Fallacy Vol 2

[Van]

Reply to Annsni,

Or how about the fly has a choice to pull of it's wings and if they do, they can be punished for not flying? That God would have told the fly "You can pull off your wings if you want but the result of that will be death." but the fly still went ahead and tore off his wings. That is a bit more like what the reality is like.

Did the fly choose to be conceived with "total spiritual inability" or with "no wings?" No. So this is not a bit more like it. Again, this is the obvious truth, saying the fly can choose to remain in a non-flying status, whether hopping, running swimming etc does not make the fly responsible for not choosing to fly without wings. It is simply silly.

 

[Van]

Reply to Winman,

I agree completely with Van's post #15. What does vs. 6 say?

Psa 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.

What is a refuge? By definition a refuge is a shelter people run to or seek to be protected from danger.

There is a difference between a "wicked" person, or a "fool" from an average sinner. All persons are sinners, but not all are wicked. Read the Psalms and you will see this over and over again.

Psa 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

Psa 10:14 Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.

Psa 10:17 LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear:

The scriptures clearly distinguish between wicked men who are proud and never seek God, and the poor who are humble and seek God for help. Failing to see this distinction causes error.

Spot on, Winman, scripture demonstrates total spiritual inability is a fiction.

 

[Alive in Christ]

And I'll 3rd that motion.

Soooo much of calvinism is pure unimitigated (((lunacy))).

AiC

 

[webdog]

Guys, I agree with you that their brand of soteriology is not true, but "fiction" and "lunacy" are WAY too harsh. Like us, their doctrine is based on Scripture. Let's take the high road and leave the low road to them

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And I'll 3rd that motion.

Soooo much of calvinism is pure unimitigated (((lunacy))).

AiC

ROFL.....you know ya really have to consider ..... oh, heck LOL ....never mind :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Guys, I agree with you that their brand of soteriology is not true, but "fiction" and "lunacy" are WAY too harsh. Like us, their doctrine is based on Scripture. Let's take the high road and leave the low road to them

Thanks....I think :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The scriptures clearly distinguish between wicked men who are proud and never seek God, and the poor who are humble and seek God for help.

Rom 3:10ff. As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable: there is none who does good, no, not one..........Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.'

Where is the poor and humble man in those verses?

Steve

 

[Alive in Christ]

Van...

1) Claiming you cannot understand plain statements does not diminish the stated truth. It is an old trick of deflection rather than offering rebuttal. But is an oft used tool by many Calvinists.

Deflection. That works.

I call call it "dancing" doing the O'le soft shoe.

A few of these calvinists are dancing machines.

When confronted with a problem?....

Dance...dance...dance

 

[Siberian]

Folks, see a pattern, claim you do not understand, then claim you have such a great undersstanding you can discern ambiguity where none exists. Any port in the storm, but no effort at an actual response.

And after I demonstrated that Romans 9:14-18 does not address the issue, the claim is repeated without an effort at an actual response. My understanding of scripture is not agenda driven, I studied the passages used by Calvinism to discern whether Calvinism was true and found it to be false. My conclusion is those who point to these passages which do not support the Calvinist position are using agenda driven exegisis.

And the rest of my post is dismissed by a general statement, drivel (dribble) not worth a response. You could dismiss the 10 commandments with such a rebuttal.

Great commentary on the conversation - yawn. But just to clarify, you did not demonstrate a thing aside from the fact that you have conflicting ideas. You first said, "if God hardened the heart such that the person would never seek God, but only sinful activity, then God by logical necessity is the author of that behavior." Then you said that Romans 9 instructs that, "even if we do not fully understand why God does what God does [and, in the context, this refers to hardening], we should not suppose God's actions are not just and perfect and holy."

Debate thyself.

 

[Van]

Yet another dismissive post devoid of content but long on assertion. Now the ol "your view contradicts itself" chestnut is tossed out. Calvinism says God ordains whatsoever comes to pass but God is not the author of sin. So the theology with conflicts internal to itself, not to mention not meshing with scripture is Calvinism. So they question the qualifications and character of those posting differing views.

