This is the last I will comment on this subject as I believe you get the gist for my posting on it.
Just please be more ..umm.. careful and loving in your posts as you get frustrated. No accusations just an encouragement for you brother
Perhaps I have become careless. I would say I have become frustrated. I get aggrevated with Calvinists, they get aggrevated with me. They come back with harsh comments to me often, you haven't seen me complain, I can take it.
We all understand this, me just as much and am just as guilty at times. But that does not excuse you or me for such actions/statements against our brethren. And it is due to this, IMHO, that you aught to appologize.
It is utter nonsense to say the Calvinists are not heavily influenced by men.
It is utter non-sense to assume that you are not influenced by men either.
To be 'influenced' is not the same as being a 'follower of' nor part of a cult.
They tend to answer objections with copy and paste's from Calvinist commentaries rather than scripture. Do you deny this?
There is nothing wrong with this as many of us non-cals and arminians quote from Calvinist commentaries about as much as they do from non-cal commentaries. To quote from a commentary is, for the most part on a debate board, to give a better articulation to an argument that we could not say any better. It is true that we should come to a place of understanding in which we can articulate our views well enough for another to grasp our meaning, however to quote from well studied and highly educated men does not mean one has not studied for themselves.
I do know many men who agree with me. Everyone at my church agrees with me on the vast majority of scripture, no two people are in 100% agreement on every point. That is why I go to the church I go to, because they teach what I consider sound doctrine.
And this you ought to do.
The day my preacher gets up and says "whosoever" does not really mean "whosoever" is the day you see me get up and walk out never to return.
Let me enlighten you on what John Calvin held regarding 'whosoever'.. This is an excert from his commentary on John 3:16 specifcially regarding 'whosoever' and 'world':
That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
So when a Calvinist or Reformed person states the 'whosoever' of John 3:16 does not include all men or that world in John 3:16 is not refering to all men.. they indeed are not following Calvin's own views regarding the subject.
I do not think myself infallable, I know for a fact I am not. But this is not minor disagreement here. Calvinism is absolutely and utterly contradictory to how I understand scripture.
And THIS is key to understanding debate. We must deal with the tex of course, but also 'their understanding' of why they see it the way they do.
When many scriptures say Jesus died for all mankind, I believe it. But they do not believe this and have said so many times. So, these are not minor disagreements.
Actaully it is a minor disagreement because the major disagreements revolve around things like the divinity of Christ, how salvation is obtained (by grace through faith), etc..
The scope of the atonement is a secondary issue (don't get me wrong as it is still important) but the fact remains both groups agree with what atonement does for the person to whom it is applied and that it is only applied to those of faith whom God foreknew before the world began. So the scope of the atonement, while important, isn't a main issue per-say.
The Calvinists say an unsaved man does not have the ability to obey God. I have showed where God told Cain himself he could present an acceptable sacrifice and God would accept it. No Calvinist came back and told me I was wrong, they just choose to ignore this easily understood scripture. I have presented hundreds of scriptures that clearly contradict Calvinism, they ignore it all. They do not challange how I understand these verses or even attempt to show me how I am in error. Why not? If their doctrine is so sound, the scriptures should easily support it, and that should be easy to show.
From reading many of your posts it isn't so much that they 'can't' come back with something but that your attitude and words turn them away from continuing a discussion. So it isn't your arguments that keep them from continuing but you. I know this because many of them who are discussing these with you, I as well as many others have held these same discussions and have gotten much better responces and discussions with them. I do agree the Cain argument is a good one but you MUST understand not just what they say but WHY they are saying it. You just plopping scripture out there isn't enough to change anyone's mind, view, or opinion. You must deal with 'why' they understand it as they do AND THEN bring your rebuttal into the mix dealing not just with the text but their understanding as well.
No, they just copy and paste from some Calvinistic commentary. Of course, being Calvinists, they agree in every point. That has no bearing on truth. The scriptures are our authority, if doctrine doesn't line up with scripture it should be rejected.
You do realize there are about as many Calvinistic types as there are baptists, right?
There are some Cals on here that believe regeneration comes AFTER faith, and though this is a minority view it is a prominant one. Just like most Cals believe regeneration and faith are virtually simultanious there are 'some' who believe it can take seconds or years before a person who is regenerate comes to faith. Please be careful that you don't do what you accuse them of doing when you lump them into boxes that do not accurately depict what they truly believe verses what you presume they might believe.
