Valid Scenarios for Calvinism and Arminianism

[BobRyan]

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

Substantive response please.

Originally posted by whatever:

That scenario might be future, but it's not inevitable, nor is it Calvinist.

Oh how "wonderful" for you! That means it "should" be EASY for you to actually SHOW your claim is true. You know - by evaluating the details, the salient points of the argument.

I keep trying to get an objective exchange here.

Why do you think God won't save my daughter?

Already addressed IN THE DETAILS of the post. (please read) it points to the Calvinist argument that NO attribute of the PERSON causes them to be selected. The FEW of MATT 7 are the only ones SELECTED and "Family attributes" of a selected person are NOT taken into consideration, since NO ATTRIBUTES of that person are taken into consideration.

The point was well established using CALVINIST posts.

Why do you think it would be unfair if He didn't?

The scenario does not say "I THINK this is unfair" -- you merely "get that" from reading the scenario and CARING for your daughter.

What it says is that CALVINISTs claim that it is "unfair to save the parent" and that the JOY of that salvation is what should overshaddow and even eliminate concern for the suffering of the child. (The scenario establishes this point with Calvinist posts much to Gene's dissappointment)

Why does it make you feel better for God to give a child to Christian parents, knowing that the child will never believe,

This is not a form of "refuting" the CAlvinist scenario. In fact you seem to now be DEFENDING IT.

Please chose one or the other.

but telling them that it is her own fault? Or better yet, that it is their fault for being such sorry witnesses? After all, God did all He could, right? It had to be someone else's failure that sent the child to Hell.

"Again" after stating that the scenario is wrong - you continue to DEFEND it's salient points. Are you changing your position?

Why wouldn't it have been better for Him to not even create her to begin with?

Why wouldn't that be the first question those parents would ask God?

IF you are a parent and you have that Question - please let me know.

But this "again" is s DEFENSE of the "Parent Saved and Child Lost" POINT and it is also and acceptance of the "IF I CARED TO" scenario.

Are you now changing your mind and embracing Calvinism as shown in this future Calvinist scenario?

How would He answer?

Why do you let your emotions drive what you believe?

#1. Where did I mention MY EMOTIONS in that scenario?

#2. "Again" - are you embracing the scenario and charging me with fault as though I am finding fault with it?

I thought YOU were going to attack it and show that it is NOT what Calvinism would expect in the future?

Please take a side.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS scenario (Job 1 and 2) is THE ULTIMATE Arminian scenario! It shows ARGUMENT and DEBATE with DATA and compelling DATA used to determine who is right. Objective evaluation of GOD - in contest with evil!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gene said --
This sounds good until you understand what is meant by "free will" in the Arminian scheme.

Is this an attempt to "redefine terms for ARminians to believe"??

If so -- the Calvinist practices of "redefining terms whenever it gets stuck" has gone to an extreme.

Gene said -

Let's be clear here, the definition of free will in your camp is simply "freedom to do otherwise."

Wrong - because it is "incomplete".

Arminian free will is defined as freedom to do EITHER good OR evil. Choice, Options and ability to TAKE and MAKE either of them.


It is NOT defined as freedom from ALL influences.

Though you "pretend" that it is in your own "redefinition".

, specifically the freedom to act in a way contrary with your moral character.

AGain - this is incomplete because in Arminianism it is FREEDOM to choose EITHER good or evil REGARDLESS of your sinful/sinLESS nature.

The result is that choosing IN FAVOR of your nature is not simply a choice that you are forced to make BECAUSE of your nature.

A subtly that Calvinism has a lot of difficulty with.

So the objective data is not simply the choice or actions of man, because it must also include the reason for the choices those men make

A circular argument.

The compelling evidence for any argument is always given as "reason" for a specific choice.

Period.

Your "objective data" is, in reality, "an uncaused choice.

Here again is another of Calvinism's frequent ploys "deny the obvious".

Obviously the "data" is in the LIFE of Job as the text points out and any child would get - "even a Calvinist". But because you have embarked on a "deny the point at any cost" form of response - you are denying even the most obvious points of the story in Job.