This is followed by yet another effort at a strawman argument where confused positions are juxtaposed. If God causes a behavior, is that behavior a deviation from the will of God and therefore sinful? Of course not. But if a person sins volitionally, and perhaps because he or she has hardened his or her own heart, then they own that behavior and God is not the author of sin. You see, if you accept my view, it all fits together. If God hardens a person's heart, and so are unable to seek mercy through faith in Christ, that action is just and perfect and holy because God's justice is perfect and his punishment will be perfect. I find no fault in this, it is perfect.

So there is no conflict internal to my view of scripture, I just go with what it says.

 

[jbh28]

Guys, I agree with you that their brand of soteriology is not true, but "fiction" and "lunacy" are WAY too harsh. Like us, their doctrine is based on Scripture. Let's take the high road and leave the low road to them

I'll take the high road with you webdog. I believe John Wesley and George Whitfield got along.

 

[Van]

Reply to Martin

Rom 3:10ff. As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable: there is none who does good, no, not one..........Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.'

Where is the poor and humble man in those verses?

Steve

Excellent question! Can you provide the thread title and post # from which you obtained that quote, so I can look at the context?

But off the top lets look at the verse you presented as supposedly supporting the false doctrine of "total spiritual inability."

1) There is none righteous. That is true and not germane, we all sin.

2) There is none who understands. Understands what? Calvinism says this refers to all spiritual things, thus supporting "total spiritual inability." But that is simply pouring the doctrine into the text. If we look at the context of Psalm 14 we see that the wicked fools (atheists) do not understand they should fear God and strive to stay on His good side. But Paul has a different message based on the same text, that we are all under sin, and striving to keep the Law will avail us nothing for by the Law no flesh is justified. This is what the unrighteous do not understand, doing as much "good" (really just filthy rags worthlessness) as we can does not earn us a righteous relationship with God.

Sorry that my response is not complete, but I could not find the post.

 

[Winman]

Rom 3:10ff. As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable: there is none who does good, no, not one..........Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.'

Where is the poor and humble man in those verses?

Steve

No one denied that all men are sinners, go back and read.

But are all unregenerate men "fools" who say in their heart there is no God? NO.

The poor who are humble believe there is a God and commit themselves to him. But they are sinners who need Jesus Christ.

The wicked are proud and will not (not cannot) seek God, God is not in all his thoughts (Psa 10:4)

Does that describe all unregenerate men? Did you ever think of God before you were saved? I did.

So, the wicked and fools are especially evil persons. In Romans 3 Paul is quoting Psalm 14 which is speaking of atheists or fools. His Jewish hearers would know this. You have to understand these verses in their historical setting.

And you ignore that Paul had just told this same audience of Gentiles who do the things contained in the law (Rom 2:15-16) and of people who by patient continuance in "well doing" (Paul's words) "seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom 2:7).

So, Paul was never saying that all men at all times never seek God or are incapable of doing good.

You have to consider all of scripture, not cherry-pick scripture to support your doctrine.

 

[Van]

Hi Webdog, there is nothing wrong with calling a work of fiction, a fiction. From my side of the street, making an accomodation with false teaching is unchristian. I believe the TULI are unbiblical works of fiction. They are false doctrine. And they hinder the ministry of Christ. I will discuss any point, any verse, any biblically based argument and demonstrate to my satisfaction there is no support whatsoever for any of these doctrines. None, zip, nada. I use words as defined in the dictionary, and the dictionary says "fiction" means a work of the imagination that does not represent actuality. That is what I believe the TULI are. There is nothing "low" about using that word. But when you claim using that word is "low" you slander me. Truth matters, and when two people both believe their view is biblically based, they should support the view biblically and not with personal attacks, such as saying my reading comprehension sucks.

 

[Rippon]

I believe the TULI are unbiblical works of fiction. They are false doctrine.

So you believe in the partial depravity of human beings.
You believe in conditional election.
You believe in universal atonement.
You believe in uneffectual calling.

All of the above theories are non-biblical.

And they hinder the ministry of Christ.

