Emotional or Exegetical?

[The Archangel]

I'd dare say neither you nor myself are in the least bit surprised.

No...but one can (and should) always hope and pray.

The Archangel

 

[Dr. Bob]

Note to Winman: On the thread on Gen 6:3 I agreed with you.

Just wanted you to see that every once-in-a-while (but never on the doctrines of grace) will we agree on something!! Blessings.

:thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

No...but one can (and should) always hope and pray.

The Archangel

Agreed brother.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I don't think ill of you, I am simply pointing out a false form of argument very common to Calvinists. If you pay attention you will see these types of remarks over and over again. I think that most Calvinists are unaware of this false form of argument, and they were unaware of it when it was used against them to bring them into conformity with Calvinism.

No one argued me into Calvinism- I had to argue myself into it.

 

[Winman]

And what exactly is the "false form of argument"?

When you tell someone you are weeping because they do not agree with your point of view, it argues this person is in serious error, perhaps damnable heresy, else there would be no need to weep over them. Does this prove their view is correct? NO. So it is a false form of argument.

When you tell someone you are praying that they come to a knowledge of the truth it is the same. Does this prove the person praying is correct? NO. The person praying ASSUMES they are correct and anyone who disagrees with them is in error. It does not prove the person who disagrees with them is in error whatsoever.

But it is a subtle accusation of serious error that attempts to make the person doubt. As Luke said, as he studied the doctrines of Calvinism, at first he was repulsed by these teachings. They went against what he believed was just.

But Calvinism convinced Luke that his sense of justice was depraved. He was not to trust his sense of justice or conscience. To do so was to question God and his sovereignty. This can be very intimidating to a new or unlearned believer. No true believer wants to be a heretic or be in rebellion to God's word. These so called "scholars" hold the upper hand, they easily convince the new or unlearned believer that his views are formed in his depraved mind and are not to be trusted. He is convinced to surrender his own logic and sense of justice and trust what these scholars teach him.

The Catholic church did this for centuries. Any man who questioned the church was accused of being ignorant and a heretic. He was accused of being an enemy of God. Only the church and the church fathers could rightly interpret scripture. Scripture that seemed to disagree with the views of the church was simply explained away, and the questioner was accused of being a rebel and causing division. He was a heretic. And often these men and women paid the price of questioning "orthodoxy" with their lives. Others were told they would perish in hell. It is an OLD trick.

 

[humblethinker]

OH, and by the way, this entire errant and libelous rant is an example of "Emotional" as there is nothing truthful, exegetical, nor anything of substance in what you've written.

The Archangel

Interesting... So you HAVE read Pelagius? Can you provide a link or site the book?

 

[Winman]

Interesting... So you HAVE read Pelagius? Can you provide a link or site the book?

He posted his sources at the bottom of his post, he got those statements from Augustine, not Pelagius himself.

[1] Augustine of Hippo, "A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin", trans. Peter Holmes In , in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 242-43.

[2] Ibid., 243.

 

[jbh28]

When you tell someone you are weeping because they do not agree with your point of view, it argues this person is in serious error, perhaps damnable heresy, else there would be no need to weep over them. Does this prove their view is correct? NO. So it is a false form of argument.

It would only be a false form of argument if they were using is to prove their view, which they were not.

When you tell someone you are praying that they come to a knowledge of the truth it is the same. Does this prove the person praying is correct? NO. The person praying ASSUMES they are correct and anyone who disagrees with them is in error. It does not prove the person who disagrees with them is in error whatsoever.

As said above, no one said it does prove. And of course if one believes they are right(why wouldn't they) they believe the other person is in error. duh!

But it is a subtle accusation of serious error that attempts to make the person doubt. As Luke said, as he studied the doctrines of Calvinism, at first he was repulsed by these teachings. They went against what he believed was just.

But Calvinism convinced Luke that his sense of justice was depraved. He was not to trust his sense of justice or conscience. To do so was to question God and his sovereignty.

When it comes to the Bible vs my understanding/what I think I choose the Bible. It doesn't matter what I think is just, it's only what God says is just.

This can be very intimidating to a new or unlearned believer. No true believer wants to be a heretic or be in rebellion to God's word. These so called "scholars" hold the upper hand, they easily convince the new or unlearned believer that his views are formed in his depraved mind and are not to be trusted. He is convinced to surrender his own logic and sense of justice and trust what these scholars teach him.

