Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

[TCassidy]

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.

No, I didn't. I was very gently chastising you for rebuking an elder brother.

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren.

 

[Van]

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.

The gospel is for the lost. He is giving us time to present our message of reconciliation because He desires all people to be saved.

And your understanding of 2 Timothy 2:8-10 is off the mark. Paul endured suffering for the chosen ones. This does not refer to the ones already chosen, but for those to be chosen. When an individual is chosen for salvation they are set apart in Christ.

 

[Protestant]

Mr. Woody wrote:

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).

I purposefully used ‘cannot’ in the OP rather than ‘does not’, and for good reason.

According to your theology, God gives men the unfettered choice to choose to accept or not accept the free gift of Christ.

According to your theology, God does not force or coerce man’s will to choose one way or another.

Man has the innate power of self-determination to choose, according to your theology.

Should God in any way effectually influence man’s decision, whether pro or con for Jesus, He would then prove to be biased and unjust in His dealings with men.

Thus, by permitting men the full responsibility of making their own free choice for or against Christ, God proves Himself impartial and equally fair to all mankind, no matter their race, religion or station in life.

Therefore, given the emphasis on man’s freedom to choose as he pleases, according to your theology, man’s ‘free will’ is given the status of deity, a golden idol which sits upon the throne of 'free will,' and one which is all-powerful and cannot be overthrown.

God cannot touch, remove, or destroy this idol or God’s very holiness and righteousness would be called into question.

Had God in any way determined man's choice, man would be no less than a puppet whose strings are pulled by a controlling, dispassionate deity, according to your theology.

This truth we easily discern when examining the root cause and origin of your theology.

Man's 'free will' cannot, in any way, be tampered with by his Creator.

As a result, though God loves all men equally, He cannot save all because He refuses to affect their free will choice, though it be an eternally damning choice.

Despite the inevitable doom of most, God upholds man's right to self-determination by honoring man's independent free will choice.

This is according to your theology.

On the other hand, according to biblical theology, God can and does change the wills of certain men.

These men are called the Elect.

He does this by sovereignly giving them a new nature, a new heart and a new will to love and obey Him.

He does this by using the very power by which He created the universe and raised Christ from the dead.

Contrarily, God does not change the nature, hearts or wills of most men.

These are called the Reprobate.

God certainly could change them, had He willed to do so.

But He wills to not do so.

Instead, at first He leaves them alone, denying them the graces needed to repent and believe.

Their evil wills remain intact.

He then hardens and blinds them as just punishment for holding the truth in unrighteousness…..their evil wills still remaining intact.

The truth be told, should God leave you and your loved ones’ wills untouched by His irresistible, all-powerful saving grace, eternal damnation would be their inescapable end.

I leave you with this question:

Would you rather have your loved ones left alone to choose for themselves, or would you prefer to have God make the right choice for their salvation which, in turn, graciously and effectually gives them the power to agree with God's choice?

 

[Internet Theologian]

The gospel is for the lost. He is giving us time to present our message of reconciliation because He desires all people to be saved.

And your understanding of 2 Timothy 2:8-10 is off the mark. Paul endured suffering for the chosen ones. This does not refer to the ones already chosen, but for those to be chosen. When an individual is chosen for salvation they are set apart in Christ.

The text in Peter says nothing about giving us time to present our message. The time is God's and it is His message, not ours. You're implying that God is waiting it out hoping we will practice due diligence and bring in a crop to be counted by our obedience. Nope. He knows all who are His and the number. Not one will be lost and the number will not fall one short nor exceed by one.

You're misrepresenting me on the 2 Timothy text. My point was that he suffered for those chosen who were not yet 'in the fold' and these were already chosen before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1. Thus the already chosen were those who would respond to the Gospel. There are none that are yet to be chosen as you imply. They've already been chosen and are still being sought.

 

[Sapper Woody]

No, I didn't. I was very gently chastising you for rebuking an elder brother.

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren.

