Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

[percho]

As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:30-32

If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 14:15-17


Experience and degrees?

 

[Internet Theologian]

There was no "tipping of the hat". There was an acknowledgment that I can see where people get their beliefs, although I disagree with them. I find the whole Cal/Arm debate exhausting and unproductive. So I do not engage in the debate. But, when someone comes out and says such an absurd claim that also applies to his argument if he is correct, I'll call him out on it.

It's not that I don't like debate. I love debate. I love discussions. I love talking about theological differences with people. I do it all the time. But from what I've seen on this board, there's no point in even trying to discuss Cal/Arm. There's no meeting room. It's all hatred and vitriol from both sides.

Look at this thread. There is a BB member who has gone and placed a "winner" rating on almost all of the Calvinists' posts. The same member has down-voted several non-Cal posts. But that same member has not said a word yet (posted a meme, but hasn't commented). It's the whole gang mentality that I was telling TC about.

If Calvinism is correct, then surely the argument can be made without ad hominem, weak analogy fallacy, appeal to authority fallacy, denigration, etc. If it has a strong case, then make the strong case. Resorting to such tactics destroys your cause, even if you're correct.

Fair enough but you're still doing what I stated prior and either cannot see it or simply dismiss it. TC is correct in his response. You're running from the truth while attempting to patronize it. The facts of giving ratings that you mention is another excuse and diversion tactic. What place does mentioning that have compared to engaging and embracing truth?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'd be that guy giving 'winner' to each of the Calvinists' posts. I make no bones about whose posts I find more God-honoring.

In the free will schema, ppl have drawn a line in the sand...anything past that line equates to God violating their free will...and God will not violate their free will...will not cross that line. Now, what does that mean? It means that God has done everything possible to save them, but because they did not do their part, they die lost. It has neutered God. It has emasculated Him.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Fair enough but you're still doing what I stated prior and either cannot see it or simply dismiss it. TC is correct in his response. You're running from the truth while attempting to patronize it. The facts of giving ratings that you mention is another excuse and diversion tactic. What place does mentioning that have compared to engaging and embracing truth?

Because it shows the very reason why I am choosing to contest an argument, rather than the issue. The issue is decided in most, if not all, of our minds. And so, I usually sit on the side and just leave others to it. But something inside me stirred when I read the OP say that non-Cals teach that God "cannot" save someone, when in fact it is not taught. This is why I entered the thread at all, was to show that "does not" isn't the same as "can not". No one I've ever heard in my entire life has ever said God cannot save anyone.

I have attempted before to engage in dialogue with Calvinists. Only one (of four) has stayed civil with me in PMs. And that was in an attitude that I truly wished to learn what they believed. Not so I could debate, but so I could decide for myself. So, I have decided that discussion is impossible.

Pointing out the ratings only serves to further my point that there is no real discussion to be had. it doesn't matter how valid I believe my points to be, unless I swallow everything the Calvinist is serving I am criticized. Even TC, who before I had thought to be somewhat gentlemanly, decided he needed to show me my error by denigrating my education, rather than allowing his argument to stand on its own merit.

My only aim, my entire goal this thread has been to balance the playing field. To show that the arguments the OP used against non-Cals could also apply to Cals.

 

[percho]

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:10,11

At the moment the Savior was being born in the city of David another little aborigine child was being born in a hut in the outback of Australia.

Whether you be Cal or Arm, what is your spiritual opinion?

Was that child born in the city of David good tidings and great joy to that aborigine child? Is he the Savior of that aborigine?

My answers: Yes. Yes.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I generally don't participate in the Cal/Arm debate. I personally am a Non-Cal, and have been curious about the Calvinist view in the past, but any time there is a discussion or debate, it turns into sentences like the one I quoted.

The sovereignity of God vs the free will of man does gender quite the heat. But if not for it, I would still be in the free will camp. So it is not a fruitless discussion at all. When I put my beliefs to the scrutiny of the bible, I found my views lacking in accord with the word of God.