Well,they sure haven't hindered the ministry of thousands of Christians throughout Christian History. Or perhaps you've never heard of Carey,Edwards,Whitefield,Nettleton,Spurgeon,A.W.Pink,Dr.Barnhouse,Dr.D-M-L-J,James Boice,Warfield and countless others. Their various ministries serving Christ were certainly NOT hindered by being biblical Calvinists.

I will demonstrate to my satisfaction there is no support whatsoever for any of these doctrines. None, zip, nada.

To your satisfaction -- that's for sure. Ha,Ha,Ha.

 

[webdog]

Hi Webdog, there is nothing wrong with calling a work of fiction, a fiction. From my side of the street, making an accomodation with false teaching is unchristian. I believe the TULI are unbiblical works of fiction. They are false doctrine. And they hinder the ministry of Christ. I will discuss any point, any verse, any biblically based argument and demonstrate to my satisfaction there is no support whatsoever for any of these doctrines. None, zip, nada. I use words as defined in the dictionary, and the dictionary says "fiction" means a work of the imagination that does not represent actuality. That is what I believe the TULI are. There is nothing "low" about using that word. But when you claim using that word is "low" you slander me. Truth matters, and when two people both believe their view is biblically based, they should support the view biblically and not with personal attacks, such as saying my reading comprehension sucks.

That is begging the question as it assumes our view to be immutable. Fact is we BOTH base our view on Scripture, nobody just makes it up (fiction). Its a matter of interpretation...and I tend to agree with yours.

 

[Rippon]

the false doctrine of "total spiritual inability."

Charles H.Spurgeon had a good evangelistic sermon on "Human Inability" way back in 1858.

It's amazing that there are folks out there like you who deny so much Scripture in the effort of maintaining their philosophy.

You don't get the fact that the unregenerate are not just in darkness but darkness itself. You don't understand that they are blinded and deaf with adamant hearts. You don't get the biblical message that these unregenerate folks are at enmity with God --that they are hostile in their minds toward him. They are without strength and dead in sin. I could go on and on.

Get into the Word of God.

 

[webdog]

Charles H.Spurgeon had a good evangelistic sermon on "Human Inability" way back in 1858.

It's amazing that there are folks out there like you who deny so much Scripture in the effort of maintaining their philosophy.

You don't get the fact that the unregenerate are not just in darkness but darkness itself. You don't understand that they are blinded and deaf with adamant hearts. You don't get the biblical message that these unregenerate folks are at enmity with God --that they are hostile in their minds toward him. They are without strength and dead in sin. I could go on and on.

Get into the Word of God.

...and now you do the exact same thing (begging the question)

 

[Siberian]

Yet another dismissive post devoid of content but long on assertion. Now the ol "your view contradicts itself" chestnut is tossed out. Calvinism says God ordains whatsoever comes to pass but God is not the author of sin. So the theology with conflicts internal to itself, not to mention not meshing with scripture is Calvinism. So they question the qualifications and character of those posting differing views.

This is followed by yet another effort at a strawman argument where confused positions are juxtaposed. If God causes a behavior, is that behavior a deviation from the will of God and therefore sinful? Of course not. But if a person sins volitionally, and perhaps because he or she has hardened his or her own heart, then they own that behavior and God is not the author of sin. You see, if you accept my view, it all fits together. If God hardens a person's heart, and so are unable to seek mercy through faith in Christ, that action is just and perfect and holy because God's justice is perfect and his punishment will be perfect. I find no fault in this, it is perfect.

So there is no conflict internal to my view of scripture, I just go with what it says.

This is laughable. I simply pointed out - with your own quotations - your conflicting views concerning fatalism (in one post you say God is the author of sin if he hardens the heart, and in another you say - correctly - that God is still perfect and holy even though we don't understand why he hardens the heart as per Romans 9). What strawman, what chestnut tactic? (By the way, just calling everything a tactic can itself be a very cheesy tactic).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Excellent question! Can you provide the thread title and post # from which you obtained that quote, so I can look at the context?

I do apologize. It was Post #22, in which you were quoting Winman, but you did say that he was 'spot on' so you will presumably agree with what he wrote.

Steve