How "instructive".

Why not "deal with the text" of Job 1 and 2 instead of dancing around it?

My claim is that Calvinism HAS to do that since this is in fact the ultimate Arminian scenario.

Your post is perfect proof!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 1:7, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has set within His own authority."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calvinists teach the actual criterion for election is not fully disclosed by God, but it is purposeful and not arbitrary, in the same way as the setting of this day. Will you seriously argue that the date for the Final Judgment is also '"arbitrary" since it too is a choice that God alone has made on an undisclosed date and for reasons known only to Him?

That is pretty good - but you chose a bad example.

IN The Arminian model COMPELLING EVIDENCE forms the basis for choice. The sin experiment provides "data" into which Angels long to look and our Gospel presentation on earth is made to the principalities and powers "even" of the heavenly ones - not just to men on earth.

This means that a free will universe is being given "data" about rebellion and sin. (As we saw in Job 1 and 2).

So the REASON that sin exists one day beyond Adam's sin has to do with the "data" that is revealed in mankind's choices and the sin experiement.

In Daniel 7 God tells us that the "Judgment is finally passed in FAVOR of the saints" and that WHEN That happens the kingdom is finally turned over to Christ and the saints and the oppression of evil against the saints ends.

Far from the Calvinist notion that "time for sin and suffering just continues for some innnexplicable reason" the Arminian (Bible model) pulls the curtain back and REVEALS REASON for the time elapsed and it SHOWS data collection being used, it SHOWS evaluation and compelling conclusions reached-- a format where NON-GOD beings are involved!

Another "PERFECT ARMINIAN" scenario!!

Too bad this is what you picked to show "arbitrary selection". It only exposes another grevious flaw in Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinists teach the actual criterion for election is not fully disclosed by God,

Totally misleading.

Calvinism INSISTS that NOTHING IS KNOWN (forget not quite FULLY disclosed) about the selection of ONE vs the other such that IF YOU CLAIM to FIND A reason - you MUST be wrong because there MUST BE NOTHING about them that determines the outcome!

This is a key point in Calvinism. You twist it around (for the sake of this argument) AS IF Calvinism is simply saying "We are working on the problem and have not yet connected ALL the dots on just how/why one is selected and another is not".

FAR from that - they argue that you MUST not and CAN NOT ever know of a DIFFERENCE BETWEEN the selected and the neglected. It insists that THERE IS NO difference! It claims to already KNOW that as fact!

Hence - it is stuck in a box of "arbitrary selection" of its own making.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Guys...don't take BR's bait. There is no discussion no objectivity either, but only rambling posts that show how well he can play with his straw men.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no discussion no objectivity either, but only rambling posts

I have to admit that I have read a lot of those factless kind of posts here that don't actually address any details at all in the discussion.

That one at 11:04 am being a perfect example.

In the mean time - there are other posts here that actually include facts.

(Which may be a hard place for some Calvinists to play when it comes to this particular exposure of the flaws in Calvinism).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
... the salient points of the argument.

I keep trying to get an objective exchange here.

I tried to find some salient points, but I guess they are hidden too well in your

"objectivity"

.

 

[BobRyan]

I think you have hit upon something - the Calvinist POV here has to "pretend" not to know what a salient point is, not to know a foundational argument when they see one, not to know how to either affirm or refute the proposed scenario ... etc.

Frankly I would be embarrassed if my own POV forced me to feign such a lack of basic communication skills in order to "circle the wagons" around an exposed point.

It is amazing to me that Calvinists are so happy to do such things. (But that is the way they have always "run" whenever this disconfirming fact is brought against Calvinism in the form of the "Calvinist Future Scenario").

But still I have not seen them cowed "to this point" on any other debate.

I find it "instructive".

My guess is that their deafening silence here has to do with the fact that ALL the Calvinist reference matrial they find only SUPPORTS the scenario presented! (As was SHOWN in that recent post where I EXPOSE the response given as SUPPORTING the scenario!)