The Catholic church did this for centuries. Any man who questioned the church was accused of being ignorant and a heretic. He was accused of being an enemy of God. Only the church and the church fathers could rightly interpret scripture. Scripture that seemed to disagree with the views of the church was simply explained away, and the questioner was accused of being a rebel and causing division. He was a heretic. And often these men and women paid the price of questioning "orthodoxy" with their lives. Others were told they would perish in hell. It is an OLD trick.

This was not in any way what anyone was trying to do.

 

[Skandelon]

I was actually thrilled that Luke opened up this particular can...because I think it is worthy of discussion....I will, point by point, respond to where I think he is absolutely correct (and he is on many levels IMO) and then suggest some counter-arguments:


Agreed on all points, and well-spoken.

.

No doubt about that.


Yes, it is. The gospel in general is....so anyone who is "Saved".....does have to swallow a hard-pill to begin with anyway:
Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.



Yes, it does grate against many Pre-concieved and emotional convictions of humans....but I think no Theology is "Purely exegetical"...in that, we all come from a certain Philosophical point of view. Ultimately. I cannot shake the conviction that Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism....O.T....they all have certain philosophical pre-suppostitions which are unavoidable. Unfortunately, many who are passionate adherents simply are unaware of them. They do not understand the assumptions they bring into their reading of Scripture. Too many people truly "Believe" that they believe "Only" the Bible, and "nothing else" (with respect to their Theology)...but they then inadvertently bely that they assume too many (debatable) Philosophical assumptions which are not inherent in Scripture. I actually contend that the new-fangled term "Biblicist" is the most insultingly ignorant term extant in modern parlance. No ONE is a "Biblicist"....we all attempt to be, and that is the goal, but we know only what we CAN know, and we see through a glass darkly. It is of signifigance that in the Middle Ages (for instance) no one was even ALLOWED to study "Theology" until they had first formally learned Philosophy, Mathematics, Dialectic and so on.....



As a rule...they would be mistaken



They would again be mistaken, and you are correct, I think, some people do think that way.

NO doubt


This is quite probably true of some Arms...but it is actually the words I bolded that I think are disputable....Given what I bolded, then here is where I think we disagree:

1.) Emotions:

It is not always strictly speaking an "emotional" issue, but an actually exegetical one...which truly believes propositionally that it is simply not "true" that God would actually want or desire for their to be those who are not saved...to wit:
We call to mind Scriptures such as:
Mic 7:18 Who [is] a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth [in] mercy.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

These are merely two examples...but what our Argument might be, is that, like a Calvinist...we TRULY BELIEVE that he worketh ALL things according to his OWN GOOD PLEASURE...

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

We honestly believe that He has TOLD us what his "GOOD PLEASURE" is...and that it does NOT involve the Death of the wicked:
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;

I have no doubt that one's personal emotions are often too powerful in determining our Theology....But I think it can work in more ways than one. It is a difference often in our "Theology Proper" not our "Soteriology" wherein lies the disconnect. It seems (to me) that to the Calvinist, "Soteriology" tends to define their "Theology Proper" whereas to the Arminian (or non-Cal) that "Theology Proper" effects our "Soteriology".
In other words...we don't merely "dislike" Calvinism...we believe that it is a mis-representation of WHO God IS.




"Emotions" I contend, are not the sole issue....this actually kind of smacks to me of Vulcans delineating their "logic" from human "emotion"...Moreover, we do not believe, I think, that a truly regenerate person is so very en-slaved to "depraved human emotions" as a non-regenerate person is. We tend to believe that we are being continually:
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

This suggests to us that we are not merely objecting to certain Calvinist assumptions because of a "depraved" point of view...but that, we have an indwelling Holy Spirit and that as we grow and learn more of God and his nature, and who he is...than our minds are truly transformed to where we think more LIKE Christ, and LIKE God. We believe we no longer:
1Cr 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

We believe that we have learned to develop a "Spidey-sense" :laugh: or a capacity for discernment about what God has told us is his NATURE...And we do not believe PROPOSITIONALLY....that God is at all "Glorified" or "Pleased" with the death of the wicked. We believe that as we "grow in grace" that (by definition) our no longer "depraved" but, rather, "regenerate" sense of what defines "justice" is worthy of respect.


And I return this compliment to my Calvinist Brethren :applause::thumbsup:



See above...I am glad you began an irenic thread about this. It is Very worthy of discussion. God Bless YOU!!

I was about to respond to Luke's OP, but I happen to stumble on this response, and I don't think I need to now. Well said brother!!! :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Anyone who holds to the doctrines of grace (reformed theology) feels that those who have not come to see their own worthlessness and utter helplessness and that salvation is 100% God and 0% man ARE in serious error and feel only pity.

