Exeedingly Sad

[OldRegular]

It is exceedingly sad that anyone who has experienced the Grace of God in Salvation would accuse their brethren of believing that God through His Grace turns the crown of His creative activity, Man, into a mindless robot! I submit the following OP on the thread "The Conflicted Calvinist" as evidence:

Many here engage with what I like to call "a conflicted Calvinist." They are a conflicted group of people because their angst is really inconsistent with what they claim to believe. They are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done or believed otherwise. In other words, they are actively rebuking God's ordained and preset will for your life, all the while believing that their own rebuke is likewise God's ordained and preset will. So, according to their circular deterministic worldview (where God is the only actual agent/actor/chooser in existence) they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them. Confounding, I know. They ultimately have God rebuking God over and over again...

Sure they add in 2nd cause explanations (puppets/robots) to subtly invoke some since creaturely culpability, but it all amounts to the same merry-go-round of God causing every effect and every effect causing God's rebuke or reward thus blurring if not completely erasing the line between that which is good and evil.

The above quote is, to put it politely, an exercise in ignorance regarding the Doctrines of Grace. It is indeed exceedingly sad!
__________________

 

[annsni]

Unfortunately, when that poster posts against "Calvinism", he is posting not against the true Doctrines of Grace but instead a grossly twisted concept of hypercalvinism. You can't argue with someone like that since the Bible says to avoid foolish controversies.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Actually, I thought he had it exactly right.

But I don't like the Calvinist debate threads because even though I disavow Calvinism, I have many Calvinist friends and I don't disavow them.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Unfortunately, when that poster posts against "Calvinism", he is posting not against the true Doctrines of Grace but instead a grossly twisted concept of hypercalvinism. You can't argue with someone like that since the Bible says to avoid foolish controversies.

That isn't what is happening....One CAN "argue" with such a person...you simply can't confuse your terms when you do so. The post has NOTHING to do with "Hyper-Calvinism" nor it's logically inconsistent form regularly taught today.....That isn't the issue. It isn't a "foolish" controversy. It's a real one. If you refuse to understand the objection as posed...then you should either listen more open-mindedly about what specific objection is being raised (it's a valid one) and then inform yourself about positive rejoinders to the objection:

EVERY debate (real debates) involve two things:
Negative objections (this is one)
which is an attempt to submit that a point of view is untenable due to the negative consequences logically necessary in its formation....this is called in a "defeater".

Utilizing a "defeater" in a debate forum isn't "unfortunate" it's fortunate...it's a good thing. Either what you believe is capable of withstanding a "defeater" or it isn't. Here's how you get away from Skandelon's (that's who it was, and he wasn't running away from it) "defeater"...

You either falsify the defeater by explaining how his argument or "defeater" is in fact invalid, or you pose a "counter-defeater" (philosophers call it a "defeater-defeater", and yes, it's an ungainly word). which is designed to "defeat" his "defeating objection"....

The second thing involved in debate is a "Positive" argument.
The "Positive" arguments are designed to support your propositions, and the "defeaters" are designed to "defeat" them.

Skan's argument is a proposed "defeater" to Calvinism and his proposition is designed to suggest that Calvinism is inherently incoherent in that it contradicts itself.

It is a valid argument form...I'm sorry you don't like it. But it has absoluely ZERO NOTHING and NADDA to do with the distinction between "hyper" Calvinism and whatever form you claim.....it is what it is.

"Hyper-Calvinism" simply has NOTHING to do with it. It is immaterial whether one is "Supra-lapsarian" or "Infra-lapsarian" or claims to be "double-predestinarian" or not...the objection remains regardless.

 

[Benjamin]

This is a debate board. The Op's rebutal amounts to offering nothing more here than whinning while throwing out a fallacious "argument" which resorts to ad hominem and begging the question for a rebutal to the argument from his opposition. The argument the Op presents merely serves as an exercise in pointing at and spelling out all the ignorant rhetorical tactics used by many on this board that falsely believe they are engaging in some kind of logically structured "debate".

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It is exceedingly sad that anyone who has experienced the Grace of God in Salvation would accuse their brethren of believing that God through His Grace turns the crown of His creative activity, Man, into a mindless robot!

God doesn't "Through his Grace"...turn anyone into anything...that's rhetoric..."grace" has nothing to do with it........... however, he doesn't asccuse them of "believing" it...(in the sense that he thinks you are intellectually honest enough with yourselves to admit it to yourself)...Arminians NEVER accuse Calvinists of this...

The above quote is, to put it politely, an exercise in ignorance regarding the Doctrines of Grace. It is indeed exceedingly sad!

You may put it as you wish, but you are therefore either dis-ingenuous or tragically ignorant:............Skandelon ABSOLUTELY and CLEARLY understands Calvinism and it's teachings (he understands it better than you do actually which is ironic). He is NOT "ignorant"...his objection remains, and you cannot and do not answer it, you merely default to screaming "straw-man"...NOSIR...his objection is VERY real. There May indeed be a defeater or "counter-defeater" for it...but you aren't suggesting it. In my not particularly humble opinion, that is because you simply do not understand his objection sufficiently, and or, you do not understand your own Calvinist Theology sufficiently adequately to defend it. But Pretending his objection is prima-facie false is simply false and wrong. You aren't arguing it. You are trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
Even TRUE Theological positions open themselves up to very REAL objections...Arminianism has "legitimate" objections as well. But Knowledgeable people admit and know what they are...They don't simply deny their existence. They rejoinder them with real arguments....You have not posed one...you've simply cried about it.
Acting like an ostrich with his head in the sand ISN'T sufficient. Sorry.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is a debate board. Your rebutal amounts to offering nothing more here than whinning while throwing out a fallacious "argument" which resorts to ad hominem and begging the question for a rebutal to the argument from your opposition. The argument you present merely serves as an exercise in pointing at and spelling out all the ignorant rhetorical tactics used by many on this board that falsely believe they are engaging in a "debate".