And then Calvinists "pretending" not to understand that basic problem -- simply whine about the fact that they "Can not see salient points"????

Amazing!!

 

[BobRyan]

AS noted above - this exchange below was "so classic"!!

Here the salient points of the Calvinist scenario are CONFESSED AND DEFENDED rather than denied.

Only to be followed by a more recent post "Claiming not to know what they are"!!!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
Still waiting for your attention to "details".

Substantive response please.

Originally posted by whatever:

That scenario might be future, but it's not inevitable, nor is it Calvinist.

Oh how "wonderful" for you! That means it "should" be EASY for you to actually SHOW your claim is true. You know - by evaluating the details, the salient points of the argument.

I keep trying to get an objective exchange here.

Why do you think God won't save my daughter?

Already addressed IN THE DETAILS of the post. (please read) it points to the Calvinist argument that NO attribute of the PERSON causes them to be selected. The FEW of MATT 7 are the only ones SELECTED and "Family attributes" of a selected person are NOT taken into consideration, since NO ATTRIBUTES of that person are taken into consideration.

The point was well established using CALVINIST posts.

Why do you think it would be unfair if He didn't?

The scenario does not say "I THINK this is unfair" -- you merely "get that" from reading the scenario and CARING for your daughter.

What it says is that CALVINISTs claim that it is "unfair to save the parent" and that the JOY of that salvation is what should overshaddow and even eliminate concern for the suffering of the child. (The scenario establishes this point with Calvinist posts much to Gene's dissappointment)

Why does it make you feel better for God to give a child to Christian parents, knowing that the child will never believe,

This is not a form of "refuting" the CAlvinist scenario. In fact you seem to now be DEFENDING IT.

Please chose one or the other.

but telling them that it is her own fault? Or better yet, that it is their fault for being such sorry witnesses? After all, God did all He could, right? It had to be someone else's failure that sent the child to Hell.

"Again" after stating that the scenario is wrong - you continue to DEFEND it's salient points. Are you changing your position?

Why wouldn't it have been better for Him to not even create her to begin with?

Why wouldn't that be the first question those parents would ask God?

IF you are a parent and you have that Question - please let me know.

But this "again" is s DEFENSE of the "Parent Saved and Child Lost" POINT and it is also and acceptance of the "IF I CARED TO" scenario.

Are you now changing your mind and embracing Calvinism as shown in this future Calvinist scenario?

How would He answer?

Why do you let your emotions drive what you believe?

#1. Where did I mention MY EMOTIONS in that scenario?

#2. "Again" - are you embracing the scenario and charging me with fault as though I am finding fault with it?

I thought YOU were going to attack it and show that it is NOT what Calvinism would expect in the future?

Please take a side.
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here the salient points of the Calvinist scenario are CONFESSED AND DEFENDED rather than denied.

Only to be followed by a more recent post "Claiming not to know what they are"!!!

But you said I didn't address the salient points, so I figured I must have missed them. Now you're saying I did address them?

(By the way, I didn't confess or defend anything. I just asked a series of questions. I guess that proves that you aren't paying attention.)

 

[BobRyan]

"details" -

As you will notice I commented on each of the salient points that you addressed and SHOWED that after you opened your post saying the Calvinist future scenario was all wrong - you then "back up your claim" by DEFENDING each of the salient points in the Calvinist future scenario.

I realize this is pretty complicated for those who have to pretend not to get the simple illustration - but surely you can follow the point and see the obvious problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

By the way, I didn't confess or defend anything. I just asked a series of questions

I have an idea. Try listing (and responding to) each of my RESPONSEs to your set of questions and "see" if that does not put you beyond the point of your comment above.

 

[BobRyan]

If I am not mistaken - this Calvinist future scanario that "Whatever" has just defended in his/her list of questions -- was attacked as a "straw man" by Brandon on another thread.

(Of course Brandon never owned up to addressing any single detail to the point of either making a statement or asking a question so - so far "Whatever" wins).

