Valid Scenarios for Calvinism and Arminianism

Case in point - the "two Pastor Larry's"

Here is Pastor Larry making the "general claim" that the scenario is wrong while pointing to NO SPECIFIC detail that is ACTUALLY wrong!

Here is a review of Pastor Larry DEALING with some DETAILS and claiming they are CORRECT!!

And here we see confirmed the "all deserve hell but is it not great that some are selected to be elect point of Calvinism – as it turns from the sorrowful case of the lost and just sees how they “deserve what they get”.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069

</font>[/QUOTE]Clearly when it is DETAILS that he addresses - it is only to CONFIRM the scenario. But in general you like to say "it is all wrong".

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is an example where Whatever posts questions that are designed in "defense" of the Calvinist scenario (when one looks at their point and pays attention to it) -- In this case I repsond to that post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1442/3.html#000040


Here the salient points are "numbered" for ease of identification by our Calvinist responders.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1442/3.html#000038


Here we see Pastor Larry "quoted" and how those posts line up with SUPPORT for the numbered salient points of the scenario....

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1442/3.html#000033


Then "innexplicably" Pastor Larry comes out with something like this...(as if he has not read his own posts)

How much more "obvious" can this be???

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here is an example where Whatever posts questions that are designed in "defense" of the Calvinist scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/quote]

Fine - then it should be oh so easy to SHOW this by actually SHOWING how your question is not the very position for Calvinism. SHOW this by addressing your own questions to point out what answer you would expect - and how that makes the questions silly as well as the scenario they reference.

You know "details".

(Note: this has already been challenged without any response)

In the mean time -- your questions actually SUPPORT the scenario as they read.

Did you mean to change them in some way?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since it is doubtful that "details" will get addressed from Calvinist posts dedicated to glossing over and ignoring them ---

I will take a stab at it based on Whatever's now infamous Question Post supporting the Calvinist scenario's "details"...

(See http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1442/3.html#000036)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Still waiting for your attention to "details".

Substantive response please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Already listed in the scenario - it shows the Calvinists provide NO basis for salvation-via-family-connections.

"Obviously".

This is a question is DEFENSE of the Calvinist scenario "obviously".

How odd that it is then called "Silly"

Here again we see a DEFENSE of the Calinist scenario's DETAIL by CHALLENGING the Arminian model to come up with anything OTHER than this as a better scenario.

"Obviously" a question defending the Calvinist point that is contained in the Calvinist scenario.

(This is just TOOO obvious not to get people).

Here Whatever seems to argue that the future is going to be ugly EVEN by Arminian standards and so we should not be "upset" when we see how ugly it is in the Calvinist future scenario as if our emotions or feelings disgust should be allowed to influence our evaluation of that oh so pristine Calvinist future scenario -

Whetever seems to "hope" that the Arminian alternative would fair no better.

This kind of response is perfectly in line with a defense of the Calvinist future scenario and can not be construed as an attack on it BUT rather an attack on a supposed Arminian alternative!!

"OBviously"!!

When the details are NOT glossed over they SHOW Whatever is defending the points listed in the Calvinist scenario to BUILD the scenario RATHER than arguing that they are "silly".

Obviously.


Hence the deafening silence after this was first posted and I pointed out that the questions are framed as a defense of the Calvinist principles EVEN though the opening statement claims it to be in error.

(Self-conflicted posting seems to be the domain of Calvinist responses to this scenario).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hmm - "no actual attention to any detail" -- how "surprising".

Hence the assumption at the start of my previous post.

(Calvinists are so predictable).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Calvinist scenario - updated with "proofs" from JohnP

First the proofs --

Here is a quote showing the fact that from the human POV there is no difference between the lost and the elect. (i.e. arbitrary selection) accepted by Calvinists today.

Notice that it also affirms the “expected future condition” of parents in heaven although their child is “lost”. (Parent selected, Child not selected)

And here we see confirmed the "all deserve hell but is it not great that some are selected to be elect point of Calvinism – as it turns from the sorrowful case of the lost and just sees how they “deserve what they get”.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069

Calvinist overjoyed at this inexplicable selection” of one and not the other idea..

Here we see the joy of God sending some to hell and others to save and BOTH groups perfectly performing His will – a monstrous idea that would get you “locked up” if you treated a family member this way (according to the Calvinist quote below)

I press the point of “Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion” with John after seeing the post above – and he responds.

Pastor Larry then zeroes in on the point that we should look at the saved and the grace shown them and not concern ourselves with care/love/feelings for the lost as if some bad thing has been arbitrarily done – just focus on the “good” in a case where you have the luxury of ignoring the lost suffering in hell.

Calvinist scenario “confirmed”.

 

Now "the scenario"

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

&lt;You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?&gt;

God who (arbitrarily from the POV of human eyes) selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
</font>[/QUOTE]Calvinist future scenario complete!

 

Here we see a Calvinist arguing the Calvinist Gospel of "God so hated hated hated" -- when it comes to the precious little girl suffering in the flames.


http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1466/10.html#000148

How interesting that Calvinists are CONFIRMING the point made by the CFS scenario that Calivnism NEEDS a cold heartless disconcern for the lost!!

Why then do the rail against this perfect Calvinist scenario that POINTS THAT OUT??!!

It must be their "inner arminian" speaking!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The CFS simply points out the "need" of Calvinism to have the cold heartless disconcern for the lost - the precious little girl writhing in the torment of the flames.

Your post saying that "God can do whatever He wants" merely CONFIRMS the validity of the CFS where it points out that "what God chooses to do -- IN CALVINISM is exactly that"!!

Why then are calvinists ranting and railing against that perfect scenario for Calvinism where cold heartless disconcern IS THE POINT!!???

Their "inner arminian" acting up??

IN Christ,

Bob

 

I will settle for a direct answer from at least one Calvinist. The CFS simply points out the Calvinist "NEED" to have a cold heartless disconcern for the lost.

Do you finally admit this obvious point?

IF so - then WHY all the ranting, whining and diatribing against the CFS??? Why not affirm it and then point to something in "judges" to try to SHOW WHY it is so utterly and purely TRUE??!!!

Why all the dancing, shell gaming, name calling, diatribing, railing and squirmming???

(OR are you still so married to that - that a direct response here will be "dodged" as well??)

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are "at least one" that what??

(IT is often very hard to get calvinists to come out of the closet on "detail" points as in the above)

And once you state your position on the CFS explicitly - then please address the question in my previous post.

Thanks!

Bob