TC, your dishonesty and backtracking has been noted. Even if that were your original intent, putting someone down and puffing up yourself is not "gently chastising". Secondly, someone who speaks evilly (lies) is not my elder. If someone is spiritually immature to the point in which they will bolster their argument with lies about the opposing viewpoint, they are not my elder. In this scenario, I was perfectly in place to speak to him the way I did, and to you, as well.

 

[Sapper Woody]

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.

Mr. Woody wrote:

I purposefully used ‘cannot’ in the OP rather than ‘does not’, and for good reason.

According to your theology, God gives men the unfettered choice to choose to accept or not accept the free gift of Christ.

Wrong.

According to your theology, God does not force or coerce man’s will to choose one way or another.

Correct

Man has the innate power of self-determination to choose, according to your theology.

Wrong

Should God in any way effectually influence man’s decision, whether pro or con for Jesus, He would then prove to be biased and unjust in His dealings with men.

Wrong

Thus, by permitting men the full responsibility of making their own free choice for or against Christ, God proves Himself impartial and equally fair to all mankind, no matter their race, religion or station in life.

Close

Therefore, given the emphasis on man’s freedom to choose as he pleases, according to your theology, man’s ‘free will’ is given the status of deity, a golden idol which sits upon the throne of 'free will,' and one which is all-powerful and cannot be overthrown.

Absolutely wrong.

God cannot touch, remove, or destroy this idol or God’s very holiness and righteousness would be called into question.

Wrong

Had God in any way determined man's choice, man would be no less than a puppet whose strings are pulled by a controlling, dispassionate deity, according to your theology.

Close enough for a straw man, but wrong.

Man's 'free will' cannot, in any way, be tampered with by his Creator.

Wrong.

As a result, though God loves all men equally, He cannot save all because He refuses to affect their free will choice, though it be an eternally damning choice.

Wrong.

Despite the inevitable doom of most, God upholds man's right to self-determination by honoring man's independent free will choice.

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

This is according to your theology.

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.

 

[Protestant]

Mr. Woody, either man has the freedom to choose good or evil, Christ or Satan, or he doesn't.

If you believe he does not have the freedom to choose, then you are in our camp.

If, however, you believe he does have the freedom to choose, then you place yourself in our adversaries camp.

It's quite simple really.

Furthermore, if you believe God does intervene on behalf of the Elect, effectually affecting their choice for their eternal good, then you are in our camp.

If, however, you believe God does not intervene on behalf of any man, permitting all men to be the determiners of their own personal destinies, then you are in the camp of our adversaries.

This doesn't take a take a degree from a Baptist seminary to reach a logical conclusion.

 

[TCassidy]

Don't bother, he isn't listening. He has personified my signature line.

He was unable to argue the issue so he tried to argue the semantics. He couldn't do that either so he now argues the personality of those he cannot best with cogent argumentation. Notice now we are dishonest, puffed up, we speak evilly and lie and are spiritually immature.

He now is reduced to agreeing with Elbert Hubbard. "If you can't answer a man's argument all is not lost you can still call him vile names."

 

[Sapper Woody]

Mr. Woody, either man has the freedom to choose good or evil, Christ or Satan, or he doesn't.

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.

If you believe he does not have the freedom to choose, then you are in our camp.

If, however, you believe he does have the freedom to choose, then you place yourself in our adversaries camp.

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.

Furthermore, if you believe God does intervene on behalf of the Elect, effectually affecting their choice for their eternal good, then you are in our camp.

If, however, you believe God does not intervene on behalf of any man, permitting all men to be the determiners of their own personal destinies, then you are in the camp of our adversaries.

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.

This doesn't take a take a degree from a Baptist seminary to reach a logical conclusion.

I agree.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Don't bother, he isn't listening. He has personified my signature line.

He was unable to argue the issue so he tried to argue the semantics. He couldn't do that either so he now argues the personality of those he cannot best with cogent argumentation. Notice now we are dishonest, puffed up, we speak evilly and lie and are spiritually immature.

