To Cals/Arms here on BB.. What is hardest Point to refute of each position held?

[preacher4truth]

If this board had a more robust search engine I could find it. I've seen it several times--I've been here about 16 months--and even commented that it was lame way to back out of an argument.

I've searched BB often enough to prove what others have said. One put me on ignore after I proved what he said to which he replied; 'I'm exhausted and getting of this merry go round' as parting words. I still savor that moment to this day.:thumbsup: :love2: :laugh:

You? You're just making excuses. You should be aware that when you make an accusation then you need to back it up. Then there's the context thing as well.

You got gold in dem thar olympics! It's not everyday a person erects a strawman as huge as you have!!! Be proud. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[glfredrick]

So tell me..who disagrees with that?

Who originally posted what I responded to?

Also, Benjamin in another thread right now is saying that there IS some other god that the God of the Bible must conquor and defeat before the God of the Bible (have to clarify these days) can win the victory.

 

[InTheLight]

I've searched BB often enough to prove what others have said. One put me on ignore after I proved what he said to which he replied; 'I'm exhausted and getting of this merry go round' as parting words. I still savor that moment to this day.:thumbsup: :love2: :laugh:

You? You're just making excuses. You should be aware that when you make an accusation then you need to back it up. Then there's the context thing as well.

You got gold in dem thar olympics! It's not everyday a person erects a strawman as huge as you have!!! Be proud. :smilewinkgrin:

Along with the 'it's a mystery' response there is also:

"God can do what ever He wants to do."

"God hasn't revealed that to us."

"God is sovereign, we are nothing. We shouldn't ask such questions."

 

[mandym]

Who originally posted what I responded to?

Also, Benjamin in another thread right now is saying that there IS some other god that the God of the Bible must conquor and defeat before the God of the Bible (have to clarify these days) can win the victory.

This is the merry go round we get with some.

 

[glfredrick]

If this board had a more robust search engine I could find it. I've seen it several times--I've been here about 16 months--and even commented that it was lame way to back out of an argument.

To be honest, both sides in this debate have surrendered to the ultimate mystery of God at one point or another. That is not unfounded biblically. We are told rather plainly that "My ways are not your ways; My ways are higher than your ways..." and also, by Paul, that we see right now through a glass (or mirror) dimly. We certainly do not know all there is to know about God and more so, we certainly cannot hold all things in harmony with finite minds that our God with an infinite mind can hold.

Do you agree or are you merely in this for the fight?

 

[preacher4truth]

Along with the 'it's a mystery' response there is also:

"God can do what ever He wants to do."

"God hasn't revealed that to us."

"God is sovereign, we are nothing. We shouldn't ask such questions."

Are any of those statments true?

Your last statment? Biblically founded.

The others? They are also true. God does what He wants and all His 'wants' are holy.

He also hasn't revealed all things to us, we look through a glass darkly.

You've used the truth of the mysteries of God to accuse others and as a basis for finding fault. Anyone making the above claims are correct in so doing. You're simply supplying a red herring and a strawman to boot.

More gold for you. :thumbsup:

 

[InTheLight]

To be honest, both sides in this debate have surrendered to the ultimate mystery of God at one point or another. We certainly do not know all there is to know about God and more so, we certainly cannot hold all things in harmony with finite minds that our God with an infinite mind can hold.

Do you agree or are you merely in this for the fight?

Sure, I agree with you--there are some things that we cannot know about God.

 

[glfredrick]

Sure, I agree with you--there are some things that we cannot know about God.

Thanks...

Then can you see your way to eliminating this press on God's mystery?

 

[InTheLight]

You've used the truth of the mysteries of God to accuse others and as a basis for finding fault. Anyone making hte above claims are correct in so doing. You're simply supplying a red herring and a strawman to boot.

More gold for you. :thumbsup:

Settle down. Read the OP's question:

What is hardest point to refute of each position held?

The hardest point to refute in an argument is when someone appeals to the unknowable. My answer is not a strawman or a red herring.

 

[InTheLight]

Thanks...

Then can you see your way to eliminating this press on God's mystery?

I see no need to apologize or "see my way" to anything. The hardest argument to refute is when someone appeals to the mystery of God. Original OP question: asked and answered.

 

[12strings]

I think we have completely missed the point of the OP: I believe he was saying, if you are a CAL, what part of Non-cal is hard for you to prove wrong? (correct me if I'm mistaken).

It is sad if each side cannot even come up with something the other side says that is at least somewhat difficult to argue against.

I'll go: I'm a (mostly) Calvinist. I find the most sticking point on the verse where Jesus says to Jerusalem: (I"m paraphrasing from memory here, so go easy...):

"I would (literally "WILLED") that you would come to me, but you willed it not."

That' not to say I don't have a answer for it, but it does make me think...and yes...appeal to the mystery of 2 truths working together (sovereignty & human choice)

 

[preacher4truth]

I think we have completely missed the point of the OP: I believe he was saying, if you are a CAL, what part of Non-cal is hard for you to prove wrong? (correct me if I'm mistaken).