It sickens me when on this board (as a non-Calvinist) it becomes abundantly clear to me that I understand Calvinism better sometimes than adherents of the system who think themselves capable of debating the topic... I die a little inside, and I decry the lack of Soteriological knowledge about Calvinism from Calvinists themselves *sigh*....

 

[OldRegular]

Unfortunately, when that poster posts against "Calvinism", he is posting not against the true Doctrines of Grace but instead a grossly twisted concept of hypercalvinism. You can't argue with someone like that since the Bible says to avoid foolish controversies.

Sadly we will see endless posts that address not the Doctrines of Grace but endless application of human logic?? in a futile attempt to make the Word of God of "none effect".

 

[Benjamin]

Sadly we will see endless posts that address not the Doctrines of Grace but endless application of human logic?? in a futile attempt to make the Word of God of "none effect".

:laugh: OR, I think you'd be better off just asking for us to leave reasoning out of addressing the "Doctrines of Pre-selected Grace". :smilewinkgrin:

 

[OldRegular]

A most wonderful thing about the Grace of God is that even those "Christians" who deny the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are still His, "chosen unto salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world"!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sadly we will see endless posts that address not the Doctrines of Grace but endless application of human logic?? in a futile attempt to make the Word of God of "none effect".

That's your response? to publically attempt to "high-five" your fellow Calvinist.........about how you believe in the "Word of God" vs. "logic"....by all means...please publically continue this line of reasoning.

Do you then admit that your position denies the applicability of "logic"? Do tell, please.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually, I thought he had it exactly right.

But I don't like the Calvinis debate threads because even though I disavow Calvinism, I have many Calvinist friends and I don't disavow them.

Tom.... That commentary on the previous thread had one purpose & it was not to solicit an educated & scholarly debate.

Wesley & Whitefield often debated but kept it civil without being obviously insulting to ones beliefs. It would be more constructive to deal with core issues rather than ad hominem arguments. But alas....this is the mentality. And yes it is offensive & yes it is saddening.

 

[Benjamin]

High Five HoS! ...down low, to the side...:laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

A most wonderful thing about the Grace of God is that even those "Christians" who deny the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are still His, "chosen unto salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world"!

No Christian denies the "Doctrines of Sovereign Grace"...we just don't buy into all of the ancillary and self-defeating stupidity your particular form of Soteriology imports into it.

We believe God is Sovereign
We believe God saves by, and only by his Grace....
Therefore, since we believe God saves by and only by his "Sovereign Grace"...we also understand that your Calvinist pre-suppositions are stupid and ill-informed bull-waste.

Now...please pose a real and intelligent argument against Skandelon's legitimate and informed defeating argument, or walk away.

Your positing this thread was a mistake. It was an error, but, it was one which God himself Sovereignly pre-destined you to make..so don't decry that.

Then again, even if you DO decry it....it would only be because "God" in his Sovereignty wanted you to make.........and that's Skan's argument.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Tom.... That commentary on the previous thread had one purpose & it was not to solicit an educated & scholarly debate.

Wesley & Whitefield often debated but kept it civil without being obviously insulting to ones beliefs. It would be more constructive to deal with core issues rather than ad hominem arguments. But alas....this is the mentality. And yes it is offensive & yes it is saddening.

Skan's purpose in positing his thread "The conflicted Calvinist"...was ABSOLUTELY intended to be a constructive one. It's a good one. It was worthy of discussion.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Tom.... That commentary on the previous thread had one purpose & it was not to solicit an educated & scholarly debate.

Wesley & Whitefield often debated but kept it civil without being obviously insulting to ones beliefs. It would be more constructive to deal with core issues rather than ad hominem arguments. But alas....this is the mentality. And yes it is offensive & yes it is saddening.

Yes, but Wesley and Whitefield were estranged for years because of their differences in this area. So, it is an emotional and often divisive issue, unfortunately. However, because I have several Calvinist friends such as you, I am determined not to let it come between me and my friends.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Skan's purpose in positing his thread "The conflicted Calvinist"...was ABSOLUTELY intended to be a constructive one. It's a good one. It was worthy of discussion.

Is it your place to speak for him?

 

[OldRegular]

Some Scripture to demonstrate God's purpose in election:

John 10:23-30
23. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
30. I and my Father are one.

And who are His sheep?

Ephesians 1:3-6
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The sheep of Jesus Christ are those chosen by God the Father before the foundation of the world. And it is God the Father who made us accepted in the beloved, Jesus Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, but Wesley and Whitefield were estranged for years because of their differences in this area. So, it is an emotional and often divisive issue, unfortunately. However, because I have several Calvinist friends such as you, I am determined not to let it come between me and my friends.

Whats right is right, what is genteel & respectful is not this....."Calvinist pre-suppositions are stupid and ill-informed bull-waste".....or do you disagree?!? This is tad amount to what my Grandfather called "FIGHTING WORDS"

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Whats right is right, what is genteel & respectful is not this....."Calvinist pre-suppositions are stupid and ill-informed bull-waste".....or do you disagree?!? This is tad amount to what my Grandfather called "FIGHTING WORDS"

I think that language is certainly inflammatory.