He now is reduced to agreeing with Elbert Hubbard. "If you can't answer a man's argument all is not lost you can still call him vile names."

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:

Woody, you are a very young man with very little formal education.

Denigration.

Most of those on the BB who believe in Particular Redemption are older and faithful scholars of God's word.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

Actually it was based on spiritual maturity and experience, but you are so emotionally invested in "calvinist bad" "calvinist bad" "calvinist bad" that you will not, can not, see reason.

One of the very first things I learned as a young adult (over 50 years ago) was that you cannot win an emotional argument using reason and logic.

Now, if you would like to discuss the issue without all the personal attacks and name calling, I am still here.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

But you didn't resist unto perdition, did you? You obviously didn't resist unto perdition as you are a saved man.

You just proved two points.

1. You don't fully understand the doctrine you seem to hate.

2. You are living proof that Irresistible Grace is true.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Actually it was based on spiritual maturity and experience, but you are so emotionally invested in "calvinist bad" "calvinist bad" "calvinist bad" that you will not, can not, see reason.

One of the very first things I learned as a young adult (over 50 years ago) was that you cannot win an emotional argument using reason and logic.

Now, if you would like to discuss the issue without all the personal attacks and name calling, I am still here.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. In one post, you called me spiritually immature, inexperienced, and unreasonable; then said you're open to discussing the issue without personal attacks and name calling. I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee. I may have done a spit take on my Calculus.

Now, here's a second funny thing. I began by calling out an emotional argument (an emotionally charged misrepresentation of the non-Cal theology) by using reason, and showing logically how the misrepresentation of non-Cal theology needed to apply to both sides, and used as it was was asenine logic. And then you bring emotion into it by "dismissing a person's argument based on spiritual maturity and experience". And then claim that I am arguing from emotion. This is just getting silly.

Let's look at my very first post:

The above view is asinine. Let's follow the logic.

Nothing in that first post was based on emotion. None. It was a clear cut presentation of why I believed that the statement was wrong.

Then, in response:

I quite understand something about God’s truths upsets you.

So, here I am getting personally attacked by someone saying that truth upsets me, and also someone already saying that I was upset when I used pure logic to illustrate my point.

Then, I admit that I was upset, but not by Calvinism:

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.

Here, I am clearly stating that nothing about Calvinism upsets me. But I hate an unfair argument. I even play the devil's advocate a lot in the Creation vs Evolution debate, because I hate it when Creationists (of which I am one) use arguments full of holes and misrepresentations. So, because I can't stand unreasonable logic, I called him out on it.

Then, again with a personal attack:

You owe it to yourself to sincerely study the issue before you attempt to refute this basic biblical truth

Because anyone who disagrees with Calvinism obviously hasn't studied it out, right?

Or:

Furthermore, you have no comprehension as to the purpose of Adam’s testing.

More personal attacks.

And then this gem:

Again, this is basic essential Christian truth which lays the groundwork for understanding all other Christian essentials.

So now, because I disagree with Calvinism, I don't understand any other Christian essential.
And then we get to your first post to me, TC:

Woody, you are a very young man with very little formal education. Most of those on the BB who believe in Particular Redemption are older and faithful scholars of God's word.

Where you introduce more denigration (a form of personal attack) and the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. (Yet somehow I'm at fault).

I reiterate my entire purpose in this response later:

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.

Finally I get an actual, reasoned response from someone (SovereignGrace) where I don't feel as if he's out to crush me, but wishes to engage in dialogue.

But, then we get to TC's next response to me, in which he accuses me of doing the thing he did:

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

Which is hilarious, since he did it an I didn't do it.

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

I pointed out an argument born of ignorance. If that means that person is ignorant, then that's what it means. Or, it means that person knows better, and is being unChristlike by still using the ignorant argument. I guess I could have called "learned men" liars from the get go. Would that have been better?