The above view is asinine. Let's follow the logic. You say that we believe that God "cannot" save everyone. This is a huge straw man argument. Just like a non-Cal saying to you that you believe that God chooses to damn some to Hell.

God can save everyone, He has just chosen not to.

You, as a Calvinist, believe that God chose some and didn't choose others. Does that mean that could not have chosen the others as well? If so, you're putting the same impotence on God that you claim non-Cals are. If you're not saying that God could not have chosen the others, then you are in the same boat as we are.

God has, in fact, chosen some and passed over others. Noah and seven others were saved and the rest of the human race drowned. He chose Abram, who was a pagan, who had a pagan father who made idols, lived in a pagan land of Ur to bring about the Messiah. He chose Abram/Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et al. He chose them and left all other nationalities without a Redeemer. Why He chose the way He did is solely known unto Him.

We belive that God can do whatever He wants. However, we believe that He chose to work in a certain way; that is that He allows man to make the choice.

And yet no one, left in their fallen state, will ever choose Him. That is why regeneration, properly placed in 'Ordo Salutis' is of utmost importance.

Just as you don't believe that He is incapable of saving anyone, but rather chose to save some, we believe that He is capable of forcing Himself on anyone, but chose to allow mankind the choice.

And if left to that choice, none would be saved. The unregenerate are His enemies, they hate Him, that hate all things God.

The issue of God's omnipotenece comes up a lot, and it really is a stupid argument. Neither side believes any less in God's power than the other. We simply belive differently in where and when He chose to use that power.

You guys say He truly desires that all will be saved, but then all are not, so where are we? If God needs any assistance from sinful man, then He isn't omnipotent. If He will not save them until they do their part, then they, and not God, is in the proverbial driver's seat.

My daughters are still pre-teens. If I wanted to, I could literally grab them and control them, forcing them to clean their room. I have never done that. I have always told them to do it, and then disciplined them if they disobey. That doesn't detract from the fact that, if I chose, I could literally force them to clean their room. I still have that power.

And this 'grab and force' is not how God does things. Ppl hate God in their fallen state. God lovingly gives them a new heart and a new Spirit[Ezekiel 11:19 & Ezekiel 36:26] and they now love them.

Believing that God chose to work a certain way in no conceivable way diminishes God's sovereignty. After all, if it did, we would already be serving a God who is not sovereign by all of our standards. We all believe that God didn't immediately destroy Satan, but allowed him some time before the final judgment. Since God did not do so, does that mean He could not?

God works and none can hinder and hinders and none can work. We see that God sovereignly reigns over His creation. He has not allocated any of this sovereignity to His creation. He quickens whosoever He wills, He saves whosoever He wills and none can thwart that.

This is one of the things I hate about the disagreement between Cals and non-Cals. Both sides resort to idiotic arguments and false assumptions rather than take a look at the other side, and try to be honest about the other side, and disagree on an actual basis, rather than stupid arguments which can be torn apart easily.

Having been in the free will camp until 6/2013, I can say I fully understand both sides of this centuries argument. The sovereignity of God is found all throughout the bible.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Because it shows the very reason why I am choosing to contest an argument, rather than the issue. The issue is decided in most, if not all, of our minds. And so, I usually sit on the side and just leave others to it. But something inside me stirred when I read the OP say that non-Cals teach that God "cannot" save someone, when in fact it is not taught. This is why I entered the thread at all, was to show that "does not" isn't the same as "can not". No one I've ever heard in my entire life has ever said God cannot save anyone.

I have attempted before to engage in dialogue with Calvinists. Only one (of four) has stayed civil with me in PMs. And that was in an attitude that I truly wished to learn what they believed. Not so I could debate, but so I could decide for myself. So, I have decided that discussion is impossible.

Pointing out the ratings only serves to further my point that there is no real discussion to be had. it doesn't matter how valid I believe my points to be, unless I swallow everything the Calvinist is serving I am criticized. Even TC, who before I had thought to be somewhat gentlemanly, decided he needed to show me my error by denigrating my education, rather than allowing his argument to stand on its own merit.

