his will"?.......And Paul already shot that argument down two millennia ago.

Of course......that particular gem is inherently circular....but it will be less than 6 weeks before you profer that irrelevant and circular gem yet again.

Much like Icon's thread wherein he intimated that Hebrews prooves "Limited Atonement" and then suggested that everyone who disagrees with him wants to "escape" that passage, when challenged on where "Limited Atonement" is demonstrated in that passage, he simply diverted to OTHER passages and then re-introduced them to the text, rather than admitting that "Limited Atonement" was simply never in that passage to begin with.
Thus.....he never dealt with it "squarely".......not the passage itself. Instead he imported notions from all over the place and inserted them INTO the text. He meant no deceit in so doing, none at all. And he is innocent of any intentional mis-readings or mis-representations of Scripture. Nonetheless, that's still Calvinist M.O. too often. And that is what is occurring on this thread as well.

No-one has refuted Van's arguments squarely.

 

Dude.....someone on this thread just quoted their own post and then "Amen-ed" it!!!!:laugh::laugh:

 

One of my favorites—and Paul's. And Jesus agrees.:thumbs:

So goes the yelp of one receiving the apostolic smackdown.

I will yet again.

Boiled down, Van's point is that God is a respecter of persons. Those who are saved are so because they are and have done better than those who aren't saved.

 

Pick a specific passage. Don't mention Calvin, or what Calvinist supposedly believe. Just pick a passage and let's discuss what it means in the context it was written. Start a new thread and I'll join you there.

 

Okay. Here's your reasoning. "The White House" can't mean Obama, because he isn't white and he's not a house. Words have meaning, you know.

You are so fun, dawg.

 

I've already mentioned an entire thread on the issue.......and it was a thread Icon started. So, that has been done already.

But, I refuse your offer mainly because you intimated that I would make this about "Calvin"....I don't, and never do. I've NEVER attacked the Calvinist system by mentioning Calvin himself personally, and have regularly suggested that such a line of attack is unfair and out of line.
I can honestly say, I don't believe I have EVER argued against "Calvinism" from that angle.
You appear not to know this already.

You appear to think you already know that any argument I have with Calvinism will boil down to some juvenile line of "ad hominem" attack against Calvin personally. Who taught you to think like that?

Perhaps some other day. You already think so little of your detractors that you intimated that I would mention "CALVIN"....

I have no interest starting reasoned debate with someone who already intimated that I do not debate seriously and reasonably. I don't want to begin a debate with someone who has essentially already confessed that they think I would argue as a juvenile. No thanks.

Instead......why don't you simply prove us all wrong by addressing Van's arguments squarely and directly? You don't have to "proove" anything by getting another thread started......You only have to deal with THIS ONE, which already exists.

 

That argument you adore so much goes like this:

Calvinism is true, therefore, the interpretation I bring to this passage is inherently correct. (it's not)

Thus, any who disagree with my interpretation are being defeated by this passage itself. (they aren't)

It's circularity to an extreme, and it's stupid quite frankly.

 

So you joined the Strawman League?

 

Yes, children often think concepts beyond their grasp to be stupidity. But that's the judgment of a child, not of wisdom.

You assert that God has chosen them that qualify. In short, as I have, at your bidding, answered Van, you make God a respecter of persons.

You have no alternative.

 

Look kid.

Unconditional Election describes the belief that a man's election is based completely and wholly on the choice of God.

Conditional Election is the belief that a man's election is based on the fact that God knew beforehand that the man would make the right choice.

Now, why don't you be quiet and let mommy and daddy talk. OK?

 

You are not debating one passage of scripture. It is all over the place with all sorts of personal attacks, just as you have done with me and my offer.

I was simply attempting to avoid what is happening on this thread, and all the others I have seen, which is not debating a single passage of scripture so as to come to an understanding of what it means , but it is simply a mud-slinging contest.... constantly questioning other's motives...ignoring what others say instead of addressing their points of arguments...snide comments followed by rudeness followed by "zingers" and everyone just talking past each other.

