Well, the other thread was closed. I am hoping that the board acted accordingly for the slander that you tossed my way.
Slander: The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
What false statement did I make about you that damaged your reputation? Please be specific.
And then explain how your act of taking a bunch of quotes out of their context and labeling all their authors as heretical is not slanderous? I'll await your answer.
By the way, the other post you reported where I pretended to quote unnamed Calvinists was done in jest in order to illustrate the point that anyone can pull quotes out of context and label it as heretical. I didn't call you, or anyone else heretical. You are the only one who has done that. Those "Calvinistic" quotes were made up based on what I remember that some Calvinists have said and I KNOW you and most Calvinists don't believe those heretical things. THAT WAS THE POINT. Anyone can take any sentence out of context to make it sound heretical.
So, again, can I ask you who here is doing the slander?
YOU are by insisting that the authors of those quotes support the heresy of Pelagianism, when in fact they all have said they don't.
And who is providing a defense for those being slandered?
I am by simply asking you to link to their quotes in their context and seek more clarity. And showing you extreme examples of what it feels like to have quotes taken from their context and called heretical.
Oh, and the threads were closed because any thread over a certain length that starts getting reports is typically shut down.
The other posts I cited were EXACT COPIES of what people wrote. AT least Winman had the guts to stand behind what he wrote. He is wrong, but he owns it unlike others around here who only jump in to bark at those with whom they disagree.
He may be wrong but he is not heretical as you originally claimed and that is the issue I was taking with you...
In any case, I never do run from a debate
No, but you report posts that call you out for calling others heretics instead of actually providing support for your claims. Which is worse?
you have once again demonstrated that you will resort to gutter tactics
I think its a gutter tactic to quote people out of context and infer they are heretics.
My request for you to try and understand them better and link to their actual quote within their context is clearly an effort to bring it OUT OF THE GUTTER that you created.
First, my point is that we dare not number the elect, which is precisely what you are trying to do with a proof-text.
"Few" is not a number. If it were then Christ was guilty of numbering them because he uses the same term.
There will likely be many more lost than saved. God says so.
Now who is numbering the elect?
Isn't that all the the term "few" implies? That there will be much less saved than those lost? Isn't that the point of the broad and narrow roads illustration?
The point of our disagreement has more to do with why there are a few. You believe its due to God's limitation of that number, and I believe its due to mans rebellion in the face of God sincere appeal and desire for all to come to faith and repentance. That is the issue we should be debating, not the word "FEW," which Jesus himself employes.
I picked up on a fallacy that you were presenting, i.e., that we number the elect.
No. I know Calvinists don't 'number' the elect, but they believe God numbers the elect....that is all that was meant. God preselects a relative FEW people (relative to the number not selected) and effectually saves them. That is ALL I MEANT and that is an accurate description of Calvinism.
You are asking for a proof text? I can ask the same thing... Where does it say that God grants man libertarian free will to choose or reject God?
"Choose you this day who you will serve."
And there are thousands of other verses which at least imply human choice as even compatibilistic calvinists affirm. Now, whether these support the compatibilistic or libertarian model is up for debate, but there is no question the bible presents the concept of free will.
What I'm asking you is the present the verses which support the concept of God predestining individuals to believe.
I thought you above playing the game of the ignorant, but perhaps not... True theologians can discuss this sort of stuff without resorting to this form of cheap shot and indirect slander, both against my position and against men of God moved by the Holy Spirit, who did indeed minister well to His Bride, the church.
This from the guy who said, "What are you going to do next, start baptizing babies?" Sounds like you can dish it out but not take it when it comes back at you.
The point is that we both affirm and reject certain aspects of Catholic orthodoxy, so appealing to that as an argument is really inconsequential because the Catholic church has no authority over what is true and what is not. You all get made at me for pointing out debate fallacies but this one is call "guilt by association." You tried to tie my beliefs with Catholicism so as to discredit it instead of dealing directly with the merits of my claims. Instead of explaining all that I just pointed out others who baptized babies from the Calvinistic perspective with the hopes you would understand your obvious error.
You TELL US THAT at every turn, and yet you still invent things about Calvinism that convinces me and others that you really are either misinformed, ignorant, or worse, intentionally deceptive in your analysis.
And you started this post accusing ME of Slander? Really?
Which form of Calvinism have I misrepresented exactly?
As I've quoted before,
Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.
Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).
Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!
And, trust me, after all our debates, I AM trying to understand you. So far I get "jello -- wall". You claim Arminianism, but you are considerably fluid in that claim, at once dancing in and out of the doctrine when the occasion suits you -- sometimes dangerously close to semi-Pelagianism and at other times quite rationally Arminian. Love to nail you down some, but I'm not holding my breath.
We all want to be understood Fredrick. Calvinism feels like jello to people new to this discussion too you know. It is a complicated discussion but we must be willing to meet each other half way and discuss things with an open mind if we are going to move past the personal attacks and debate fallacies.