My only aim, my entire goal this thread has been to balance the playing field. To show that the arguments the OP used against non-Cals could also apply to Cals.

If you wish to discuss or ask me any questions about DoG, feel free to PM me.

 

[percho]

I think here is a fitting allegory...

You have a child sitting in the middle of a railroad track, and he/she is blind and deaf...an apt picture of us as unregenerate sinners...blind and deaf. You see an oncoming train heading right for you child. Are you going to scream at your child and also tell them to look and see that oncoming train headed towards them or are you going to go and fetch them out of harms way? The better fitting analogy would be that you supernaturally infuse sight and hearing unto your child, thereby they see and hear the train and get off the track. But either way, you are not just going to set there and not be active in the saving(redemption) of your child.

That is how God saves us. Without His supernatural regenerative power via His Spirit, we'd be the blind and deaf child that got ran over by the train.

This is how God sees His sheep, His ppl, His chosen, His elect...

Did God have a Son sitting on the track? What did the Son do? What did God do? Let the train hit him?

Then what did God do?

Heb. 5:7
Heb 5:8
John 3:16
Gal 1:1 Rom 5:9, Rom 8:29

 

[Sapper Woody]

Sovereign,
This is the kind of response that I can respect. I'm not saying I agree, but I didn't feel any attitude from your post, other than a desire to discuss. Even debate is fine with me (after all, this is a debate forum). But attacks I do not tolerate.
Now, as far as answering your post, I'm not going to get into the heart of the issue, but there are a couple comments I'd like to make.

God can save everyone, He has just chosen not to.

And that is what I believe as well. he is all powerful, and can do anything. Just what He has chosen to do is where we disagree.

And if left to that choice, none would be saved. The unregenerate are His enemies, they hate Him, that hate all things God.

Now, here I feel the need to explain a little of what I believe. I don't believe that man can just "choose" to be saved, as if God is a safety net. I believe man only has the opportunity to respond to God when he is called, or drawn by the Holy Spirit. Some call this conviction, others call it other things. But I believe that when that man feels that call is when he makes the choice to stay in his lost state, or accept the grace of God. If he passes over that chance, he may or may not get another one depending on God's patience with that person.

You guys say He truly desires that all will be saved, but then all are not, so where are we? If God needs any assistance from sinful man, then He isn't omnipotent. If He will not save them until they do their part, then they, and not God, is in the proverbial driver's seat.

While I don't necessarily like the verbiage, I can't disagree that we believe that God has allowed man to be in the "driver's seat". But, again, this doesn't mean that God can't take the driver's seat, just that He's chosen not to.

And this 'grab and force' is not how God does things. Ppl hate God in their fallen state. God lovingly gives them a new heart and a new Spirit[Ezekiel 11:19 & Ezekiel 36:26] and they now love them.

I understand this. The analogy was merely to show that me not choosing to do something did not mean that I could not do it.

 

[percho]

Did God have a Son sitting on the track? What did the Son do? What did God do? Let the train hit him?

Then what did God do?

Heb. 5:7
Heb 5:8
John 3:16
Gal 1:1 Rom 5:9, Rom 8:29

Are those verses good tidings and great joy to that aborigine, whether he knew it or not. Are those verses, the faith of the following? These all died in faith, not having received the promises, from Heb 11:13

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sovereign,
This is the kind of response that I can respect. I'm not saying I agree, but I didn't feel any attitude from your post, other than a desire to discuss. Even debate is fine with me (after all, this is a debate forum). But attacks I do not tolerate.
Now, as far as answering your post, I'm not going to get into the heart of the issue, but there are a couple comments I'd like to make.

Sometimes I do post rather unseemly posts, so please accept my apology. It is just when I see someone post error after error, and none can show them their errors, they keep sounding like a record that keeps skipping.

And that is what I believe as well. he is all powerful, and can do anything. Just what He has chosen to do is where we disagree.

Disagreement isn't bad as long as it does not turn personal.

