Featured Calvinism and Marriage

What's wrong with making someone willing who was not willing before? That's what YOU believe isn't it?

I can't understand why this should offend you.

 

Isn't it obvious that your illustration justifies sin whereas the effectual call concludes in righteousness being victorious??? So your illustration is not applicable but a complete perversion.

 

No, it is not obvious. If God does not ask someone's permission to make them willing, then he is no different from a fellow who does not ask a girl if she is willing, but drugs her so that she becomes willing.

Now you know as well as I do that this analogy is perfectly accurate. You won't ever admit, but you know it.

 

absolutely..........inaccurate.
apples and durians.

you are comparing a Holy, Sinless, Sovereign God, who is answerable to no one, so great that He can only swear by His Name and no other, who spoke things into existence, who OWNS THE LANDS, THE CATTLE, THE FISH IN THE SEA, and the VERY AIR you breathe, and, therefore may do, and does, whatsoever he pleases in the amy of heaven and of earth, who is so big the entire universe cannot contain Him, yet so humble He resides in the hearts of sinful creatures, to a SINFUL, ABSOLUTELY IMPURE, totally depraved, creature from whose heart come out the evils in life, who have no power AT ALL to create anything from nothing, whose hypocrisies are so subtle he cannot himself see it, who speaks foolishness in pretense of wisdom, who cannot even get from point A to point B simply by wishing to, who cannot create houses without the flimsy, perishable things that THE GOD YOU WANT TO BE COMPARED TO CREATED, who cannot defeat thousands without the use of thousands.
I can go on and on and on on why there is absolutely no point of comparison, but you will go on and on and on in your pretenses to believe and worship the God of the Bible while subtly insulting His Person and His Sovereignty.

like I said to everyone whose doctrine are near comparable to yours:

PURE HORSECRAP GOBBLEDYGOOK COCKADOODLE DOO !!!

 

Not really. In your model the regeneration only meant the shotgun was taken out after the blindfold is removed, as you could not choose not to marry at that point.

 

Actually he compared the doctrine which makes that analogy fit, not the drawing of the Holy Spirit which we all agree on.

Can we do without the unnecessary 'hatred for biblical truth' nonsense? Make your case, be blunt if you like, but let's all stop the mud slinging.

 

LOL ... Now, correct me if I am wrong.....but this is coming from a man who went to an Arminian Seminary & was at one time an Arminian.

 

Web....that date rape commentary was offensive.....admit it. Is this place becoming that nuts that we have to go to lowest common denominator commentary.....come on!!!

 

The comparison was accurate, except you believe God uses his supernatural power to cause an unwilling person to be willing, where on a date rape a man uses a drug to cause an unwilling woman to be willing.

I have posted several times in the past that R.C. Sproul himself wrote of "the holy rape of the soul". I even provided links to show where he actually made these statements.

Own it.

http://theologica.ning.com/profiles...-at-harvest?id=2124612:BlogPost:257801&page=2

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/07/rc-sproul-and-holy-rape-of-soul.html

 

Calvinists themselves compare it to rape, read my last post before this.

 

your use of the "s" is defamatory of a group of people as diverse in their choice of languages and phrases as their eschatologies, therefore I conclude that your intention is to discredit a class, not a person within a class, and that is, at best, moronic and at worst, criminal.

RC Sproul may have used that phrase, but to imply that ALL Calvinists are guilty of assent to the use of that description of a doctrine they hold dear is deceptive and fraudulent just as it will be wrong of myself to say that classic Arminians on this board and everywhere will agree with your comparison of an UNHOLY, finite, puny creation to an absolutely Holy, Infinite, and Omnipotently Sovereign Creator.

 

OK, I apologize, SOME Calvinists compare Irresistible Grace to rape.

Happy?

 

it is not an EQUITABLE comparison for many reasons.

1. The former is a permenant Creative act of God "without repentance" (2 Cor. 7:10) whereas the latter is tempoary drug induced action that is resented later.

2. The former is for good of both parties whereas the latter is not good but absusive to one and lustful use by the other.

3. Your whole comparison is designed to justify exactly what the Scripture deny is possible, that the character of the fallen nature (Rom. 8:7) is capable of reversing its STATE OF BEING which would be necessary to partnership with the Spirit of God, but at the same make such a partnership unnecessary because that condition has already changed in order to attain that very goal.

4. Unbiblical illustrations, philsophical rationalizations must be resorted to in order to justify false doctrines.

 

apology accepted, but, not happy.
ONE presbyterian Calvinist stupidly used a stupid phrase, and I've read Thy Brother's Keeper where he used the phrase, and am not defending his use of the phrase.

 

Try that argument in a court of law and see if it flies.

That is not what the unregenerate sinner believes, even if it is true.

Clarity is not your strength.

I would never argue that the carnal or fleshly mind can be anything but. I have not made that argument. My argument is that man is more than flesh only.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This statement was made by Jesus before the disciples received the indwelling Holy Spirit, and so is speaking of their natural spirit (or the "spirit of a man" as described in other places), and shows that unregenerate man in his "spirit" can be quite willing to be obedient to God.

I have shown you this verse several times. Now you show me how I am wrong.

R.C. Sproul, a notable Reformed scholar used this illustration himself. In the past I gave links and quotes for other Reformed scholars/teachers who also compared Irresistible Grace to rape.

If it is OK for Reformed scholars to use this comparison, why isn't it OK for me to agree with them?

 

WD,

It is one thing to not agree on doctrinal points.There is never a time when it is acceptable to even suggest what Winman shamefully does.
I agree there should not be "mud slinging." If i randomly started picking on him then I could see your point. He is out of control with this kind of post,that has no place on a biblical forum.
Saying the God of Calvinism is............[fill in the blank]....then speaking evil about Him.....is in fact blasphemous,unless you are suggesting that a false god is what Calvinism holds to.
Because Winman is out of control with his agenda,then bears false witness against brothers like biblicist, does not give him immunity from the consequence of these kind of postings that no one should be offering.

Biblicist offers good study material in his posts,and Winman tries to mock and silence him making up false statements trying to manipulate things.
That needs to stop.Unless Winman can speak to the issue...he needs to desist.

 

You're absolutely correct in your assessment Icon. He should be ashamed to even have thought of those words, let alone type them out on BB. But things like this are tolerated here, and they should not be. He gets by with way too much. No shame?

 

Sadly...he repeats his foul analogy here;

Unbelievable.

 

Brother,

I am with you, it is unbelievable. But I must also realize other things stated: we preach a false Gospel, we don't believe Scripture and more things that have come from him day in and day out and they go unchecked. We have to see it as a pattern because that is what it is. I've tried to dialogue with him, but it is not advantageous nor profitable to do so, and this shows more reason as to why and personally I have told him so. I wish it were different, but neither you nor I can change hearts and attitudes.