Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

[SovereignGrace]

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.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[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.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

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

Not one verse ITL.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Protestant,
To put it mildly, you are very mistaken about what we believe. So much so that I honestly don't think that you've looked into it at all.

Wrong.

Correct

Wrong

Wrong

Close

Absolutely wrong.

Wrong

Close enough for a straw man, but wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Close enough where I won't just say "wrong".

No, this is according to your misperception of my theology.

I've already posted my view before. And let's just say that you are so wrong on what I believe, that you are not even in the ballpark.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I believe man does have the freedom to choose. Just not in the willy nilly way that you are portraying. I'll reiterate here that man cannot "just decide" to be saved, as you tend to think we believe. Man can only respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit, and it is only then that he is faced with the choice to accept or deny God's grace. It is not just a "oh, I don't want to go to hell, so sure, I'll get saved" kind of thing. He first has to fall under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, feel the draw of God on himself, and then decide.

This speaks a lot here. I don't see Calvinists as adversaries. I'm sorry that you see non-Cals as adversaries. I see brothers who both believe in the saving power of God, but who disagree on the method in which God uses to distribute His grace.

Again you use the word adversary. I'm sorry you feel that way. But, there is a third option. I believe that God does intervene, and when He does, then the choice is made. For me, it was really no choice. I knew where I was headed if I didn't accept God and I knew that even though I was a good person who grew up in a pastor's home that I had been hanging on to a false confession of faith since I was a child. I had been dealing with God's conviction for years, afraid to die because I knew I'd go to hell, but afraid of what people would think if I, a soul-winning, song leading, bus working, about to go to bible college teenager came forward and admitted he wasn't saved. But one night at the Triple S Christian Ranch I decided that I not only didn't want to go to hell. I wanted to serve God and accept His gift and live for Him.

This is one reason I have a problem with irresistible grace. I resisted for years. I knew the truth, and didn't accept it based upon my pride.

I agree.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[SovereignGrace]

N

You can believe that if you want, TC. But if you go back through this thread, see where the unpleasantness started. It first began in the OP, who outright lied about what we teach. And then, when I called him on it, you escalated it by "arguing personality" by saying that I was young and didn't have very much formal education. Go ahead and take an honest look at this thread. You'll see that I'm right about that. But, when I try and defend myself, suddenly I'm the bad guy.

In fact, I'll show you. I said that I would respond to those arguments born of ignorance. My position was misrepresented. So, at that point I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt and said that his argument was born of ignorance instead of saying that he was blatantly lying. You responded with:
Denigration.
Appeal to authority.

But, when I respond, suddenly I'm guilty of what you did. Amazing.

So, yes, TC. You are being dishonest. You are trying to pin a logical fallacy on me which you began perpetuating. As for the spiritually immature, if the shoe fits, wear it. I wasn't the one who began by misrepresenting the other side's teaching, or who began by dismissing a person's argument based on age or education.

Not one verse ITL.

 

[TCassidy]

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

Post #89.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

Post #89.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Brother,

I happen to be Calvinistic yet sympathetic to your post. You will not find any willing to argue against your view here. What you will find are "calvinists" who blindly defend "calvinism" against Christians who "know no better". Until the trolls are exterminated there is no use in discussing this issue.

I, however, am a Calvinist who will honestly discuss (to the dismay of the pseduo-calvinistic cultic folk here) the issues and passages surrounding Calvinism. If you are interested then pm me and we can discus this via email. I won't discuss it with the few disruptive trolls here as it would be non productive.

Ahem...trolls...plural.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Post #89.

He admitted in PM that he deleted it.

 

[TCassidy]

He admitted in PM that he deleted it.

In what post # did you quote it?

 

[Benjamin]

Brother,

I happen to be Calvinistic yet sympathetic to your post. You will not find any willing to argue against your view here. What you will find are "calvinists" who blindly defend "calvinism" against Christians who "know no better". Until the trolls are exterminated there is no use in discussing this issue.

I, however, am a Calvinist who will honestly discuss (to the dismay of the pseduo-calvinistic cultic folk here) the issues and passages surrounding Calvinism. If you are interested then pm me and we can discus this via email. I won't discuss it with the few disruptive trolls here as it would be non productive.

Thanks for the offer. I hear you and understand the situation well. I and some others don't mind debates if they are ethical and have the right goals. We've set up a format geared to work toward achieving those very values but there seems to be little interest from Calvinists, which frankly, is not much of a surprise.

 

[Internet Theologian]

In what post # did you quote it?

I just looked and I cannot now find it, It is GONE.

 

[SovereignGrace]

In what post # did you quote it?

I quoted it in post # 150. Lying should be an automatic dismissal of mod-ship.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Brother,

I happen to be Calvinistic yet sympathetic to your post. You will not find any willing to argue against your view here. What you will find are "calvinists" who blindly defend "calvinism" against Christians who "know no better". Until the trolls are exterminated there is no use in discussing this issue.

I, however, am a Calvinist who will honestly discuss (to the dismay of the pseduo-calvinistic cultic folk here) the issues and passages surrounding Calvinism. If you are interested then pm me and we can discus this via email. I won't discuss it with the few disruptive trolls here as it would be non productive.

Here it is again. JonC saying trolls…meaning plural.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Here it is again. JonC saying trolls…meaning plural.

That is a bad agenda, trolls, meaning Calvinists.

 

[TCassidy]

Both #89 and #150 are still in the thread. Nobody has deleted either of them.

I read all the posts Jon deleted from this thread and none of them address the "trolls" issue. (Admins have access to deleted posts.)

In post #89 Jon made a generic statement linking "calvinists" to "trolls." When I questioned him he said it was a generic and not a specific statement. He did not call anyone a troll. I find the linking of "calvinists" to "trolls" to be a bit distasteful but as he did not attach the word to any specific person he has not, in my opinion, violated Baptist Board rules.

 

[JonC]

Here it is again. JonC saying trolls…meaning plural.

I did say that there are trolls here on both sides of the cal arm debate. This was addressing Benjamin. NOT calling icon, or anyone in paticular a troll. Are we in kindergarten?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I did say that there are trolls here on both sides of the cal arm debate. This was addressing Benjamin. NOT calling icon, or anyone in paticular a troll. Are we in kindergarten?

One of us is and it's not me.