You make spurious accusations then refuse to defend those spurious accusations.

Which is amazing, because up to that point, I hadn't even said someone had lied. Show me these "spurious accusations". There aren't even any "non-spurious accusations" at this point.

Then we get to IT's post:

You make a remark about how Calvinism is in error

But, the crazy thing is, I didn't. I said I disagreed with it. It's a subtle difference, I'll grant you. But this post was an attempt to get me into the debate of Cal/Arm, which I said I wasn't going to. But, it still remains to be shown where I stated "how Calvinism is in error with certain texts" as IT claimed.

I then pointed out to TC that he was the first to bring upthe appeal to authority fallacy (which I've done here in this post) and he replies with:

No, I didn't. I was very gently chastising you for rebuking an elder brother.

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren.

Read my reply, if you want. But I stand by it.

My next post, I didn't elaborate, but I pointed out where Protestant was mistaken about what I believe.

Then, TC decides to step in and denigrate me further, accusing me of things that didn't happen.

Meanwhile, I'm actually into a decent dialogue with the OP. Makes me wonder how much discussion could have been had if TC had left his emotions at the door.

While I was typing this, TC posted:

You don't fully understand the doctrine you seem to hate.

I don't hate the doctrine.You are once again projecting emotions onto me which you are obviously feeling yourself. If I believed that Calvinism was sending people to hell, then i'd hate it. I don't believe this.

 

[Protestant]

Mr. Woody wrote:

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.

The doctrine you describe is similar to that which is taught by Methodists: Prevenient Grace.

Simply put, this doctrine teaches God gives sufficient grace to all men which brings them to the point whereby they are able, if they so will, to come to Christ.

They do believe in the doctrine of original sin which inhibits man’s ability to choose Christ freely, thus the need for some help from God.

But ultimately the end result is the same as I mentioned in my previous post: man has been graciously given or already has the ability to choose Christ, if he so wills.

But this theory, like your doctrine, has yet to explain the fact that billions have never heard of Christ or the way of salvation, let alone been drawn to Christ......in which case their wills are of no value to them.

Furthermore, your doctrine makes the sinner’s will the deciding factor as to whether he is saved or not.

Such a man has much in which to glory, since he made good and holy use of his will, while others did not.

Scripture teaches salvation is not due to man’s will, works or power.

Rather salvation is the result of God’s free will to have mercy on some sinners of His choosing, according to the good pleasure of His will to save, contingent on nothing outside Himself.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it [salvation] is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (Romans 9:15-16).

Paul is stressing the fact that man’s ‘free will decision’ has absolutely nothing to do with causing God to choose him for salvation.

God does the choosing in eternity, before we are born…..to the praise of His glorious grace.

We are adversaries in that our side fights for God’s glory. Salvation is of the Lord, period.

Your side fights for man’s glory, positing the ultimate decision of one’s eternal life and eternal death with man.

Scriptures teach it is God alone who decides the final destiny of each of His creatures.

And that is as it should be since He alone is Creator, Ruler and Lord over all, who created everything with a specific purpose in mind.

His purpose for the Elect, whom He chooses to love, is to reveal His infinite glory, the likes of which cannot be put into thoughts or words. This He will do for eternity.

His purpose for the Reprobate, whom He chooses to hate, is to reveal His dreadful power to judge with righteousness, as well as punish with such severity that a single drop of water on the tongue would be a blessing, if it were possible……which it is not.

The issues between our camps are quite substantive and serious, as they encompass the success or failure of Christ’s atonement, a magnanimous act never to be equaled in significance or relevance.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The gospel is for the lost. He is giving us time to present our message of reconciliation because He desires all people to be saved.

And your understanding of 2 Timothy 2:8-10 is off the mark. Paul endured suffering for the chosen ones. This does not refer to the ones already chosen, but for those to be chosen. When an individual is chosen for salvation they are set apart in Christ.

The gospel is also for the saved.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Mr. Woody wrote:



The doctrine you describe is similar to that which is taught by Methodists: Prevenient Grace.