And sadness for the deceit and destruction to the truth by those arguing for arminian or semi-pelagian teaching, or even pelagian heresy; they are 100% wrong.

Not that an arminian can't be a good guy. Or a semi-pelagian a decent human being. It's just that they should NOT be teaching such error and heap only greater condemnation every time they spew such inacurate man-made interpretations out on a thread. If one soul is thus deceived, those teachers will reap a reward; God is not mocked. Giving glory to ANYTHING or ANYONE for God's grace alone is akin to idolatry, and the jealous God I worship is a consuming fire and will not let man take glory for one iota of salvation.

I'm just wondering if anyone catches the irony (or maybe the word is 'contradiction') of Dr. Bob's statement.

Dr. Bob has pity on those who GOD, for whatever reason, decided not to grant correct soteriology. If Dr. Bob's system is true, then God, not us poor pitied non-Calvinists, decided whether or not we would be reformed believers or not. Dr. Bob can talk all day about what we SHOULD teach and believe but ultimately it is God's DOING, not ours, that determines such things...if His deterministic world view is accurate.

Maybe Dr. Bob should address such posts TO GOD and tell God what he thinks God SHOULD decree for us to believe. :applause:

 

[Winman]

OH, and by the way, this entire errant and libelous rant is an example of "Emotional" as there is nothing truthful, exegetical, nor anything of substance in what you've written.

The Archangel

Let's go back and see who is using "emotional" terms.

From Mexdeaf;

The more I learned about the holiness of God and how I am 100% the opposite of that the more "sense" the Doctrines of Grace made to me. And the more I weep for those who cannot see it, whether they be brethren or not.

Mexdeaf does not refute non-Cals with scripture, he weeps for those who do not see his point of view.

P4T said;

At the same time it is pure disconsolation to see the others who yet to this day remain in error.

P4T does not refute non-Cals with scripture, he feels disconsolation (beyond consolation, extremely dejected, cheerless, gloomy) to assert he is correct.

Dr Bob said;

Anyone who holds to the doctrines of grace (reformed theology) feels that those who have not come to see their own worthlessness and utter helplessness and that salvation is 100% God and 0% man ARE in serious error and feel only pity.

And sadness for the deceit and destruction to the truth by those arguing for arminian or semi-pelagian teaching, or even pelagian heresy; they are 100% wrong.

Dr. Bob does not quote one line of scripture to refute non-Cals, but he feels pity and sadness for them.

These are perfect examples of this false form of argument Calvinists use constantly. I didn't have to go off this thread to find three such examples. None of these are arguments from scripture, they simply ASSUME the author is correct and imply the person who disagrees with them is in serious error. They are in such serious error that they must be wept over, they are beyond consolation for them, they should be pitied, and there is great sadness over their error.

This is a form of subtle intimidation Calvinists constantly use to attempt to force others to accept their doctrine. They can barely post a refutation without using this tactic. Not one word of scripture was used to refute non-Cals, only this tactic of assuming their opponents are in serious error and should be pitied and wept over. Total nonsense.

So, who uses emotion?

 

[jbh28]

I'm just wondering if anyone catches the irony (or maybe the word is 'contradiction') of Dr. Bob's statement.

Dr. Bob has pity on those who GOD, for whatever reason, decided not to grant correct soteriology. If Dr. Bob's system is true, then God, not us poor pitied non-Calvinists, decided whether or not we would be reformed believers or not. Dr. Bob can talk all day about what we SHOULD teach and believe but ultimately it is God's DOING, not ours, that determines such things...if His deterministic world view is accurate.

Maybe Dr. Bob should address such posts TO GOD and tell God what he thinks God SHOULD decree for us to believe. :applause:

Dr. Bob never said anything like your "contradiction" that you attempted to say. but thanks for a very good example of straw man. Believers shouldn't misrepresent other believers.

 

[Skandelon]

I think he is also probably a very fine Christian man who loves God, is faithful to his church and believes in and loves the Bible with all of his heart.

I think the same of you my friend! :thumbsup:

But his argumentation fell along these lines:

I love you bro, you know I do, but my argumentation is not purely emotive. I reference scripture to support my views as much as any reformed believer, and I always attempt to address the interpretations of texts presented by my opponents. Now, I do appeal to emotional feelings and views of justice on occasion, because (1) God created emotions and feelings, (2) much of our views of justice are directly based upon biblical revelation, and (3) as BORN AGAIN believers we should be in tune to our God given conscience and question teachings that seem questionable.

