Hey, remember that one time when arminians didn't build a strawman?

The straw man depends on getting an emotional reaction. One does not get much of an emotional reaction from it unless one assumes the precious daughter was cheated of something she deserved but God didn't feel like giving to her.

God said it was good before the fall. Calvinists don't claim that man was totally depraved before the fall, but is totally depraved because of the fall.

 

This "daughter" in question may be born a sinner but she wasn't born "total depraved" (hardened) as Calvinist's assume.

She would only become hardened if she sees God's revelation of himself and continually rebels against it while living in sin.

It is clear in scripture that before one in hardened they "might see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing." Act 28:26-28

An example of a strawman is when a Calvinist says, "Arminians believe were all born innocent but we believe the bible which teaches that we are sinners from birth, therefore we are all totally depraved."

This statement makes it seem as if all Arminians believe that man is born good, but Jacob Arminius didn't teach that and most Arminians don't believe that we are born good.

We believe that people are born guilty of sin and with a nature to sin. We believe if left to ourselves we would never be righteous nor would we seek God, which is exactly why God doesn't "leave us to ourselves."

He intervenes, through Christ's coming, the Apostles, the scripture, the general calling of the HS, the proclaimation of the gospel etc. IMO, Calvinism makes all of these things seem quite trivial since, in their system, they have absolutely no effect on humanity.

 

I agree with brother Glen, why is a daughter of more concern than a nintey year old?

Stop playing with emotions and proclaim the Gospel, let the Spirit work and be amazed at the elect sheep who will come in through the door of the sheepfold and enjoy the pasture.

Bro. Dallas

 

I didn't say it was THE point of Job, it was the point I was trying to get to in the other thread. I do believe it is not only A point in Job, but a very important one.

Job asked why, too. He asked why he was being subjected to all of the crud that was heaped on him in spite of the fact that he was trying to be as righteous as possible. But God never told him why. Instead God questioned Job with a lot of humiliating questions that revealed Job's inability to grasp what it means that God is the Sovereign Creator of all things. God did this in two parts. After the first part, Job replied...

It's sinking in. But God continues to ask more probing questions which reveal His power and sovereignty. Finally, Job responds...

There you have "righteous" Job, repenting in dust and ashes!! So what's the message of this part of Job? IMO, it is the same one Jesus teaches in Matthew 5-6. Our so-called "righteousness" is like filthy rags. We don't have a clue what the perfect righteousness and sovereignty of God is like. Small wonder no man can truly "see" God and live! The comparison would leave us in total despondence. Fortunately, God reveals His character in degrees we can tolerate, and during those times we get difficult doses of it, it is a wonderful humbling experience, because it drives us to the mercy and love of God.

 

The straw man depends on getting an emotional reaction. One does not get much of an emotional reaction from it unless one assumes the precious daughter was cheated of something she deserved but God didn't feel like giving to her. [/quote]

Speak for yourself.

Believe it or not, some Christians actually do have an emotional reaction about people going to hell. They actually are distressed over the suffering that those people are going to face. That's one reason they witness; they would like to see people escape such a fate.

So do Calvinists just shrug and say "I guess that person was non-elect"? Don't they care? What happened to "Love God and love your neighbor"? If you truly love people how can you have no emotional reaction at the thought of them suffering eternally?

Yes but God knows the end from the beginning. When he looked at Adam and said "This is very good!" He already knew about the fall, when Adam would disobey Him and be banished from the Garden of Eden, never to return.

Helen/AITB

 

I'd say that's a strawman if I ever I heard one...find me an arminian who will say they believe what they believe because it makes them feel good.

Anyway, it's also wrong to create a theology that forces you to say Bible verses don't mean what they say.

That is my most serious objection to five-point Calvinism, because as best I can tell, that's what it leads to.

Helen/AITB

 

I would suggest that the posts of many here are based on the fact that Calvinism goes against their feelings of what God should do. I think this is a very correct statement and it I think it is borne out here in these threads.

If you could show these verses, you would be the first to do so. This claim has often been made but I have yet to see any actually support it with a verse that a Calvinist had to force to say something else. Perhaps you would offer a verse in support of you.

 

I would suggest that the posts of many here are based on the fact that Calvinism goes against their feelings of what God should do. I think this is a very correct statement and it I think it is borne out here in these threads.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but, it's a strawman argument because it implies that arminian theology is based solely on feelings. In fact the feelings of those who hold to it, that Calvinism is wrong, are based on their understanding of the nature of God as revealed in the Bible. That's the part that is missing from the strawman portrayal above. Leaving that out distorts why people who believe arminian theology, do so.

If you could show these verses, you would be the first to do so. This claim has often been made but I have yet to see any actually support it with a verse that a Calvinist had to force to say something else. Perhaps you would offer a verse in support of you. </font>[/QUOTE]I was just discussing one yesterday on another thread on here - 2 Peter 3:9 where at least one Calvinist here changes the word 'any' is changed to mean 'certain'.