Simply put, this doctrine teaches God gives sufficient grace to all men which brings them to the point whereby they are able, if they so will, to come to Christ.

They do believe in the doctrine of original sin which inhibits man’s ability to choose Christ freely, thus the need for some help from God.

I'll admit that I've not heard too much about that term, Prevenient Grace. I'll have to do some more research on it. I don't like the verbiage used, specifically "some help" from God (rather than all help from God), but the idea seems to be similar to what I believe.

But ultimately the end result is the same as I mentioned in my previous post: man has been graciously given or already has the ability to choose Christ, if he so wills.

But this theory, like your doctrine, has yet to explain the fact that billions have never heard of Christ or the way of salvation, let alone been drawn to Christ......in which case their wills are of no value to them.

my belief, and it is held by all the pastors that I know that I've asked, is that God, knowing the heart of a man, and knowing whether he will accept or not, will make a way for those who haven't heard who will accept. Whether a missionary, or some other means. He will provide a way for them to come to a saving knowledge.

Furthermore, your doctrine makes the sinner’s will the deciding factor as to whether he is saved or not.

The 'deciding' factor, yes. But so much has preceded that, such as the grace of God, God showing mercy, etc. It is an oversimplification to say that man decides. True, but leaving out so much.

Such a man has much in which to glory, since he made good and holy use of his will, while others did not.

And here is my major point of contention with the arguments. This argument is not a biblical one, but an extra-biblical one. In other words, you believing that it gives glory to the man is your opinion; while my believing it doesn't give glory to man is my opinion. Hence, the need to resolve it out of a context of a biblical discussion. I see no reason at all that a man should or even could glory in his acceptance of Christ's work. Rather, it is a show of humility to accept it. It is to realize that nothing you could possibly do could merit Heaven, and so you are forced to humble yourself before God and accept Him. Where you see glory for man in a free will, I see more glory for God.

Scripture teaches salvation is not due to man’s will, works or power.

Rather salvation is the result of God’s free will to have mercy on some sinners of His choosing, according to the good pleasure of His will to save, contingent on nothing outside Himself.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it [salvation] is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (Romans 9:15-16).

Paul is stressing the fact that man’s ‘free will decision’ has absolutely nothing to do with causing God to choose him for salvation.

God does the choosing in eternity, before we are born…..to the praise of His glorious grace.

I have previously stated that I am not here to debate Calvinism, but to debate the arguments used. With this in mind, I am not answering this part of the post.

We are adversaries in that our side fights for God’s glory. Salvation is of the Lord, period.

See, I could also say the exact same sentences. We are adversaries in that my side fights for God's glory, for Salvation is of the Lord.

Your side fights for man’s glory, positing the ultimate decision of one’s eternal life and eternal death with man.

Which, again, is no glory, but rather humility; giving the glory to God.

Scriptures teach it is God alone who decides the final destiny of each of His creatures.

And that is as it should be since He alone is Creator, Ruler and Lord over all, who created everything with a specific purpose in mind.

His purpose for the Elect, whom He chooses to love, is to reveal His infinite glory, the likes of which cannot be put into thoughts or words. This He will do for eternity.

His purpose for the Reprobate, whom He chooses to hate, is to reveal His dreadful power to judge with righteousness, as well as punish with such severity that a single drop of water on the tongue would be a blessing, if it were possible……which it is not.

Again, I'm not going to begin to debate Calvinism here. Only the two arguments that I've been discussing.

The issues between our camps are quite substantive and serious, as they encompass the success or failure of Christ’s atonement, a magnanimous act never to be equaled in significance or relevance.

The problem is, that anything that you can say about "my side" that reduces the glory of God and the effectiveness of Christ's death, I can turn on "your side". This is my whole point. In arguments that can be used on both sides, you must throw out the argument. Here is a challenge; not to just you, but to everyone who debates the Cal/Arm positions. See if you can argue your point without showing how the other side is wrong. See if your arguments can stand up on their own merit, rather than the fallibility of the other side's arguments. If it can't, you don't have anything to stand on.