Now, here I feel the need to explain a little of what I believe. I don't believe that man can just "choose" to be saved, as if God is a safety net. I believe man only has the opportunity to respond to God when he is called, or drawn by the Holy Spirit. Some call this conviction, others call it other things. But I believe that when that man feels that call is when he makes the choice to stay in his lost state, or accept the grace of God. If he passes over that chance, he may or may not get another one depending on God's patience with that person.

It is funny that you posted the word 'drawn' as I was going to use that very word to express the way God draws His ppl.

In Jeremiah 31:3, the word draw means to draw (and lift out), drag along, lead along, drag or lead off, draw down, to draw (the bow), to proceed, march, to draw out or give (a sound), to draw out, prolong, continue, to trail (seed in sowing), to cheer, draw, attract, gratify, to be drawn out, to be drawn out, be postponed, be deferred, to be tall. So you can see the prevailing meaning is usually that which is forceful in application. Just as the soldier drew out his sword. Now, did the sword choose to come out of its scabbard or did the soldier effectively draw it out of its scabbard? We, as sinners, were dead in transgressions and sins[Ephesians 2:1] and had not the ability to choose that which was good. God, lovingly draws us, compels us unto Himself.

The Greek word used for 'draw' in John 6:44 means to draw, drag off, metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel. It shows that there is an effectual force in the drawing of His lost sheep unto Himself. It is not to be meant as dragging one kicking and screaming all the way unto the foot of the cross, but rather, lovingly drawing them.

While I don't necessarily like the verbiage, I can't disagree that we believe that God has allowed man to be in the "driver's seat". But, again, this doesn't mean that God can't take the driver's seat, just that He's chosen not to.

If man is in the driver's seat, he is always driving the other way. God comes in and changes the disposition of their heart and that change causes them to turn around.

I understand this. The analogy was merely to show that me not choosing to do something did not mean that I could not do it.

Ppl freely make choices every day of their life. However, their choices are bound to their nature. When God changes the nature, the will is changed also. We hate that which we once loved and love that which we once hated.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Sapper Woody

I generally don't participate in the Cal/Arm debate. I personally am a Non-Cal, and have been curious about the Calvinist view in the past, but any time there is a discussion or debate, it turns into sentences like the one I quoted.[/QUOTE]

SW....I give you credit in that you are willing to stand alone and interact as the others will remain silent.

The above view is asinine.

Do you think comments like this one you offer contribute to the discussions becoming hostile? Now if someone turns it around on you and shows it is your view that is quite defective, are you going to go into a shell and hide? Or how about this....
You are free to express yourself with this accusation about the view in the OP.......we do not react like thin skinned persons but rather we see something has triggered this reaction in you and others, so let's get to it!

Let's follow the logic.

If you are going to follow it...make sure you are actually following it. I think you are veering off course.

You say that we believe that God "cannot" save everyone. This is a huge straw man argument

Protestant can speak for himself and he does very well so I am not trying to cut in on his responses.
The way I read what he is saying is this;
He is not suggesting God "cannot" .....as in is physically unable to save everyone.

Neither is it the dreaded strawman....

I read it this way........God plans and purposes redemption using all of His Holy attributes to come to a perfect salvation.

I do not believe God could save one more person, or one less person than He actually saves. The reason is when we say God is perfect....He is perfect in all His ways, that is He is perfect in all His Holy attributes.....perfect in Holiness, wisdom, power,etc

Therefore to suggest anything otherwise is profane. God has not missed any detail.

That being said; to say God loves all men equally but then does not save all men would suggest that salvation was not in His hands.

Now we are not to just speculate but look at what is revealed in scripture and we see God deals with man by way of Divine Covenants......part of His perfect revelation of His perfect plan.

. Just like a non-Cal saying to you that you believe that God chooses to damn some to Hell.

Those left in their sinful state are damned to hell.

8. To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by his Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.

4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.

You, as a Calvinist, believe that God chose some and didn't choose others. Does that mean that could not have chosen the others as well?

