False accusations.

[37818]

Calvinism, Arminianism and other.
When false accusations are made, meaning accusing the other side of believing what the other side does not believe, it never persuades.

Each of us comes to our own points of view for reasons. The reasons may not be good reasons to another person.

Common ground. The written word of God should be our common ground.

The points of disagreement are more than the 5 points of the TULIP.

1 Corinthians 1:10 , "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

No one believer can fix this or make obedience to this insruction to be followed.

Think. Do you really think the other fellow really sets out to believe what is false?

There is how we know what we know comes before what we know.

How we understand words.
Who we believe.
The logic we use.

How can we frame what one believes over against the other person we disagree with without accusing that person of believing something that person does not believe?

 

[MB]

Calvinism, Arminianism and other.
When false accusations are made, meaning accusing the other side of believing what the other side does not believe, it never persuades.

Each of us comes to our own points of view for reasons. The reasons may not be good reasons to another person.

Common ground. The written word of God should be our common ground.

The points of disagreement are more than the 5 points of the TULIP.

1 Corinthians 1:10 , "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

No one believer can fix this or make obedience to this insruction to be followed.

Think. Do you really think the other fellow really sets out to believe what is false?

There is how we know what we know comes before what we know.

How we understand words.
Who we believe.
The logic we use.

How can we frame what one believes over against the other person we disagree with without accusing that person of believing something that person does not believe?

IMO it's hypocritical
MB

 

[37818]

IMO it's hypocritical
MB

How do we frame what we believe over against the other person we disagree with without accusing that person of believing something that person does not believe?

 

[utilyan]

They don’t call the devil “accuser” for no reason.

Blaming finger-pointing and fault finding is the core of every sin.

one can tell that attitude-spirit to take a break.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is how we know what we know comes before what we know.

How we understand words.
Who we believe.
The logic we use.

If you back it up to this point and find irreconcilable differences, then how do you proceed further? There is little basis to talk about what the other person believes, unless you first adopt his methods, definitions, and terminology. And if you don't do that, that is, accept his terms, then won't what you say about his beliefs essentially be a lie?

But if you understand the problem that well, then you should see that the impasse is just that. That's the way I see it.

 

[utilyan]

You could do the opposite.
Argue the opposite in the best possible light and make a case stronger than what they had in mind.

like if your not a Calvinist be a Calvinist for one day and floor it with the best possible argument. Don’t vilify and fix it best way possible.

 

[37818]

If you back it up to this point and find irreconcilable differences, then how do you proceed further?

Depends what the issue is. What different presuppositions are being made.

There is little basis to talk about what the other person believes, unless you first adopt his methods, definitions, and terminology.

One needs to be able to understand the other view correctly. To either be able to change one's own view or if the view one holds is actually correct to maybe help the other part at the very least understand one's view. But that does not mean the other person will even consider it

And if you don't do that, that is, accept his terms, then won't what you say about his beliefs essentially be a lie?

If the terms simply disallow what is true then what? Change what is actually true for what is not true?

But if you understand the problem that well, then you should see that the impasse is just that. That's the way I see it.

Well one cannot think for the other party. And there maybe some presuppositions the other party holds which is another issue which needs to be dealt with first. Cannot argue against what is not known.

 

[JonC]

Calvinism, Arminianism and other.
When false accusations are made, meaning accusing the other side of believing what the other side does not believe, it never persuades.

Each of us comes to our own points of view for reasons. The reasons may not be good reasons to another person.

Common ground. The written word of God should be our common ground.

The points of disagreement are more than the 5 points of the TULIP.

1 Corinthians 1:10 , "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

No one believer can fix this or make obedience to this insruction to be followed.

Think. Do you really think the other fellow really sets out to believe what is false?

There is how we know what we know comes before what we know.

How we understand words.
Who we believe.
The logic we use.

How can we frame what one believes over against the other person we disagree with without accusing that person of believing something that person does not believe?

It is always better to let the other person define (and defend) their beliefs instead of assigning to them a view you hold of their positions. This has been a consistent issue on the BB - especially in this section.

 

[AustinC]

Often, I find that people refuse to follow their assertions to their ultimate conclusion. Instead they make an assertion, thinking it resolves problems, but they just haven't considered the implications. When confronted with the need to consider the implications, they refuse and instead the double down on their faulty assertion.

 

[JonC]

Often, I find that people refuse to follow their assertions to their ultimate conclusion. Instead they make an assertion, thinking it resolves problems, but they just haven't considered the implications. When confronted with the need to consider the implications, they refuse and instead the double down on their faulty assertion.

True, but given most of the topics here it can be more complicated (in applying human logic to some doctrines, particularly that concerning issues of two different types of beings or wills....i.e., human and divine).

For example, the logical conclusion of divine predestination is human choice has no consequence and no responsibility can be ascribed to man (as God nd not man determined what man will do). BUT the logical conclusion of free-will theology is that man's decision is the crux of man's salvation. Both (of the "logical conclusions") are ultimately unbiblical.

Another example is the logical conclusion of a man stepping out onto water is that the man will sink (given the density of water compared to the human body trying to walk or stand upright on the water, the man has to sink).

