Like I said you don't know that they didn't hear the gospel. Just like what you believe you are just guessing and missing the truth. They both believe they are the only true church.
MB.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Proof Calvinism is the only true doctrine
- Thread starter MB
- Start date
- Status
MB.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
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.
Don't you know that all men know there is a creator. Nature it self just screams out there is a creator. These same Indians Knew it was wrong to steel, kill, and commit adultery. and many had these things in there Laws The Cherokee Believed in a creator. When they heard men tell them about God they agreed because they knew there was a great Creator. Many had great respect for the gospel because it was being told to them.
Paul wrote:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
You seem to have knowledge of the Bible but apparently not as much as I thought. Paul is a favorite of Calvinism. Calvinist quote him more than anyone in scripture.
You can believe the history man has written or you can believe what God's word says. Those same great men of higher learning are full of bull.
MB
I agree they are false so is Calvinism.
MB
Don't you know that Pride is a sin?
MB
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.
There more than you think Calvinism did not exist when men understood there choices in life.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat_7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
I can give more if you wish. What makes you think the majority is always right?
MB
Another Calvinist claiming that Mathew is about commands not choice. Show me where there are commands in Mat 7:13-14 You did not answer the post question.
MB
I'd say post 61 negates the strawman claim, no?
Dave G
Well-Known Member
" 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.
Last edited:
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?
Dave G
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
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>
Dave G
Well-Known Member
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:
- Person 1 asserts proposition X.
- Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
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."
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.
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
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”?)
- Status