Featured Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

The gospel is for the lost. He is giving us time to present our message of reconciliation because He desires all people to be saved.

And your understanding of 2 Timothy 2:8-10 is off the mark. Paul endured suffering for the chosen ones. This does not refer to the ones already chosen, but for those to be chosen. When an individual is chosen for salvation they are set apart in Christ.

 

The text in Peter says nothing about giving us time to present our message. The time is God's and it is His message, not ours. You're implying that God is waiting it out hoping we will practice due diligence and bring in a crop to be counted by our obedience. Nope. He knows all who are His and the number. Not one will be lost and the number will not fall one short nor exceed by one.

You're misrepresenting me on the 2 Timothy text. My point was that he suffered for those chosen who were not yet 'in the fold' and these were already chosen before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1. Thus the already chosen were those who would respond to the Gospel. There are none that are yet to be chosen as you imply. They've already been chosen and are still being sought.

 

TC, your dishonesty and backtracking has been noted. Even if that were your original intent, putting someone down and puffing up yourself is not "gently chastising". Secondly, someone who speaks evilly (lies) is not my elder. If someone is spiritually immature to the point in which they will bolster their argument with lies about the opposing viewpoint, they are not my elder. In this scenario, I was perfectly in place to speak to him the way I did, and to you, as well.

 

Protestant,
To put it mildly, you are very mistaken about what we believe. So much so that I honestly don't think that you've looked into it at all.

Wrong.

Correct

Wrong

Wrong

Close

Absolutely wrong.

Wrong

Close enough for a straw man, but wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Close enough where I won't just say "wrong".

No, this is according to your misperception of my theology.

I've already posted my view before. And let's just say that you are so wrong on what I believe, that you are not even in the ballpark.

 

I believe man does have the freedom to choose. Just not in the willy nilly way that you are portraying. I'll reiterate here that man cannot "just decide" to be saved, as you tend to think we believe. Man can only respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit, and it is only then that he is faced with the choice to accept or deny God's grace. It is not just a "oh, I don't want to go to hell, so sure, I'll get saved" kind of thing. He first has to fall under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, feel the draw of God on himself, and then decide.

This speaks a lot here. I don't see Calvinists as adversaries. I'm sorry that you see non-Cals as adversaries. I see brothers who both believe in the saving power of God, but who disagree on the method in which God uses to distribute His grace.

Again you use the word adversary. I'm sorry you feel that way. But, there is a third option. I believe that God does intervene, and when He does, then the choice is made. For me, it was really no choice. I knew where I was headed if I didn't accept God and I knew that even though I was a good person who grew up in a pastor's home that I had been hanging on to a false confession of faith since I was a child. I had been dealing with God's conviction for years, afraid to die because I knew I'd go to hell, but afraid of what people would think if I, a soul-winning, song leading, bus working, about to go to bible college teenager came forward and admitted he wasn't saved. But one night at the Triple S Christian Ranch I decided that I not only didn't want to go to hell. I wanted to serve God and accept His gift and live for Him.

This is one reason I have a problem with irresistible grace. I resisted for years. I knew the truth, and didn't accept it based upon my pride.

I agree.

 

You can believe that if you want, TC. But if you go back through this thread, see where the unpleasantness started. It first began in the OP, who outright lied about what we teach. And then, when I called him on it, you escalated it by "arguing personality" by saying that I was young and didn't have very much formal education. Go ahead and take an honest look at this thread. You'll see that I'm right about that. But, when I try and defend myself, suddenly I'm the bad guy.

In fact, I'll show you. I said that I would respond to those arguments born of ignorance. My position was misrepresented. So, at that point I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt and said that his argument was born of ignorance instead of saying that he was blatantly lying. You responded with:

Denigration.

Appeal to authority.

But, when I respond, suddenly I'm guilty of what you did. Amazing.

So, yes, TC. You are being dishonest. You are trying to pin a logical fallacy on me which you began perpetuating. As for the spiritually immature, if the shoe fits, wear it. I wasn't the one who began by misrepresenting the other side's teaching, or who began by dismissing a person's argument based on age or education.

