Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

[Iconoclast]

I just want to make an observation... In my over 14 years off and on this board I have never seen a Non-Cal turn into a Cal or a Cal revert back to a Non-Cal... I know that all Cals were at one time Non-Cals... I know at one time I was and there is not one Cal on here that was born one... What separates the two is their perspective of God... Brother Glen

Several people on here right now have studied themselves into the position.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I was not, and am not, addressing any straw man specifically. I am simply saying if you believe something is a straw man show why you believe it to be so. Counter it. Correct it.

I have, several times. In fact, it's the only reason I joined this thread. I'll do so here again. The OP said:

The theology of our Pelagian, Arminian, non-Cal friends which states God loves all people, yet despite His love, cannot actually save the souls of all the people He allegedly loves

The OP clearly said that we state that God cannot save people. I have also clearly stated that we do not state this. This is the very definition of a straw man - making up an argument and then attacking that argument instead of attacking the actual argument.

sapper offers no scripture

Of course I haven't. No scripture is needed to see that the OP is a straw man, which is the only thing I've done this entire thread - get him and others to see that the argument he is positing isn't even an argument. It's an argument against a make believe belief that no one actually believes.

No cal ignores any objection and when they respond it is this same group of anti cal persons who vanish from the interaction

My objection has been ignored (or in the case of TC, "dismissed because of spiritual maturity") by everyone so far. Again, my objection is the use of strawmen arguments that portray our belief as something in which we don't actually believe.

Let's look at my argument in simple terms. the OP said we believe "a". We do not believe "a". Yet the OP attacked "a". This is a straw man. Period. There's no way around it. It is the textbook definition of a straw man.

 

[Protestant]

Some readers may ask: ‘What’s the big deal? Why all the fuss about doctrine?’

Christ felt it important: If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself (John 7:17).

And what is the will of God?

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40).

There are two root issues which concern the ongoing controversies between our camp and the camp of our detractors.

The first concerns the nature of man in his sinful state.

Our opponents posit sinful man with the power of free will by which he is able to accept or reject the free gift of Christ.

Within that camp are diverse opinions as to how, exactly, sinful man has the power of free will.

The Pelagian group believes Adam’s fall did not adversely affect man’s freedom to obey God and choose holiness. True, he has sin issues in his life, but his will to choose or reject has not been utterly destroyed.

The Arminian group believes God does everything in His power to bring men to saving knowledge of the truth. He sends preachers. He sends the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. He may even give ‘sufficient grace’ which enables all men to choose Christ, if they so will. Through these ‘helps’ of God, man then has the will free to choose wisely or unwisely.

Ultimately, both groups posit sinful men with the freedom of their wills to obey the command of God to ‘repent and believe the Gospel’, if they so will.

We reject this teaching as anti-biblical for several reasons.

1. Christ and the Apostles teach man’s condition as irretrievable lost, dead and blind to the truths of God. He is darkness itself. His hatred of God and holiness is so intense, no matter the proofs of divinity displayed before his very eyes; he would rather see Christ dead than bow down to embrace Him.

2. By positing man with the power of spiritual insight to discern the truth of Christ, and thereby receive Him with open arms, our adversaries glorify man as a co-laborer and co-redeemer with the Savior. By doing his part, it is man who finishes the work necessary to insure his salvation.

We reject this premise because it is Christ who finished the work of salvation on the cross (John 19:30). All men who were given Christ by the Father will be saved, according to His perfect timing when they are effectually called to faith by His Spirit.

The sins of the Elect were paid for in full by Christ, including the sin of unbelief.

He was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25). Therefore, by virtue of His perfect work in life and death, Christ’s resurrection is the guarantee that all whom the Father gave Him will be justified, their sins having been propitiated by Christ.

Make no mistake; justification is the gift of God, as is the very faith which justifies.

3. By positing man with the free will to either accept or reject Christ, our opponents make man the arbiter of his eternal destiny, thereby making man the Lord of his life, whether for good or evil.

We reject this premise because it is God who holds all mankind in His absolute control and none can hinder His eternal will of purpose; whether it be His eternal purpose to save or His eternal purpose to destroy (Daniel 4:35; Proverbs 21:1).

The second concerns the role of God in the salvation of sinful man.

1. Our opponents would preach a God who ‘goes only so far’ in securing the salvation of men.

In their view, it is of utmost importance that man’s free will not be violated by God. For, that being the case, man’s right to self-determination would be destroyed, thereby making man nothing less than a puppet in the hands of a divine Puppet Master.

Furthermore, in their view, true love can only be given when the heart and will is free and not compelled.

We reject this premise because Scripture is clear that we love God because He loved us first (1 John 4:19).

The cause of our love is God, not our free will.

2. Our opponents demean the wisdom of God when they preach a God who ‘goes only so far’ in securing the salvation of men. Paul argues that if the Father gave the gift of His most precious Son, the greatest example of love and selflessness ever known, would it not be irresponsible and foolish not to give His Elect all other spiritual blessings/gifts necessary to secure salvation? In other words, if the Father gave the greater, why would He not give the lesser? (Romans 8:32).

