Featured Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:30-32

If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 14:15-17


Experience and degrees?

 

Fair enough but you're still doing what I stated prior and either cannot see it or simply dismiss it. TC is correct in his response. You're running from the truth while attempting to patronize it. The facts of giving ratings that you mention is another excuse and diversion tactic. What place does mentioning that have compared to engaging and embracing truth?

 

I'd be that guy giving 'winner' to each of the Calvinists' posts. I make no bones about whose posts I find more God-honoring.

In the free will schema, ppl have drawn a line in the sand...anything past that line equates to God violating their free will...and God will not violate their free will...will not cross that line. Now, what does that mean? It means that God has done everything possible to save them, but because they did not do their part, they die lost. It has neutered God. It has emasculated Him.

 

Because it shows the very reason why I am choosing to contest an argument, rather than the issue. The issue is decided in most, if not all, of our minds. And so, I usually sit on the side and just leave others to it. But something inside me stirred when I read the OP say that non-Cals teach that God "cannot" save someone, when in fact it is not taught. This is why I entered the thread at all, was to show that "does not" isn't the same as "can not". No one I've ever heard in my entire life has ever said God cannot save anyone.

I have attempted before to engage in dialogue with Calvinists. Only one (of four) has stayed civil with me in PMs. And that was in an attitude that I truly wished to learn what they believed. Not so I could debate, but so I could decide for myself. So, I have decided that discussion is impossible.

Pointing out the ratings only serves to further my point that there is no real discussion to be had. it doesn't matter how valid I believe my points to be, unless I swallow everything the Calvinist is serving I am criticized. Even TC, who before I had thought to be somewhat gentlemanly, decided he needed to show me my error by denigrating my education, rather than allowing his argument to stand on its own merit.

My only aim, my entire goal this thread has been to balance the playing field. To show that the arguments the OP used against non-Cals could also apply to Cals.

 

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:10,11

At the moment the Savior was being born in the city of David another little aborigine child was being born in a hut in the outback of Australia.

Whether you be Cal or Arm, what is your spiritual opinion?

Was that child born in the city of David good tidings and great joy to that aborigine child? Is he the Savior of that aborigine?

My answers: Yes. Yes.

 

The sovereignity of God vs the free will of man does gender quite the heat. But if not for it, I would still be in the free will camp. So it is not a fruitless discussion at all. When I put my beliefs to the scrutiny of the bible, I found my views lacking in accord with the word of God.

God can save everyone, He has just chosen not to.

God has, in fact, chosen some and passed over others. Noah and seven others were saved and the rest of the human race drowned. He chose Abram, who was a pagan, who had a pagan father who made idols, lived in a pagan land of Ur to bring about the Messiah. He chose Abram/Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et al. He chose them and left all other nationalities without a Redeemer. Why He chose the way He did is solely known unto Him.

And yet no one, left in their fallen state, will ever choose Him. That is why regeneration, properly placed in 'Ordo Salutis' is of utmost importance.

And if left to that choice, none would be saved. The unregenerate are His enemies, they hate Him, that hate all things God.

You guys say He truly desires that all will be saved, but then all are not, so where are we? If God needs any assistance from sinful man, then He isn't omnipotent. If He will not save them until they do their part, then they, and not God, is in the proverbial driver's seat.

And this 'grab and force' is not how God does things. Ppl hate God in their fallen state. God lovingly gives them a new heart and a new Spirit[Ezekiel 11:19 & Ezekiel 36:26] and they now love them.

God works and none can hinder and hinders and none can work. We see that God sovereignly reigns over His creation. He has not allocated any of this sovereignity to His creation. He quickens whosoever He wills, He saves whosoever He wills and none can thwart that.

Having been in the free will camp until 6/2013, I can say I fully understand both sides of this centuries argument. The sovereignity of God is found all throughout the bible.

 

If you wish to discuss or ask me any questions about DoG, feel free to PM me.

 

Did God have a Son sitting on the track? What did the Son do? What did God do? Let the train hit him?

Then what did God do?

Heb. 5:7
Heb 5:8
John 3:16
Gal 1:1 Rom 5:9, Rom 8:29

 

Sovereign,
This is the kind of response that I can respect. I'm not saying I agree, but I didn't feel any attitude from your post, other than a desire to discuss. Even debate is fine with me (after all, this is a debate forum). But attacks I do not tolerate.
Now, as far as answering your post, I'm not going to get into the heart of the issue, but there are a couple comments I'd like to make.

And that is what I believe as well. he is all powerful, and can do anything. Just what He has chosen to do is where we disagree.

Now, here I feel the need to explain a little of what I believe. I don't believe that man can just "choose" to be saved, as if God is a safety net. I believe man only has the opportunity to respond to God when he is called, or drawn by the Holy Spirit. Some call this conviction, others call it other things. But I believe that when that man feels that call is when he makes the choice to stay in his lost state, or accept the grace of God. If he passes over that chance, he may or may not get another one depending on God's patience with that person.

While I don't necessarily like the verbiage, I can't disagree that we believe that God has allowed man to be in the "driver's seat". But, again, this doesn't mean that God can't take the driver's seat, just that He's chosen not to.

I understand this. The analogy was merely to show that me not choosing to do something did not mean that I could not do it.

 

Are those verses good tidings and great joy to that aborigine, whether he knew it or not. Are those verses, the faith of the following? These all died in faith, not having received the promises, from Heb 11:13

 

Sometimes I do post rather unseemly posts, so please accept my apology. It is just when I see someone post error after error, and none can show them their errors, they keep sounding like a record that keeps skipping.

Disagreement isn't bad as long as it does not turn personal.

It is funny that you posted the word 'drawn' as I was going to use that very word to express the way God draws His ppl.

In Jeremiah 31:3, the word draw means to draw (and lift out), drag along, lead along, drag or lead off, draw down, to draw (the bow), to proceed, march, to draw out or give (a sound), to draw out, prolong, continue, to trail (seed in sowing), to cheer, draw, attract, gratify, to be drawn out, to be drawn out, be postponed, be deferred, to be tall. So you can see the prevailing meaning is usually that which is forceful in application. Just as the soldier drew out his sword. Now, did the sword choose to come out of its scabbard or did the soldier effectively draw it out of its scabbard? We, as sinners, were dead in transgressions and sins[Ephesians 2:1] and had not the ability to choose that which was good. God, lovingly draws us, compels us unto Himself.

The Greek word used for 'draw' in John 6:44 means to draw, drag off, metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel. It shows that there is an effectual force in the drawing of His lost sheep unto Himself. It is not to be meant as dragging one kicking and screaming all the way unto the foot of the cross, but rather, lovingly drawing them.

If man is in the driver's seat, he is always driving the other way. God comes in and changes the disposition of their heart and that change causes them to turn around.

Ppl freely make choices every day of their life. However, their choices are bound to their nature. When God changes the nature, the will is changed also. We hate that which we once loved and love that which we once hated.

 

"Sapper Woody

 

Yes IT, I did misspeak, I wrote Paul when obviously it was Peter.

An obvious understanding arises when this verse is considered contextually. The scoffers were saying "where is the promise of His coming" misleading believers and Peter's inspired answer is that the Lord is being patient toward the elect, giving them sufficient time to evangelize and help win the lost to Christ, because God is not wishing for anyone to perish, but for all humanity to come to repentance.

Now if you look at verse 8, Peter is addressing not the scoffers, but the elect, the "beloved." Only someone pushing "theological absurdities" would miss the obvious.

 

Hi Protestant, consider Matthew 23:13. Those who were entering the kingdom of heaven obviously were not blind and deaf. So your mistaken claim all unregenerate are blind and deaf is in error. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells us of 4 soils, with various levels of receptivity to the gospel. Only the first soil had become blind and deaf through the practice of sin. Thus even the first soil was not conceived blind and deaf, but had lost the capacity to understand the gospel. Ask yourself why Jesus taught in parables if the audience was blind and deaf. (Matthew 13:10-13) Finally, Protestant, ask yourself why God needed to harden the hearts of the unbelieving Jews in Romans 11:7-10 is they were conceived blind and deaf? Hopefully at some point you will come to your senses.

 

Brother Sapper Woody,

I have hopes that instead of stating how Calvinism is in error with certain texts, then resorting to 'you don't debate Cal/Arm' statements would be put to rest.

You most certainly do debate the doctrines of grace -- and here is your methodology: Y

You make a remark about how Calvinism is in error, don't back that up with sound doctrine (which is impossible) then when questioned or asked to do so, you resort to the 'I don't debate Cal/Arm' excuse.

I'm certain you see that as well, as do others. It's a cop out brother.

 

He is patient toward us, that is, His chosen. That is the context and interpretation. The age has not consummated due to there being more elect of God who have not yet come to repentance. Notge also 2 Timothy 2:8-10. Same concept, the Gospel is for the elect.

 

Well, don't feel alone. As I read the Op I noted strawman after question begging after strawman after... but knowing how addressing these strawman arguments would be met (trolling fights rather than ethical reason) I certainly value my time more these days than bothering to entertain what very apparently many around here consider to be a legitimate form of "debate".

FYI, Some time ago a few non-Cals got together and discussed these issues privately then began to be focused on starting to call out the trolling practices (thought of as "debate" around here) while taking on the gang mentality and no matter how clearly we laid out the evidence of the thread "crash dummy troll" tactics being used to derail legitimate debate arguments what then happened is we began to be censored by the Admin closing down threads that had been getting successful at weeding out the trolls.

It is a lost cause here. Many non-Cals here no longer engage in the pseudo-debates here knowing the purpose and goals are not to work toward getting to the truth in the matters but to draw any non-cal daring enough to challenge the ideas of the Cals here on this board into senseless fights.

Just to let you and others know your thoughts on the "pretty much the definition of trolling" is all anyone opposed to systematic Calvinism will be met by is not a secret to many here. And it is also very obvious that those who use these tactics are either uninterested or afraid of real and ethical debate.

...As for the Op attempt to reading Hyper-Determinism into the Gorilla story, that is typical of those into that systematic theology whether it be using the Bible or a current event. The strawman arguments to follow in it, if addressed, will never be humbly acknowledged no matter how patient and logical your reasoning is that that is not your position. If you deny their Deterministic Sovereignty doctrines in any way you will be charged with the strawman of denying Divine Sovereignty, even when you can directly link those sort of distorted sovereign determinism doctrines to evil. Saying that God doesn't create evil does not remove sovereignty. But saying He creates evil does remove holiness.

Peace. Carry on...

 

I haven't stated that Calvinism is in error with any texts. The closest I've come to saying that Calvinism is in error is pointing out a flawed argument against non-Cal. I have said that I disagree with Calvinism, but haven't given any arguments so far about Calvinism itself, only the arguments that anti-non-Cal that don't stand up.

Again, point to where I said Calvinism is in error. I have not said that. The only thing I've done so far is to point out how an anti-non-Cal argument doesn't work, because it was a flat out lie (saying that we believe God cannot save someone, rather than does not).

It's not an excuse. Rather than join in with an endless argument which will not get resolved, I am pointing out flawed anti-non-Cal reasoning. After all, a flat out lie is an inadmissible argument.

I can't see what isn't there. I've been consistent this entire time.

 

TC, unfortunately I don't have a lot of time, as I have to leave for work. But, I will point out that you were the first one to bring up a comparison of education (saying I was very young and did not have very much formal education), and then went on to say how those who believed the DoG on the BB were older, learned men. So, you brought in the appeal to authority fallacy. Any attempt on my part to equalize the playing field is no longer an appeal to authority, but showing you that your appeal to authority is invalid. And then you try to turn it into me appealing to authority. What a horrible debate tactic. You can't accuse me of doing what you did, which I responded to.