 

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. In one post, you called me spiritually immature, inexperienced, and unreasonable; then said you're open to discussing the issue without personal attacks and name calling. I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee. I may have done a spit take on my Calculus.

Now, here's a second funny thing. I began by calling out an emotional argument (an emotionally charged misrepresentation of the non-Cal theology) by using reason, and showing logically how the misrepresentation of non-Cal theology needed to apply to both sides, and used as it was was asenine logic. And then you bring emotion into it by "dismissing a person's argument based on spiritual maturity and experience". And then claim that I am arguing from emotion. This is just getting silly.

Let's look at my very first post:

Nothing in that first post was based on emotion. None. It was a clear cut presentation of why I believed that the statement was wrong.

Then, in response:

So, here I am getting personally attacked by someone saying that truth upsets me, and also someone already saying that I was upset when I used pure logic to illustrate my point.

Then, I admit that I was upset, but not by Calvinism:

Here, I am clearly stating that nothing about Calvinism upsets me. But I hate an unfair argument. I even play the devil's advocate a lot in the Creation vs Evolution debate, because I hate it when Creationists (of which I am one) use arguments full of holes and misrepresentations. So, because I can't stand unreasonable logic, I called him out on it.

Then, again with a personal attack:

Because anyone who disagrees with Calvinism obviously hasn't studied it out, right?

Or:

More personal attacks.

And then this gem:

So now, because I disagree with Calvinism, I don't understand any other Christian essential.
And then we get to your first post to me, TC:

Where you introduce more denigration (a form of personal attack) and the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. (Yet somehow I'm at fault).

I reiterate my entire purpose in this response later:

Finally I get an actual, reasoned response from someone (SovereignGrace) where I don't feel as if he's out to crush me, but wishes to engage in dialogue.

But, then we get to TC's next response to me, in which he accuses me of doing the thing he did:

Which is hilarious, since he did it an I didn't do it.

I pointed out an argument born of ignorance. If that means that person is ignorant, then that's what it means. Or, it means that person knows better, and is being unChristlike by still using the ignorant argument. I guess I could have called "learned men" liars from the get go. Would that have been better?

Which is amazing, because up to that point, I hadn't even said someone had lied. Show me these "spurious accusations". There aren't even any "non-spurious accusations" at this point.

Then we get to IT's post:

But, the crazy thing is, I didn't. I said I disagreed with it. It's a subtle difference, I'll grant you. But this post was an attempt to get me into the debate of Cal/Arm, which I said I wasn't going to. But, it still remains to be shown where I stated "how Calvinism is in error with certain texts" as IT claimed.

I then pointed out to TC that he was the first to bring upthe appeal to authority fallacy (which I've done here in this post) and he replies with:

Read my reply, if you want. But I stand by it.

My next post, I didn't elaborate, but I pointed out where Protestant was mistaken about what I believe.

Then, TC decides to step in and denigrate me further, accusing me of things that didn't happen.

Meanwhile, I'm actually into a decent dialogue with the OP. Makes me wonder how much discussion could have been had if TC had left his emotions at the door.

While I was typing this, TC posted:

I don't hate the doctrine.You are once again projecting emotions onto me which you are obviously feeling yourself. If I believed that Calvinism was sending people to hell, then i'd hate it. I don't believe this.

 

The gospel is also for the saved.

 

I'll admit that I've not heard too much about that term, Prevenient Grace. I'll have to do some more research on it. I don't like the verbiage used, specifically "some help" from God (rather than all help from God), but the idea seems to be similar to what I believe.

my belief, and it is held by all the pastors that I know that I've asked, is that God, knowing the heart of a man, and knowing whether he will accept or not, will make a way for those who haven't heard who will accept. Whether a missionary, or some other means. He will provide a way for them to come to a saving knowledge.

The 'deciding' factor, yes. But so much has preceded that, such as the grace of God, God showing mercy, etc. It is an oversimplification to say that man decides. True, but leaving out so much.