3. And finally, where is the evidence of God’s infinite wisdom and power in sending His Son with the eternal purpose and mission to redeem and save the every inhabitant of the world when He fails to do so?

Our detractors preach a Jesus who earnestly desires to save all mankind, yet is horribly unsuccessful in His mission.

We reject this God-dishonoring premise, for Scriptures teach with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:46).

It is my hope and prayer our readers will meditate and pray about what I have written.

 

[InTheLight]

Some readers may ask: ‘What’s the big deal? Why all the fuss about doctrine?’.

And there's another strawman. Just can't quit, can ya?

Nobody asked this question.

 

[JonC]

Before you call on me to do anything.......3x you said I equated my opinion and those who disagreed with it......with rejecting scripture......I asked you to show it.......you cannot because I never did it so do not twist it .....reread our exchanges in order and unless I am totally misreading it....that is what happened.

You posit yourself as describing real Calvinism, and I said to you that I have not departed from the confessional standards, meaning on the 5 pts I fully subscribe to them.....you have posted that you are Calvinistic.....meaning you agree in part but not totally...... I agree totally.
You are now saying you agree in total with the accepted confessions? ???

If I have indicated that it was you who believed that disagreeing with your doctrine was disagreeing with scripture then you have my apology. I did mean that statement but I did not mean it directef at you.

As this is the second time today you have made the accusation - Where are you claiming that I depart from the "confessional standards"?

 

[JonC]

Skan was never a Cal.....he was among them but never grasped it.....we know because we questioned him on it..

yea.. ok....

 

[JonC]

Before you call on me to do anything..........I asked you to show it......

ok...I answered you. And, noting that I never questioned the degree to which you adhere to the "confessional standards" I once again appeal to your integrity - where do I depart from "confessional standard"?

I ask because a couple have trolled me in the past making similar accusations and were corrected for their false statements. When we accuse another then we had best be able to back it up. Otherwise it is merely the sin of gossip.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And there's another strawman. Just can't quit, can ya?

Nobody asked this question.

Jump in and debate...drive by popshots are not scripture. Show us via scripture where that was a straw man.

 

[JonC]

Iconoclast has been an upstanding and honest person on this board. His integrity is there, no need for you to 'appeal' to it.



Where is the proof of this alleged event where you corrected "their" 'false statements'? I appeal to your integrity to go fetch the proof of this glorious event. BTW, just following the trail here, already derailed, and adding my two-cents.

Post 112. Icon said I reject or dont hold the "confessional standard". I have not accused him of such. I am asking where my belief departs.

Try to keep up, bro.

 

[JonC]

So, jonc, basically what you are saying is that this glorious event took place in this thread. You're name calling, calling Icon a 'troll' among others as well?

Isn't that against the BB rules that you are to actually uphold? I dare say, yes, it is against the rules.

I have not even mentioned you, brother. And I have let Icon know I did not mean my reply directed at him (or TC). I am not sure why you both seem to personalize General remarks (especially when I went out of my way to put the context in both camps).

That said unfounded accusations are gossip. As you say - man up. Where have I denied a "confessional truth"?

 

[JonC]

Still waiting for proof to the above, this plurality of alleged trolls.

I have not called icon a troll. Stop the false accusations now, IT.

 

[InTheLight]

Jump in and debate...drive by popshots are not scripture. Show us via scripture where that was a straw man.

Use scripture to prove something is a strawman? Silliness. Sapper Woody has already addressed this.

Go back and reread this thread. Where did anyone ask, as Protestant alleges, "Why is doctrine so important?" Answer: No one asked that.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Use scripture to prove something is a strawman? Silliness. Sapper Woody has already addressed this.

Go back and reread this thread. Where did anyone ask, as Protestant alleges, "Why is doctrine so important?" Answer: No one asked that.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

I am asking YOU to address why YOU believe it is a straw man. Brother Sapper Woody...and I consider him a Brother...has addressed it, but not with much scripture.

Now, why do YOU think it was a straw man? I am not asking for much, but if you jump in, it is only right & fair of me to ask you to expound upon your post.

 

[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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

You have two ways to answer that last question. If you say yes, then we're all serving an impotent God, and you have no leg to stand on. If you say no, then your whole statement I quoted is made null. Believing that God did not do something in no way means that He can not.

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.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Firstly, we need to get something very straight right off the bat. Your teaching, although I disagree with it, does not upset me. Your false assumptions of my belief, then used as "ammunition" against it, is what upsets me. People grow in their Christian walk at different rates. I believe that if you study it out enough, you'll come to see things as I do. You believe the opposite. This doesn't upset me.

Again, what upsets me is your accusation, and the fact that you can't seem to understand that saying that God didn't do something is not the same as saying that God can't do something. So, most of the rest of your post is moot. I'm not arguing Cal/Arm right now. I'm arguing that your strawman is just that; a strawman.
Just because I don't normally argue doesn't mean I haven't studied it out. And just because I don't come to the same conclusion as you does not mean I haven't studied it out. I've even been in contact in private messages with some of the Cals on this board in an attempt to better understand the Calvinist view point.

And I believe the opposite is true. But again, I am not arguing the Cal/ARm viewpoint. I'm simply pointing out how your accusation works against you.

Ad Hominem much?

So, what you're saying is (and this is not a question, it's a statement. Because you ARE saying it) that anyone who doesn't believe in the Calvinist doctrine cannot understand any other Christian essentials. So, I am dealing with a hyper-Calvinist.

I do understand it. Very thoroughly. I just disagree with your point of view.

And right there I have to stop you of yet another straw man. It's yet another argument that goes BOTH WAYS. How is it you say that I boast of doing something that I believe any person on earth can do, but yet you don't considering it boasting to be of a group that God specifically chose? If you can't see that, there's no point in continuing.

I snipped out the rest of your lesson, as it was unnecessary.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I just disagree with you as to what it means.

And we come to it again. I don't argue the Cal/Arm debate. There's no point. I don't get upset when someone discusses their opinion. But, I will gladly call you out on false statements concerning what I believe, especially if they apply to your viewpoint as well.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Again, I refuse to get caught up in the Cal/Arm debate. But, if someone misrepresents my viewpoint, or uses arguments that apply to both sides, I'm going to call him out on it.

Whether I can answer his claims concerning Cal/Arm is immaterial to my posts. What is material is that he is using arguments that are full of holes, misrepresentations, and dual edged swords.

I'll be honest, some of the arguments of Calvinists seem logical to me, even though I still disagree. But saying that non-Cals somehow diminish God's sovereignty is a straw man. And saying that non-Cals boast of making a decision is even less helpful to the cause of Cals, as they have more reason to boast by being part of a special group, rather than the entire world.

So, yes, I will respond to those arguments which are born of ignorance. But I will not get caught up in pointless debate.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I have not called icon a troll. Stop the false accusations now, IT.

Oh, looky, how convenient that your post using the plurality of trolls has disappeared seemingly.

 

[SovereignGrace]

A false dilemma is only if I was saying that there were only two sides to a coin, when in reality there were more. This doesn't apply here to either mine or his arguments.

The reason they are immaterial is because I was not attacking the Cal position, but rather attacking the arguments themselves in an attempt to make him see that the arguments he is using are null. I still study, and am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. I have been, once or twice. But when someone tries to convince me using arguments that are obviously wrong, I call them on it.

TC, I'm not sure what you mean here by a false dilemma. It doesn't apply here, so I can't exactly answer you on this. Perhaps you meant another fallacy?

He is.
So do I. That I believe that God chose not to do something in no way diminishes whether or not He could do something.

And here is the crux of my disagreement with the OP. We don't either. I don't deserve Heaven. I'm just a worthless sinner. But by God's grace He saved me. We agree here, whether you want to see it or not. There is nothing to boast about it on either side. But, if a Cal says there is on the non-Cal side, then he must equally apply that to his side as well.

I guess. Unless you count growing up in a Pastor's home, going to 4 years of Bible College, spending a year apprenticed to a pastor, spending another two years as an assistant pastor / youth pastor, and 6 months as a senior (interim) pastor.

As are all the men I get my counsel from.


I'm sorry that you once believed that way. But that's not what I believe.

And, as stated there, I can agree with everything in that paragraph. The only thing we disagree on is whether we had any choice in the matter. I believe God gave me the choice, and you don't.

I have listened, TC. This screen name joined in 2011, but I had an original screen name from back in 2003 when I was still in Bible College (blessedhopeboy; I lost all that information and just made a new account in 2011). And what I've heard has been misrepresentations and straw men. I've been watching the debate for years now. And for all their supposed humility, I've seen hatred and anger from Calvinists. Granted, I've also seen quite a bit of vitriol from non-Cal/Arm as well. 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.

At one point, I wanted to sincerely learn of what the Calvinist viewpoint is. I PM'd a few of the Cals on the board, and got into some email discussions. I began emailing several Cals to discuss what they believed, because I wanted a Calvinist to tell me, not a non-Cal who would present the Cal belief to me with a biased spin.

But, that all went away when I saw the attitude of Calvinists towards non-Cals. The baseless accusations, the gang mentality, and the "we're right and won't even discuss it" attitude (much like you were talking about in your last post, and shown in the third post in this thread). If Calvinism is correct, then God's going to have to convince me, because no one on this board could now.

Edited to add: Also, see the intentional misrepresentation in the next post, rather than a discussion of what was actually said.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I was not offering options. I was equalizing an imbalanced equation. I merely pointed out how his argument could (and does) also apply to his side, and therefore is moot.

You keep using this, but I have never offered any choices or options. I have only shown that what applies to one side applies to the other.

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.

For the record, I don't claim that Cals boast. 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.


- 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. It's a classic appeal to authority fallacy.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Yep, I clicked on where I quoted it, and it is gone, yet jonc wants me to go find a post he deleted, acting as if it never did exist.

I clicked to go to it and it said 'I don't have permission' or something. Nothing but games.

But lo, and behold, I have a screen shot of it.