No thanks to you as well.

 

You don't realize that you ALSO BELIEVE that God chose "those that qualify"? You honestly don't realize that that is also true of YOUR SYSTEM?
Beyond their GRASP? No......just circular. Your insult not-withstanding.........that argument is a circularity, and a rather stupid one, really. And if it takes a "child" to get that, and yet you don't.......then that would be YOUR problem.

Your system ALSO makes God a "respecter of persons" in the same sense (a wrong sense) that you are using it.
Usually, your quips are at least rather clever.....today, you are off your game. You are not being clever at all. Just repeatedly circular and rude.

 

Unworthy of a response.

You cannot even get conditional election correct, only the calvie caricature correct.

 

Don't get testy C.........that's just how I felt about it. When did I question your motives? You questioned my capacity to debate reasonably, and NOW you demand a legit debate? And I said "no dice" not right now. As I said you could simply begin by directly addressing Van's argument in lieu of getting your feelers hurt by my rather benign post to you.
You BEGAN this with suggesting I would pull some "but Calvin was a jerk" thing (I've never done it)......and then requested a fair debate? That's vaguely akin to going to the last fat girl at a bar who hasn't been taken home and saying "your kinda ugly, but, I'm still willing to take you home as long as you don't sit on my furniture."
I promise you, if you addressed the arguments and Scriptures Van posted directly.......then a reasoned response is ALL you will recieve in return. And it will inexplicably be on topic as well. Just try it. Prove me wrong C.......address the errors in Van's argument and demonstrate how he mis-understands Scripture, and then you will recieve a pertinent response in return. Just TRY IT!

Unless, and until you do, then you will merely be similarly obfuscating and ignoring the arguments posed, and frankly......proving the assertion that Calvinists don't argue points squarely. You can always take the option of proving that idea wrong you know.

 

Similarly, C......you could also simply start a thread of your own, and then see if you don't get some reasoned responses (which inexplicably won't be "Calvin was a heel") responses.

Why must I do it? I don't want to, and I rarely start threads.......quite rarely, I think I've started about 6 in a year and a half or so.

 

That was the same jargon he sent towards me...........except you are a "kid" and I am a "child".......

You see, it's more clever and pertinent if he uses two mono-syllabic synonyms for the same lame accusation. WD is a "kid".

HOS is a "child"......

 

No. Do tell.

 

It matters not. Your election isn't unconditional, so it's false.

 

I don't agree with your definition that the unregenerate man has "no spiritual ability" at all, but that he doesn't have the necessary ability to come to faith in Christ without God's intervention. We would have to discuss other passages of scripture to come to an acceptable definition of "total spiritual inability".

Matt. 13:18-23 does not disprove "total spiritual inability" unless you accept your definition of "total spiritual inability" as accurate. It is not what I believe.

However, I would like to look at Matt. 13 to see what the passage says in context.

Jesus speaks of 4 types of men (soils) who hear the gospel. Only one of the 4 are saved. This man is referred to as "the good soil", as opposed to the soil "beside the road", the "rocky soil", and the soil "among the thorns."

The "good soil" man who is saved is described differently than the others..

1. He is "good soil". Qualitatively, he is different from the others.
2. He hears the word and understands it.
3. He bears fruit.

The soil beside the road never responds at all.

The "rocky soil" man is described as..

1. Receives the word "immediately" with joy
2. Is Temporary
3. "immediately" falls away

The soil "among the thorns" is described as...

1. hears the word
2. the word is "choke(d)" by worries of the world and deceitfulness of riches.
3. is unfruitful

So, are the men who are "rocky soil" or "among the thorns" saved when they hear the word of God? If you say yes, then you have to believe they lost their salvation.

If they were never saved, then this passage can't be used to argue they had enough faith within themselves to come to Christ for salvation since they did not.