SW;
I think it means exactly that. He is going to save all He can wisely and perfectly save according to His Holy attributes....not one more or not one less. In fact anything else, any other view it to attempt to find fault with God contrary to scripture.

If so, you're putting the same impotence on God that you claim non-Cals are. If you're not saying that God could not have chosen the others, then you are in the same boat as we are.

Not at all in that we understand God is God in all He does....perfect.

We belive that God can do whatever He wants. However, we believe that He chose to work in a certain way; that is that He allows man to make the choice

.
Man was not there to make the choice, when the choice was made.

Just as you don't believe that He is incapable of saving anyone, but rather chose to save some, we believe that He is capable of forcing Himself on anyone, but chose to allow mankind the choice.

this is not found anywhere in scripture.

The issue of God's omnipotenece comes up a lot, and it really is a stupid argument. Neither side believes any less in God's power than the other. We simply belive differently in where and when He chose to use that power.

this objection has been answered already.

 

[TCassidy]

I was not offering options.

Exactly my point.

I merely pointed out how his argument could (and does) also apply to his side, and therefore is moot.

Except it doesn't. There are other options.

You keep using this,

Yes, because it illustrates the crux of the problem.

I have never offered any choices or options.

Again, exactly my point.

I have only shown that what applies to one side applies to the other.

Unless there is a third option, in which case it does not apply.

TC, I'm honestly at a loss here. How can you not see this? I could turn this right around and ask, "Praise me for being chosen?". If it applies to the non-Cal side (which it doesn't), it applies to the Cal side. There's no getting around it.

As the elect meet no condition of salvation, but are chosen by God, without consideration of any merit at all, what is there to boast about? When you make the choice, it is all about you. When God makes the choice it is all about God.

But, if there were any boasting to be made, it would be on the Cal side, not the non-Cal side. Being chosen as part of a small group is much more to boast about than accepting something offered the entire world.

When that choosing is entirely without merit on the part of the chosen, what is there to boast of?

I've re-written this section several times before posting, hoping to say what I want to say without sounding like I am attacking you, personally. But, as I cannot do so, suffice it to say that at the least you are being patronizing, while also denigrating my education and experience.

No, Woody, I was, perhaps too subtly, pointing out the error of your logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

It's a classic appeal to authority fallacy.

Exactly. You call learned men "ignorant" and when challenged committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Right, we believe different things, and understand verses to mean different things or have different applications. And that's as close as you'll get me to debating the Cal/Arm issue, other than to point out fallacies.

And that is the problem. You make spurious accusations then refuse to defend those spurious accusations. 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Except when you felt the need to denigrate my education? Or flaunt your experience? At the very least you were patronizing.

Illustrating the fallaciousness of your appeal to authority.

Or instead of discussing, just dismiss someone because they're not as old or as experienced as they are?

Pointing out the fallaciousness of your calling learned men ignorant and defending that name calling with an appeal to authority.

This is part of the attitude that I am talking about, TC. In the same post, you managed to claim to be open to discussion, yet demonstrated your closure to discussion by dismissing me because of your perception of my lack of experience.

No, I pointed out the paucity of your appeal to authority. And I was, and still am, willing to discuss this with you but you keep throwing up roadblocks and refusing to address the real issues.

I may not have 50+ years in the ministry, TC. But I have an education. Not only in the Bible, but in problem solving and debate. I also have world experience. I've led troops into battle, had to assess a situation and make split second decisions based upon what information I could gather.

Another appeal to authority. I too have such experience. But my military command experience is irrelevant to the discussion.

I say all that not to brag, but to get two points across. First, you're insinuation that my education is inadequate is not welcome. Second, I've learned a lot more than book knowledge. And when I see someone using an argument that destroys his own side's argument, I've learned to recognize it.

It was you who first brought the accusation that experienced and learned men were ignorant because they disagreed with you. And it was you who defended that accusation using an appeal to authority fallacy.

