Hi Benjamin, I believe your point is valid,
Doesn't matter. Was this the tread to discuss his point? NO!
if Calvinism is not hidden in arcane and obscure terminology, it would be rejected. Calvinism makes God into a monster. According to Calvinism, God punishes the lost for choosing to sin, even though they are unable to choose anything else.
To defend this, they say non-Calvinists call God a monster. Which of course is simply another fiction, another effort to shift discussion away from Calvinism.
"arcane and obscure terminology" was used when?
Calvinism didn't make God into a monster. It is those who don't particularly like the Calvinistic thinking that would picture God in that light - typical Calvinists have held God as completely sovereign.
They want to talk about your behavior, you use too large a font, rather than Calvinism, again shifting the discussion away from Calvinism. They run the same plays over and over without any discernible respect for the truth.
I would like for you to point to a thread where the statement you made is proven. If anything, the Calvinistic discussions have never been avoided on this board, and the Scriptures are daily searched for the truth.
Respect for the truth? Was Benjamin's size 7 attitude demonstrating respect for the truth? He finally claims that the post was made in an attempt to humor, but the immediate following posts of his display what is seemingly anger and hurt when the post is rejected. A true humorists looks for the results of humor from the audience. When they find none, they have failed as a humorist.
And finally they run away from their own doctrines. Calvinism proclaims whatsoever comes to pass was ordained by God. Now the weasel word is ordained. What it means is predestined, which means Calvinism proclaims exhaustive determinism.
"Run away" ???
"weasel word" ???
I wonder to what you are referring.
The proof that there is no "run away" or use of "weasel word(s)" is in the abundance of threads and posts on the topic that daily occur on the BB.
Those who don't want a God who plans, builds, forms, the believer to be considered predestined to His own purposes may of their own devices believe whatever they desire.
Those who do not want a God that is totally and purposely engaged in their life may proclaim their own self exhaustive deterministic beliefs of free will, free choice, and freedom to accept or reject.
This is done daily in multiple threads on the bb.
What the Bible actually teaches is God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass but is not the author of sin, which is to say He allows sin to occur but does not cause or predetermine that we will sin.
You can do better than claim Calvinistic thinking allows for God to be the "author of sin."
God is a
creator. That is one of his characteristics. As such God made (created) everything. However, He did not "author" everything. God made Satan, but did not "author" the iniquity found in him. God made Adam, but did not author the rejection Adam chose.
This line of argument is not only silly, but demeans the very character of God.
Bottom line, with a clear discussion of the Bible, it would be easy to fix Calvinism and Arminianism and come up with a Biblical doctrine. But no one one this forum is willing to actually engage in such a discussion. All of them would rather stick to their doctrines of men and nullify the Bible, or so it appears to me.
And you have encouraged that discussion?
You encouraged Benjamin to start a specific thread that his statement could be engaged in solid debate apart from the intent of this thread?
Have you not read the endless daily discussions and ongoing Scripture handling in the threads in which Arminian and Calvinian thinking has drawn swords?
I responded in like manner to Benjamin to show the rudeness of his post. When it was obvious he did not comprehend the effort, I backed off and made attempts to persuade him differently.
There was no "sticking to their doctrines" and no "nullifying the Bible."
Should Benjamin start a thread on the topic of his choosing, I trust that I would become aware of it, and respond appropriately. However, his inappropriate response is being defended by you. Why?
You want, "a clear discussion of the Bible." Stating that, "it would be easy to fix Calvinism and Arminianism and come up with a Biblical doctrine" yet within the very post offer nothing demonstrating any "easy fix."
Start a thread that works for the unity of the believers. We have no problem with sharing God's word.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your post and this response isn't reasonable. In that case, you were using humor which was lost on my inability to discern its use. That was Benjamin's excuse.