Side note: That applies not to just this discussion. It applies to all debates. If you can't state your opinion and give strength to your argument without attempting to tear down the other side's argument, you have a very weak argument.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I haven't stated that Calvinism is in error with any texts.

Because you cannot do so. Look brother, call it what you will, error laden, flawed, incorrect, what have you, but you do this without any proof, or any Scripture. You make these types of statements, then when it is mentioned, you say you don't debate Cal/Arm. In fact you do debate it but in a underhanded manner.

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.

The above is what I mean. Nothing to substantiate anything, just a vague aspersion with no substance.

Again, point to where I said Calvinism is in error. I have not said that.

You just said it up above brother.

And below:

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.

"Flawed", erroneous, "doesn't work", "don't stand up", "a flat out lie" &c. Those are the same terms and you use them yet cannot substantiate any of it, or at the least have failed to do so.

Since you're taking it on, and making pretense you're not at the same time, why not actually use some Scripture for your points instead of your non authoritative opinion followed by a duck and run? I say this in respect, and believe you know better that this, but nonetheless it is what you are doing.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Because you cannot do so. Look brother, call it what you will, error laden, flawed, incorrect, what have you, but you do this without any proof, or any Scripture. You make these types of statements, then when it is mentioned, you say you don't debate Cal/Arm. In fact you do debate it but in a underhanded manner.

I urge you to read my last post. I have not one single time this entire thread attacked Calvinism. I have only attacked a misrepresentation of non-Cal beliefs, and an invalid argument. There is a vastly huge difference in saying "your opinion is wrong" and "your argument is wrong" or "your argument misrepresents my belief".

"Flawed", erroneous, "doesn't work", "don't stand up", "a flat out lie" &c. Those are the same terms and you use them yet cannot substantiate any of it, or at the least have failed to do so.

I have very much substantiated what I've said. What I have not done is substantiate what you are saying I said.

Since you're taking it on, and making pretense you're not at the same time, why not actually use some Scripture for your points instead of your non authoritative opinion followed by a duck and run?

If you read my above post, you'll see clearly that I am not giving a "non-authoritative opinion", but rather using logic to explain how the arguments presented do not work.

As an analogy, let's say you see a brown animal that I believe is a dog, yet you believe it is a cat. You say, "that animal is brown, and my cat is brown. Therefore that animal is a cat". I then point out that your argument doesn't work, and is flawed. In this analogy (and in this thread) I haven't begun to debate over the issue, I've only pointed out how your argument doesn't support your claim.

That's what I've tried to do in this thread. I've tried to point out that a misrepresentation of my belief does nothing but cause further division without either side getting any closer to the truth. In this scenario, saying that we believe that God "cannot" do something when we believe that he has "chosen not" to do something is using a misrepresentation and a straw man argument, which is the same type of logic that would allow one to believe that since the animal is brown, it must be a cat. It is a logical fallacy.

So, to reiterate, this entire thread I have stated that I disagree with Calvinism, but I have not as of yet argued against Calvinism at all. I have merely pointed out fallible arguments.

I say this in respect, and believe you know better that this, but nonetheless it is what you are doing.

Hopefully after reading this post you realize that this is not what I am doing.

- Edited to correct "you're" to "your"

 

[Revmitchell]

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 hit the nail on the head. No one says that nor does anyone believe that. They have no real argument so that have to make up one in order to more easily knock it down. It is a childish game and it is as dishonest as it is unChristian.

 

[Revmitchell]

I urge you to read my last post. I have not one single time this entire thread attacked Calvinism. I have only attacked a misrepresentation of non-Cal beliefs, and an invalid argument. There is a vastly huge difference in saying "your opinion is wrong" and "your argument is wrong" or "your argument misrepresents my belief".

Very good point and I am a witness to the truth of it.