That said, these "logical conclusions" cannot just be dismissed or overlooked (which is often the case). They pose legitimate challenges, not necessarily challenges that prove the inverse or negate the "illogical position", but definitely challenges that need to be considered and addressed.

 

[37818]

Often, I find that people refuse to follow their assertions to their ultimate conclusion.

And what if two different logical conclusions are being looked at. A mere general redemption versus a general redemption where a particuar redemption is part of the general redemption. Not the same.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Depends what the issue is. What different presuppositions are being made.

One needs to be able to understand the other view correctly. To either be able to change one's own view or if the view one holds is actually correct to maybe help the other part at the very least understand one's view. But that does not mean the other person will even consider it

If the terms simply disallow what is true then what? Change what is actually true for what is not true?

Well one cannot think for the other party. And there maybe some presuppositions the other party holds which is another issue which needs to be dealt with first. Cannot argue against what is not known.

My own general conclusion from these discussions is that there is an impasse.

In part this is due to differing definitions that make the arguments either impossible or not worth pursuing. In other cases, the arguments depend on heavily weighting evidence that seems dubious or much less weighty.

I'm not interested in trying to untie the resultant Gordian knot, and taking a sword to it won't satisfy a great many others.

 

[MB]

For example, the logical conclusion of divine predestination is human choice has no consequence and no responsibility can be ascribed to man (as God nd not man determined what man will do). BUT the logical conclusion of free-will theology is that man's decision is the crux of man's salvation. Both (of the "logical conclusions") are ultimately unbiblical.

.

Invitation requires choice.It also means it a free choice sense it is not a demand.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
MB

 

[JonC]

Invitation requires choice.It also means it a free choice sense it is not a demand.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
MB

I absolutely agree with the passages you provide. But I never really had an issue believing salvation is a choice and something under the sole jurisdiction of God (accepting biblical divine predestination and human free will is not something I view as problematic).

But others do need to at least minimalize some teachings to emphasize others (they stumble on one or another doctrine because they cannot reconcile both with their reasoning).

In doing so they often misrepresent opposing positions.

 

[AustinC]

And what if two different logical conclusions are being looked at. A mere general redemption versus a general redemption where a particuar redemption is part of the general redemption. Not the same.

General redemption is universal atonement, which is universalism.
Go ahead and argue for universalism.
The problem is that people arguing for general redemption refuse to recognize and acknowledge they are indeed arguing for universalism.
So, to claim particular redemption falls within general redemption is simply redundant.

 

[37818]

General redemption is universal atonement, which is universalism.
Go ahead and argue for universalism.
The problem is that people arguing for general redemption refuse to recognize and acknowledge they are indeed arguing for universalism.
So, to claim particular redemption falls within general redemption is simply redundant.

While it is true Universalism uses general redemption as an excuse for it's claim. It is an intellectually dishonesty to accuses Christians who do not believe in Universalism of that error because they believe in a general.unlimied atonement. My view, I hold particular redemption is part of the general redemption an so cannot be Universalism.

 

[37818]

For @AustinC
Bible Study - Limited vs. General Atonement

 

[AustinC]

While it is true Universalism uses general redemption as an excuse for it's claim. It is an intellectually dishonesty to accuses Christians who do not believe in Universalism of that error because they believe in a general.unlimied atonement. My view, I hold particular redemption is part of the general redemption an so cannot be Universalism.

You refuse to follow your view to its conclusion, which is universalism. Therefore, you are either being intellectually dishonest or unwilling to honestly look at your position.

 

[AustinC]

For @AustinC
Bible Study - Limited vs. General Atonement

Ryrie's question beggs itself.

Rather, the actual question is: did Christ purpose by coming into the world to make provision for the salvation of all people, realizing that the Father would mysteriously draw the elect to Himself and allow others to reject the provision made? Because some reject does not invalidate the provision or mean that the provision was not made for them.

Berkhof asks the correct question.

"Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question" (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941], p. 394). If indeed the question is properly expressed this way, then the answer is clear: the Atonement was limited, for Christ did not come into the world to save all men. Our understanding of election makes that answer certain.

I am amazed how semi-pelagians, like Ryrie, refused to accept the clear conclusions of scripture and instead seek a circular question that will result in what they want the Bible to convey, not what it actually conveys. Dispensationalism is inherently dishonest in its hoop jumping to make the Bible fit into its tortured models.
Your website shows us that tortured attempt to try avoid the logical outcome of it's assertions, which is indeed universalism.

I encourage you to throw out such dependence upon a secondary source filled with false assertions and actually go read your Bible. You will be amazed what the Bible actually teaches regarding whom Jesus shed blood actually redeems.

 

[37818]

You refuse to follow your view to its conclusion, which is universalism. Therefore, you are either being intellectually dishonest or unwilling to honestly look at your position.

Your arguments make no sense. Since I reject Universalism. And you cannot be reasoned with. It must only be according to your view.

How do you think one's name is gotten into the book of life? The only promise is one's name to never be removed, Revelation 3:5. 1 John 5:4-5.