It is sad if each side cannot even come up with something the other side says that is at least somewhat difficult to argue against.

I'll go: I'm a (mostly) Calvinist. I find the most sticking point on the verse where Jesus says to Jerusalem: (I"m paraphrasing from memory here, so go easy...):

"I would (literally "WILLED") that you would come to me, but you willed it not."

That' not to say I don't have a answer for it, but it does make me think...and yes...appeal to the mystery of 2 truths working together (sovereignty & human choice)

I'd say you're mistaken. We've simpy addressed some of the things one side has accused toward the other as their 'example.'

That would be in line with the OP.

Thus, others have 'gone' before you came in with the pseudo rescue attempt.

 

[12strings]

I'd say you're mistaken. We've simpy addressed some of the things one side has accused toward the other as their 'example.'

That would be in line with the OP.

Thus, others have 'gone' before you came in with the pseudo rescue attempt.

Perhaps, that's simply how I read his wording.

ARBO, care to clarify your OP?

Thanks,

 

[jbh28]

Perhaps, that's simply how I read his wording.

ARBO, care to clarify your OP?

Thanks,

ok, so what does ARBO mean? I found ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY BOARDS OF OPTOMETRY but I doubt that's what you meant

 

[Greektim]

I think we have completely missed the point of the OP: I believe he was saying, if you are a CAL, what part of Non-cal is hard for you to prove wrong? (correct me if I'm mistaken).

It is sad if each side cannot even come up with something the other side says that is at least somewhat difficult to argue against.

I'll go: I'm a (mostly) Calvinist. I find the most sticking point on the verse where Jesus says to Jerusalem: (I"m paraphrasing from memory here, so go easy...):

"I would (literally "WILLED") that you would come to me, but you willed it not."

That' not to say I don't have a answer for it, but it does make me think...and yes...appeal to the mystery of 2 truths working together (sovereignty & human choice)

If that is the case (and I think you are right), then I find John 20:31 to be difficult as a Calvinist. It seems to put faith as the cause for regeneration whereas Calvinism would say that regeneration is the cause for faith.

But these have been recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and so that through believing you may have life in his name.

I have answers to this, but I'm not altogether convinced of my own. I have used this against Calvies in times past when I was "acalvinist" (love the alpha privative; closer to semi-pelagian then).

 

[glfredrick]

I've found that in the case of sin and belief, Christ layed out our roles as if we had control of them while at the same time also laying out the fact that we do not in some of the ways we think.

He said that no man comes to Him unless the Father draws them, and he also asked us to believe. That would indicate that the Father is drawing some, and that WHEN He draws, we ought to respond in belief. If anything, proof positive that God is not fatallistically determinitive, yet in sovereign control of all things -- which IS the Calvinistic position.

 

[DaChaser1]

Perhaps, that's simply how I read his wording.

ARBO, care to clarify your OP?

Thanks,

I will clarify my own Op!

Would be what is the arguement/point made by the other side that yo have found hardest to refute, that you admit gives 'some" validity to their view?

 

[InTheLight]

The hardest thing for a non-cal to refute is when the Calvinist has been backed into a corner and their argument is being boxed up and they pull out "it's a mystery, and some day we will know the answer" as the answer to questions they can't defend. It's the ultimate cop out.

That's one HUGE strawman. I've haven't witnnessed one Calvinist on here use that lame excuse that you accuse them of.

Yes, you've now moved into first place in the Non-cal/Arminian Fallacy Olympics surpassing all others in the strawman marathon! Congrats!!! :thumbsup:

In another thread:

It is not foreknowledge...it is God's omniscence that he knows all things, and yet the ham and swiss is God's provision for you....The why it happened this way...is part of the secret things of God.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1818082&postcount=6


Well, that didn't take long...

 

[Forest]

Then why accept 1st Cor 2:14 as proof that the natural man doesn't understand. Why not find the context in which Paul was speaking by reading on into chapter 3. When I first started comming here Calvinist told me the Natural man could not see or hear. Now they tell us the natural man can't understand and calvinist have one verse from which to base this on which is taken out of context.
MB

He who has ears to hear, let him hear. The natural man does not have ears to hear, only God's sheep, John 10:27. All mankind is not God's sheep as indicated at the last day when He seperates the sheep from the goats. Matt 25:32. There are many more. In explaination of 1 Cor 3, We all are born into this world as natural beings, void of the Spirit, without any righteousness. We are not babes in Christ until God has quickened us to a spiritual life. Even though we have been quickened to life, we still carry the baggage of our fleshly nature which causes us to be carnal at times. We do not lose our eternal salvation but we do, at times, lose our fellowship with God by yeilding to the desires of the flesh. These carnal men spoken about in chapter 3 are children of God in Christ but still babes in Christ.

 

[convicted1]

ok, so what does ARBO mean? I found ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY BOARDS OF OPTOMETRY but I doubt that's what you meant

Or A Really Bad Odor?? J/K ARBO...please do not take offense..get it? offense..... oh brother....:laugh: