Proof Calvinism is the only true doctrine

How about the fact that in the 1490's, when the Spanish arrived they claimed no knowledge of the gospel?
What about the fact that the Huaorani people (Auca) had not heard the gospen in the 1950's when missionaries first attempted to reach them?

I mean, please. A little reality check here.
The argument that EVERY PERSON without exeption knows about Jesus from the instant of his death is an epic fail.

These men didn't get the word until Paul arrived:

[Acts 19:1-5] 1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they [said] to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

I am proud of what God has done.

 

Wrong, Mormons teach another and false Gospel and false Christ, while we teach the Gospel of the true and biblical Jesus!

 

How is it that the majority of [Calvinists] have been wrong about Calvinism and that you somehow got it right?
Reformers,puritans,Spurgeon,...all wrong, but you and 3 or 4 others have seen what they missed? What is your secret?

 

God is sovereign. God must not have wanted these people to hear the gospel. They were created for destruction which would bring God glory. (Or so the Calvinist claims.)

Why do Calvinist churches have "Missions Week"? We do they need to have special fundraisers to fund missions? God is sovereign. Doesn't God want these people to hear the gospel? Mark 16:15 is in the Bible. Why doesn't God cause Calvinists to fund missions to the extent that He would like them funded?

Well, it's an epic #4, strawman argument.

 

I do not understand your response..
Mt7. are commands not a multi[ple choice.
More what?

 

I'd say post 61 negates the strawman claim, no?

 

" That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." ( 1 Corinthians 1:31 )

" But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." ( 2 Corinthians 10:17 )

"Glory" = "boast" in these passages.



" to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." ( Ephesians 1:6 )

No one who is truly saved has anything to boast in, except His mercy and grace ( Titus 3:5-6 ).
Pride gets tossed out the window, MB.

For someone to say that they are proud of the Lord, is not a sin...
It's quite the opposite.

 

No. MB said that atpollard does not know for sure if a group of people have heard the gospel.

atpollard responded with, "The argument that EVERY PERSON without exeption knows about Jesus..." which was most definitely NOT what MB said. MB did not say that every person without exception knows about Jesus. That is the strawman.

Or are you referring to another strawman that atpollard used in this thread?

 

ITL,

It seems to me as if you're very quick at pulling out the "strawman" card.
I may be wrong ( and I hope that I am ), but that is what I have observed for many months now in my interactions with your posts.

I encourage you to study the rules of debate, and carefully examine the use of the "strawman" in order to win.
I think you might find some differences between what is actually going on here, and what is described there.


In addition, I'd like to point out, once again, that I don't believe in the "rules of debate".
I don't respect them and I have absolutely no use for them.
Rather, I use sections like these as a free forum to present the Scriptures, what I believe they say, and to then let the reader decide.

The main problem that I see with debates, is that each side is seeking not only to win the approval of the audience, but to gain esteem from them.
This leads to "accolades", "people putting the winner up on their shoulders in triumph", and all sorts of useless garbage that have no place among Christians that are discussing doctrine or Scripture in general.

So...

Strawman argumentation is pointless when it comes to believers.
Why?
Because we are not of this world, neither should we act like it.

What's more, I think you are seeing it used, when in many cases, it simply isn't.
Again, asking rhetorical questions to make a point is far different than carefully and deceitfully building a straw man in order to garner attention, "likes", "agrees" and "winners".

I could list people ( even past members of this forum ) that I think have done this, their posts and their websites....
But it would ultimately serve no purpose other than to make people think that I had an axe to grind.



At the end of the day, if you wish to accuse @atpollard of using straw man tactics in order to "win", that is your prerogative.
But I don't see it, and I seriously doubt that it is his intention to use such things.

...and that's not the "Calvinist" in me trying to support him, either.

May God bless you, sir.

 

That's because strawman arguments are used so often here, and especially by Calvinists. That is why I have a numbered system as a shorthand way of posting. Unlike you, I don't see the need to blather on and on and on about something that is obvious.

No, no. I understand what a strawman argument is. For example, when atpollard said,

The argument that EVERY PERSON without exeption knows about Jesus from the instant of his death is an epic fail.

...is most definitely a strawman argument.

1. No one stated that as a point of debate.
2. atpollard is rebutting an point of debate that is non-existent in order to bolster his side of the argument.

That is EXACTLY the definition of a strawman argument.

<snip blather>

 

To me, it's most definitely his firmly-held opinion.

Here is "straw man":



"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:

• Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
• Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
• Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
• Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version."

Source: Straw man - Wikipedia



However, if you still disagree, then we will have to disagree.

"Straw man" is the deliberate mis-representation of a person or position in order to win an argument.

Again, I don't think @atpollard is intentionally trying to "win a debate."
To me, he's expressing his opinion...even if he may or may not be speaking from exasperation or another emotion.

With that stated,
I'll speak no further on this, since it does not properly address the thread.

 

Your mind seems to have wandered off topic. We were discussing:

[John 12:32 NASB] 32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Is knowing that there is a Creator REALLY the same as being drawn to Jesus Christ?

 

We just do it to rattle the chains of Arminians. God does and when we preach, somehow God just DRAWS all those that He predestined and called and justified and glorified back when he foreknew them.

Nope, I have it on irrefutable Arminian opinion that “ALL means ALL” and Jesus said "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32] ... so that argument CANNOT be a strawman.

(Are you attempting to argue that ALL does not mean “all men without exception”?)