Now, would you like to get back to the subject at hand? I would be glad to discuss each of the points of Particular Redemption with you, one at a time, in an orderly and Christian manner.

 

[Van]

The scoffers aren't the elect. How you fail to distinguish these from the elect and conclude it was Paul speaking in Peters epistle is quite telling considering your theological absurdities.

Yes IT, I did misspeak, I wrote Paul when obviously it was Peter.

9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9 NASB)

An obvious understanding arises when this verse is considered contextually. The scoffers were saying "where is the promise of His coming" misleading believers and Peter's inspired answer is that the Lord is being patient toward the elect, giving them sufficient time to evangelize and help win the lost to Christ, because God is not wishing for anyone to perish, but for all humanity to come to repentance.

Now if you look at verse 8, Peter is addressing not the scoffers, but the elect, the "beloved." Only someone pushing "theological absurdities" would miss the obvious.

 

[Van]

Hi Protestant, consider Matthew 23:13. Those who were entering the kingdom of heaven obviously were not blind and deaf. So your mistaken claim all unregenerate are blind and deaf is in error. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells us of 4 soils, with various levels of receptivity to the gospel. Only the first soil had become blind and deaf through the practice of sin. Thus even the first soil was not conceived blind and deaf, but had lost the capacity to understand the gospel. Ask yourself why Jesus taught in parables if the audience was blind and deaf. (Matthew 13:10-13) Finally, Protestant, ask yourself why God needed to harden the hearts of the unbelieving Jews in Romans 11:7-10 is they were conceived blind and deaf? Hopefully at some point you will come to your senses.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Brother Sapper Woody,

I have hopes that instead of stating how Calvinism is in error with certain texts, then resorting to 'you don't debate Cal/Arm' statements would be put to rest.

You most certainly do debate the doctrines of grace -- and here is your methodology: Y

You make a remark about how Calvinism is in error, don't back that up with sound doctrine (which is impossible) then when questioned or asked to do so, you resort to the 'I don't debate Cal/Arm' excuse.

I'm certain you see that as well, as do others. It's a cop out brother.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Yes IT, I did misspeak, I wrote Paul when obviously it was Peter.

An obvious understanding arises when this verse is considered contextually. The scoffers were saying "where is the promise of His coming" misleading believers and Peter's inspired answer is that the Lord is being patient toward the elect, giving them sufficient time to evangelize and help win the lost to Christ, because God is not wishing for anyone to perish, but for all humanity to come to repentance.

Now if you look at verse 8, Peter is addressing not the scoffers, but the elect, the "beloved." Only someone pushing "theological absurdities" would miss the obvious.

He is patient toward us, that is, His chosen. That is the context and interpretation. The age has not consummated due to there being more elect of God who have not yet come to repentance. Notge also 2 Timothy 2:8-10. Same concept, the Gospel is for the elect.

 

[Benjamin]

But for a long time (for about 6 months) I refused to even read what was on this board because of all the "gang up on the non-Cal" garbage that was on here. Definitely no spirit of love. At that point I even told my Dad that I didn't want to get on the BB, because it was no longer the "Baptist board", but rather, the "bash non-Cal board".

If you want a good example of this, look at the third post in this very thread. Someone posted a detailed response to the OP, and the next person put a meme to show that he thought the poster was stupid, without even commenting on what was said. That's pretty much the definition of trolling.

Well, don't feel alone. As I read the Op I noted strawman after question begging after strawman after... but knowing how addressing these strawman arguments would be met (trolling fights rather than ethical reason) I certainly value my time more these days than bothering to entertain what very apparently many around here consider to be a legitimate form of "debate".

FYI, Some time ago a few non-Cals got together and discussed these issues privately then began to be focused on starting to call out the trolling practices (thought of as "debate" around here) while taking on the gang mentality and no matter how clearly we laid out the evidence of the thread "crash dummy troll" tactics being used to derail legitimate debate arguments what then happened is we began to be censored by the Admin closing down threads that had been getting successful at weeding out the trolls.