Helen/AITB

 

Helen, you seem to be in massive denial about the purpose of this particular straw man argument. Does it not occur to you that there's a reason why it is posed as "precious daughter" and not "scumbag neighbor"? We're supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves, but if I put it that way, it certainly wouldn't get nearly the same emotional reaction from people. Unless you can come to grips with the reason why people pose this scenario, there's not much more I can discuss about it.

 

But that is not a change. It is a change to you because your brought your presuppositions to the passage. While I did not study the post made that you refer to, I did see it.

Allow me to post here the translations choices of the AV. (That one is the easiest to do from BW5). It translates the word in question in the following ways: certain 104, some 73, any man 55, any 38, one 34, man 34, anything 24, a 9, certain man 7, something 6, somewhat 6, ought 5, some man 4, certain thing 2, nothing + 3756 2, divers 2, he 2, thing 2, another 2, not tr 17, misc 22; 450

Here it is in the NASB95: Usage: any(36), any man(9), any man's(2), any one(4), any way(1), any woman(1), anyone(90), anyone's(1), anyone's*(1), anyone...anything(1), anything(40), anything...anyone(1), certain(6), certain man(1), certain men(2), few(1), in any way(1), high(1), kind(1), man(10), man's(2), matter(1), no*(5), none*(3), nothing*(8), one(45), one...another(1), ones(1), others(1), person(2), several(2), some(104), some men(3), some people(1), some things(1), somebody(1), someone(27), something(15), somewhat(2), such(1), various things(1), whatever(1), whatever*(6), who(1), whoever*(4), whomever*(1).

Notice that the overwhelming choice is one of particularity, not generality. There are generally 4 understandings of the 2 Peter 3:9 passage, 3 of which (if my memory serves me correctly) clearly explain the text and the use of "tinas" without this general approach. The point is that "all" without exception is not hte easiest way to understand this passage. (BTW, this is not even the usual word for "all." That is a completely different word in the Greek language.) There are other legitimate understandings that do perfect justice to the context of 1 Peter and have the added advantage of harmonizing with the other statements of Scripture.

The Scripture is clear that God's purpose is always carried out. That must be reconciled with a "will" that is not always carried out. This is why it seems patently clear that God has a decretive will and a desirative will (terms used regularly in theology).

So I say all this to say, this passage is not a difficult one in the least.

 

Helen, you seem to be in massive denial about the purpose of this particular straw man argument. Does it not occur to you that there's a reason why it is posed as "precious daughter" and not "scumbag neighbor"? We're supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves, but if I put it that way, it certainly wouldn't get nearly the same emotional reaction from people. Unless you can come to grips with the reason why people pose this scenario, there's not much more I can discuss about it. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't want my neighbors to go to hell either. It's hard for me to relate to people who only get distressed at the thought of their own loved ones going to hell.

Anyway if you want to think I'm in massive denial, go ahead; and if there's no more you have to say to me about this then, fair enough. Thanks for your comments.

Helen/AITB

 

But that is not a change. It is a change to you because your brought your presuppositions to the passage. While I did not study the post made that you refer to, I did see it.</font>[/QUOTE]My only presupposition was that the words meant what I am accustomed to them meaning.

Maybe you don't find it difficult. However I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why 2 Peter 3:9 isn't translated according to what Calvinists say the words in the verse mean. I have always believed translators work very hard to make their translation as accurate as possible, since it's the Word of God. And then you, or another Calvinist says "well, actually, if you look at the Greek...or, if you take into consideration the context..." and then you change the meaning from what the words say to something else.

Anyway, I expect you've said all you have to say to me on that verse. Thanks for your comments.

Helen/AITB

 

You rightly assume that "all" means "all" but did you stop to ask the question "all of what" or "all of whom"? I think that is the missing piece here. Everyone sees "all" and assumes that it means a certain thing. But that is not true. Careful examination must follow to determine "all what" or "all who." That is my point. Your presupposition was that it meant "all who have ever lived." Indeed, "all" (pas normally, tinas here) quite often has a modifier that we cannot overlook, no matter how much our theology tells us to.

It is translated just as the Calvinists say it should be. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. That is exactly what we calvinists say it should read. The question though, as I pointed out above, must be asked: All of whom? The answer I believe is "all that Peter is writing to" which is determined in 1:1. It means that God is bringing all of his elect to repentance and that he is not actively seeking the destruction of any.

I would argue that it is not us who are changing the meaning. Words have meaning in context. Therefore their context must be taken into account. "tinas" and "pas" can mean a number of different things. Only the context can tell us what they mean. And the original languages do play a part because of the nature of language. Often the original languages have a nuance or a connotation that cannot be easily communicated in English. With everyone dying for a literal translation, that problem becomes even greater. So diligent study is the rule of thumb for interpretation.

Almost

 

Almost </font>[/QUOTE]I spoke too soon, didn't I?

 

Ken,

For what it's worth you'd be in my top 5 nominees. Don't listen to Bro. Bill.

He's the kind of man your dog would bite.

 

Hey, I resemble that remark.

Calvinist may bite me but dogs love Mr. Bill

 

Not mine ... Sic Him!... Calvin ... Brother Glen