His well formed arguments centered around the question not "What does the Scripture SAY" but rather "Why would God do this?"

Fallacy: False Dichotomy

You set this up as if I only could have argued from one OR the other perspective, when truthfully I argued FIRST what scriptures say (in Mark 4; Matt 13; Rom 11; Acts 28; John 12) about God's use of parables and other means to prevent Israelites from being converted AND THEN I argued "WHY."

More specifically I argued, "What is the NEED for this..." Which, Luke, you have to admit is not an emotive question. It is a question of logic and reason.

If your child was born blind and could NEVER see light unless he was first healed from his blindness, would it make any sense whatsoever for you to put a blindfold on him to prevent him from seeing a bright light? Of course it wouldn't. So, would it be an emotional appeal to simply ask you why you put a blindfold on your totally blind son? No. It would be a perfectly reasonable question. Not 'silly' at all, and certainly not emotional. In fact, if you saw someone put a blindfold on a child to prevent them from seeing a light, wouldn't you have a difficult time believing that child was really blind? Sure you would and it wouldn't be at all 'silly' or 'emotional' for you to ask why someone would insist on calling that child blind. It's a logical question...why would you blindfold a totally blind individual to prevent them from seeing something they were born unable to ever see?

 

[Skandelon]

Dr. Bob never said anything like your "contradiction" that you attempted to say. but thanks for a very good example of straw man. Believers shouldn't misrepresent other believers.

What specifically I have said that is misrepresentative? Bob believes that all things, including my soteriological views, are unchangeably decreed to be what they are before I'm even born. Thus, for him to express pity for me, is to express pity for an unchangeable decree of God. Telling me what I SHOULD believe is senseless when, according to his own system of thought, God alone determines what I believe or don't believe.

 

[jbh28]

What specifically I have said that is misrepresentative? Bob believes that all things, including my soteriological views, are unchangeably decreed to be what they are before I'm even born. Thus, for him to express pity for me, is to express pity for an unchangeable decree of God. Telling me what I SHOULD believe is senseless when, according to his own system of thought, God alone determines what I believe or don't believe.

You said "I'm just wondering if anyone catches the irony (or maybe the word is 'contradiction') of Dr. Bob's statement."

Where in that statement did he say that? Or was there no real contradiction or irony in the statement?

 

[Skandelon]

You said "I'm just wondering if anyone catches the irony (or maybe the word is 'contradiction') of Dr. Bob's statement."

Where in that statement did he say that? Or was there no real contradiction or irony in the statement?

Contradiction with HIS expressed deterministic views, not contradiction with his quote.

 

[Winman]

Dr. Bob never said anything like your "contradiction" that you attempted to say. but thanks for a very good example of straw man. Believers shouldn't misrepresent other believers.

Dr. Bob didn't have to say anything contradictory (but he did), it is obvious. Skan is correct, if a person believes that God has determined what every person believes, then why should a Calvinist pity this person? This person is actually doing the will of God as God determined he would do. So it is indeed a contradiction to feel pity or sadness over those who hold false doctrine if Calvinism is true.

Skan was absolutely correct.

 

[Amy.G]

Dr. Bob didn't have to say anything contradictory (but he did), it is obvious. Skan is correct, if a person believes that God has determined what every person believes, then why should a Calvinist pity this person? This person is actually doing the will of God as God determined he would do. So it is indeed a contradiction to feel pity or sadness over those who hold false doctrine if Calvinism is true.

Skan was absolutely correct.

Who has said that God determines what everyone believes? Who has said that God determines if someone will believe Calvinism or Arminianism???

 

[jbh28]

Contradiction with HIS expressed deterministic views, not contradiction with his quote.

But your gross error is that God determining all events doesn't mean that we don't make choices or that God forces us to make choices. It's not God's fault that you me or anyone is wrong in theology on certain points. You of course know this very well, or at least should.

So there was no contradiction with this views. The only "contradiction" happens is when you take part of what Dr. Bob believes and filter it through your theology.

 

[jbh28]

Who has said that God determines what everyone believes? Who has said that God determines if someone will believe Calvinism or Arminianism???

No one. Some on here like to take a portion of what one believes and skew it to make it look bad. There are two here that have made a living doing that. The problem happens is that they look at one aspect of what someone believes and filter it through their own perspective. Calvinist do not believe that we are all robots and God makes all our choices for us. This however doesn't stop some here from posting such garbage like that.