It is a lost cause here. Many non-Cals here no longer engage in the pseudo-debates here knowing the purpose and goals are not to work toward getting to the truth in the matters but to draw any non-cal daring enough to challenge the ideas of the Cals here on this board into senseless fights.

Just to let you and others know your thoughts on the "pretty much the definition of trolling" is all anyone opposed to systematic Calvinism will be met by is not a secret to many here. And it is also very obvious that those who use these tactics are either uninterested or afraid of real and ethical debate.

...As for the Op attempt to reading Hyper-Determinism into the Gorilla story, that is typical of those into that systematic theology whether it be using the Bible or a current event. The strawman arguments to follow in it, if addressed, will never be humbly acknowledged no matter how patient and logical your reasoning is that that is not your position. If you deny their Deterministic Sovereignty doctrines in any way you will be charged with the strawman of denying Divine Sovereignty, even when you can directly link those sort of distorted sovereign determinism doctrines to evil. Saying that God doesn't create evil does not remove sovereignty. But saying He creates evil does remove holiness.

Peace. Carry on...

 

[Sapper Woody]

Brother Sapper Woody,

I have hopes that instead of stating how Calvinism is in error with certain texts,

I haven't stated that Calvinism is in error with any texts. The closest I've come to saying that Calvinism is in error is pointing out a flawed argument against non-Cal. I have said that I disagree with Calvinism, but haven't given any arguments so far about Calvinism itself, only the arguments that anti-non-Cal that don't stand up.

You make a remark about how Calvinism is in error, don't back that up with sound doctrine

Again, point to where I said Calvinism is in error. I have not said that. The only thing I've done so far is to point out how an anti-non-Cal argument doesn't work, because it was a flat out lie (saying that we believe God cannot save someone, rather than does not).

then when questioned or asked to do so, you resort to the 'I don't debate Cal/Arm' excuse.

It's not an excuse. Rather than join in with an endless argument which will not get resolved, I am pointing out flawed anti-non-Cal reasoning. After all, a flat out lie is an inadmissible argument.

I'm certain you see that as well, as do others. It's a cop out brother.

I can't see what isn't there. I've been consistent this entire time.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Exactly my point.

Except it doesn't. There are other options.

Yes, because it illustrates the crux of the problem.

Again, exactly my point.

Unless there is a third option, in which case it does not apply.

As the elect meet no condition of salvation, but are chosen by God, without consideration of any merit at all, what is there to boast about? When you make the choice, it is all about you. When God makes the choice it is all about God.

When that choosing is entirely without merit on the part of the chosen, what is there to boast of?

No, Woody, I was, perhaps too subtly, pointing out the error of your logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Exactly. You call learned men "ignorant" and when challenged committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

And that is the problem. You make spurious accusations then refuse to defend those spurious accusations. 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Illustrating the fallaciousness of your appeal to authority.

Pointing out the fallaciousness of your calling learned men ignorant and defending that name calling with an appeal to authority.

No, I pointed out the paucity of your appeal to authority. And I was, and still am, willing to discuss this with you but you keep throwing up roadblocks and refusing to address the real issues.

Another appeal to authority. I too have such experience. But my military command experience is irrelevant to the discussion.

It was you who first brought the accusation that experienced and learned men were ignorant because they disagreed with you. And it was you who defended that accusation using an appeal to authority fallacy.

Now, would you like to get back to the subject at hand? I would be glad to discuss each of the points of Particular Redemption with you, one at a time, in an orderly and Christian manner.

TC, unfortunately I don't have a lot of time, as I have to leave for work. But, I will point out that you were the first one to bring up a comparison of education (saying I was very young and did not have very much formal education), and then went on to say how those who believed the DoG on the BB were older, learned men. So, you brought in the appeal to authority fallacy. Any attempt on my part to equalize the playing field is no longer an appeal to authority, but showing you that your appeal to authority is invalid. And then you try to turn it into me appealing to authority. What a horrible debate tactic. You can't accuse me of doing what you did, which I responded to.