How can anyone even begin to lay out some systematic scriptures when the non-cal group resides in the land of denial?
Why even on this thread there have been posts that proclaim the cal group as no better than heretical jw or mormons.
Such is totally unwarranted and beneath Christian character.
Historically on the BB as well as other boards, it is actually an exercise in futility for the cal view to attempt to bring any truthful light. Over and over it is met by the same vitriol as found throughout this thread by the non-cals who are even in denial of their own stink.
There are a few non-cals who for the most part maintain a level headed discussion using Scriptures and exegesis, and some who have engaged with spirited dialogue over various questions.
But, Ben - To be brutally honest - your one sided view that this is all a cal problem is also a denial of reality.
Look at the level of vitriol on THIS thread - where is it coming from.
From the non- cals.
Those cals who have posted, have generally been tongue in check (like mine) or pointed out the fallacy if your basic OP (12 strings) or even chimed in with good hearted banter.
But you and other non- cal folks remain in the heartland of denial. Keep on spewing unfounded and unwarranted demeaning dialogue.
Let your choir sing praises to your skill.
But the truth of my post lays at the very Thread this post resides.
You want to talk about Denial? You are one (case in point) that constantly attempts to smokescreen the issues through proof-texting wars and also attempt to defend these fallacious debate tactics and using this agenda in debate.
Originally Posted by agedman
You have spent long posts proclaiming denigration toward those who hold some "determinist" view.
Perhaps you didn't know that ALL biblical views hold that without the direct and purposed work of God, a person cannot be saved. Doing so is having agreement (if only in part) to the heathen being depraved and incapacitated. There are those of us who find the Scriptures teach this incapacity and depravity is total.
Perhaps you didn't know that "limited atonement" is held by ALL (even extreme Arminians) views in some measure. ONLY those who do not hold to literal hell and eternal second death completely reject "limited atonement."
Perhaps you didn't know that BOTH Non-cal and the Cals consider that God saves people without regard to any specialty that person has or is deprived. Such is unconditional election.
Perhaps you didn't know that BOTH the non-cal and the Cals (IF they are Baptist) hold to the Perseverance/ preservation (once saved always saved) of the saints.
If there is any argument over TULIP it resides primarily in one area.
That is the area of irresistible grace.
Now I have GREATLY simplified the basic arguments of both sides to show how they agree, yet some would disagree with others because some area is not held to the degree they may or may not hold.
I trust that when you again post, you will organize your thoughts, gather supporting Scripture, and actually show something that is worthy of your intellect.
Given your track record................. I really do encourage you to at least make an attempt.
Originally posted by Benjamin:
Perhaps you don’t comprehend that I have no intention of lower my standards of debate and to begin an agenda with you of meaningless circular scriptural food-fights and argument while chasing the entire Determinist TULIP system down within this thread – I obviously can’t help you get the reasoning for this into your skull, but know this, your tantrums and whining have not changed my opinion of your misguided principles and unethical goals in debate (argument), nor will they.
All 5 points of the TULIP vitally hinge on strict Deterministic views in order to logically support them. Free will/volition and Determinism are logically mutually exclusive. If you believe there is no argument between the non-Cal view over the Determinist’ principles which support the TULIP other than over Irresistible grace you are in denial, delusional or have one heck of a lot to learn about my opposition to your position friend.
It is of no surprise to me that my typical opposition will get up in arms because they don’t want to be pinned down on a logical definition of the principles behind Calvinism/Determinism because of the logical conclusions of “Determinism” defeats the Calvinist’ view and brings it into theological fatalism. I hear you telling you’d rather just continue in never-ending poorly interpreted circular scriptural food-fights while making the typical claim that the Bible supports your Determinist views. So what, you wish to continue without using philosophically reasoned logical debate principles to back your claims up. Some, as demonstrated in this thread will simply “appeal to authorities” that their interpretations are correct. I see these methods of argument as virtually meaningless and unproductive towards the goals which I have learned to be ethical in a “philosophical debate” and see a huge difference between the two kinds of arguing.
Once again, by avoiding things such as definitions and logical conclusions you seem to think you’re onto some kind of great debate methods of never-ending proof-texting which you believe help you from ever losing an argument. Well, I emphasize with your desperation to not be pinned down on the definition of Determinism which would bring fatalistic conclusions to your treasured TULIPs and would rip out the roots from under them. But, like it or not, the philosophical methods designed to draw out a true or false conclusions pertaining to the claims and issues made have long exist and the basics of giving ethical reasons to believe a claim is true begins by defining premises, not by raising so many premises that you cloud (smokescreen) the claims beyond any comprehensible conclusions – you may consider that type of argument ethical and meaningful debate, but in good conscience and for ethical reasons I try to avoid getting into such arguments as they are unproductive on many fronts.
I’m sorry you’re so upset that I won’t bother to engage in argument as per your agenda to continually proof-text and jump topics, and that you feel I am trying to be superior somehow for wanting to maintain a standard of philosophical debate principles which I understand to draw out the truth in a debate.
That said, I will ask you to drop the focus on the personal issues you have against me and style of debate, I merely look at personal attacks as more fallacy (Ad Hominem) and if you knew my intensions better you’d find that although I’m admittedly aggressive in attacking the opposing view, and that may irritate you because it is your view, I do my best to keep out of the truly personal attacks and to stay focused on the topic at hand to try to maintain the aforementioned ethics of debate that I have come to learn to respect. It’s probably better if you don’t engage me if you can’t refrain from taking my attacks on your views as personal, because I am an aggressive debater and will continue to define premises, hold the opponent to their claims and insist on sticking to the topic in order to try to come to logical conclusions if one wants to debate my perspectives on a subject.
, but how do you suppose the Calvinists argue logically while not valuing the ability to reason from the their own mind??? They argue from having the perspective from God’s logic maybe? Have like some sort of special insight to understanding the interpretations of scripture through being gifted to know the Determinist’ Doctrinal system as truth??? 