And here is my major point of contention with the arguments. This argument is not a biblical one, but an extra-biblical one. In other words, you believing that it gives glory to the man is your opinion; while my believing it doesn't give glory to man is my opinion. Hence, the need to resolve it out of a context of a biblical discussion. I see no reason at all that a man should or even could glory in his acceptance of Christ's work. Rather, it is a show of humility to accept it. It is to realize that nothing you could possibly do could merit Heaven, and so you are forced to humble yourself before God and accept Him. Where you see glory for man in a free will, I see more glory for God.

I have previously stated that I am not here to debate Calvinism, but to debate the arguments used. With this in mind, I am not answering this part of the post.

See, I could also say the exact same sentences. We are adversaries in that my side fights for God's glory, for Salvation is of the Lord.

Which, again, is no glory, but rather humility; giving the glory to God.

Again, I'm not going to begin to debate Calvinism here. Only the two arguments that I've been discussing.

The problem is, that anything that you can say about "my side" that reduces the glory of God and the effectiveness of Christ's death, I can turn on "your side". This is my whole point. In arguments that can be used on both sides, you must throw out the argument. Here is a challenge; not to just you, but to everyone who debates the Cal/Arm positions. See if you can argue your point without showing how the other side is wrong. See if your arguments can stand up on their own merit, rather than the fallibility of the other side's arguments. If it can't, you don't have anything to stand on.

Side note: That applies not to just this discussion. It applies to all debates. If you can't state your opinion and give strength to your argument without attempting to tear down the other side's argument, you have a very weak argument.

 

Because you cannot do so. Look brother, call it what you will, error laden, flawed, incorrect, what have you, but you do this without any proof, or any Scripture. You make these types of statements, then when it is mentioned, you say you don't debate Cal/Arm. In fact you do debate it but in a underhanded manner.

The above is what I mean. Nothing to substantiate anything, just a vague aspersion with no substance.

You just said it up above brother.

And below:

"Flawed", erroneous, "doesn't work", "don't stand up", "a flat out lie" &c. Those are the same terms and you use them yet cannot substantiate any of it, or at the least have failed to do so.

Since you're taking it on, and making pretense you're not at the same time, why not actually use some Scripture for your points instead of your non authoritative opinion followed by a duck and run? I say this in respect, and believe you know better that this, but nonetheless it is what you are doing.

 

I urge you to read my last post. I have not one single time this entire thread attacked Calvinism. I have only attacked a misrepresentation of non-Cal beliefs, and an invalid argument. There is a vastly huge difference in saying "your opinion is wrong" and "your argument is wrong" or "your argument misrepresents my belief".

I have very much substantiated what I've said. What I have not done is substantiate what you are saying I said.

If you read my above post, you'll see clearly that I am not giving a "non-authoritative opinion", but rather using logic to explain how the arguments presented do not work.

As an analogy, let's say you see a brown animal that I believe is a dog, yet you believe it is a cat. You say, "that animal is brown, and my cat is brown. Therefore that animal is a cat". I then point out that your argument doesn't work, and is flawed. In this analogy (and in this thread) I haven't begun to debate over the issue, I've only pointed out how your argument doesn't support your claim.

That's what I've tried to do in this thread. I've tried to point out that a misrepresentation of my belief does nothing but cause further division without either side getting any closer to the truth. In this scenario, saying that we believe that God "cannot" do something when we believe that he has "chosen not" to do something is using a misrepresentation and a straw man argument, which is the same type of logic that would allow one to believe that since the animal is brown, it must be a cat. It is a logical fallacy.

So, to reiterate, this entire thread I have stated that I disagree with Calvinism, but I have not as of yet argued against Calvinism at all. I have merely pointed out fallible arguments.

Hopefully after reading this post you realize that this is not what I am doing.

- Edited to correct "you're" to "your"

 

You hit the nail on the head. No one says that nor does anyone believe that. They have no real argument so that have to make up one in order to more easily knock it down. It is a childish game and it is as dishonest as it is unChristian.

 

Very good point and I am a witness to the truth of it.