 

[whatever]

 

[BobRyan]

Since Pastor Larry has recently asserted that this thread is filled with Calvinists making a careful, Bible based and detailed response to the points listed in both the "Future Calvinist Scenario" AND in terms of the "case against Calvinism" that we find in Job 1 and 2 -- it is left as an exercise for the reader to "See" if that is in fact the case while reading the back and forth of this thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob,

Why did you say something that was not true again? I did not say that this thread was filled with Calvinists doing anything, much less making a "careful, Bible based and detailed response." I said, We have faithfully defended our view from Scripture. You simply don't like the defense, so you call it unscriptural. You can view it here:http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1461/5.html

Anyone can compare and see that you were dishonest about what I said. Bob, I am sick and tired of these tactics from you and others on your side. It is time for it to stop. You should have a burning desire to be honest, and yet it doesn't show in your comments. When you say stuff that is clearly false, you are not showing a commitment to the ideals of Scripture. Why is it that you can't debate us on the basis of what we actually say? Even in this instance, you had absolutely nothing to gain from your dishonesty. You could have simply pointed out that no one has answered your scenario to your satisfaction. You could hvae siad you were not convinced by the answers you were given. Both would have been true. In fact, there are myriad of things you have said that would have been completely honest and straightforward. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, you chose to say one of hte few things you could have said that was dishoneset.

I have begged you and others previuosly to help raise the level of conversation here. Please do so. Do not continue to make false statements and false assertions about what others believe. Learn to disagree agreeably. And above all, commit to honesty and truth.

 

[BobRyan]

Pastor Larry said

Why did you say something that was not true again? I did not say that this thread was filled with Calvinists doing anything, much less making a "careful, Bible based and detailed response."

I said, We have faithfully defended our view from Scripture.

There is a self-conflicted statement for the record books!!

#1. Is it your position that "faithfully defended" is defined as "glossing over and ignoring details"?? (since you affirm the first while not claiming to pay much attention at all to details in this thread) In fact you appear to explicitly deny that you claim a "Bible based and detailed response" has been given here by Calvinists.

#2. Is it your position that "Bible Based" is not in fact what you mean by giving "our view from scripture"?? ?? ??

(If so - I think I agree with you for once).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You are glossing over details when you seek to revise the history of the posts here to something like "no response to Bob's satisfaction".

Obviously I am Arminian and would be in some disagreement with posts trying to prop up Calvinism. That is not the point (though you seem to gloss over it to that effect).

My point is that the "details" of each of the scenarios do not get adressed by the Calvinist responses - that GLOSS OVER them.

That is NOT the same as saying - "The details are all addressed - I just don't like the answers".

It is left as an exercise for the reader to SEE that I have repeatedly appealed TO THE DETAILS, numbered and listed them and still wait for a Calvinist reponse TO THEM. (Note that would be a CALVINIST response not Arminian. I am not arguing that I have to like the Calvinist position to SEE a detail get addressed -- )

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Pastor Larry said

Why did you say something that was not true again? I did not say that this thread was filled with Calvinists doing anything, much less making a "careful, Bible based and detailed response."

I said, We have faithfully defended our view from Scripture.

There is a self-conflicted statement for the record books!!</font>[/QUOTE]Where?

[qb[]#1. Is it your position that "faithfully defended" is defined as "glossing over and ignoring details"?? (since you affirm the first while not claiming to pay much attention at all to details in this thread)

[/qb]No. I have addressed this scenario since you first put it forth, over a year ago I believe, though I don't recall exactly. I have never glossed over or ignored the details. I have sounded refuted it. I haven't paid a lot of attention in this thread. I have seen it all before.

In fact you appear to explicitly deny that you claim a "Bible based and detailed response" has been given here by Calvinists.

I don't deny that a Bible based and detailed respond has been given. But that wasn't the issue. You said that I said that, and that was dishonest. I did not say that. Quote people properly.

#2. Is it your position that "Bible Based" is not in fact what you mean by giving "our view from scripture"?? ?? ??

No, that is not my position.

You are glossing over details when you seek to revise the history of the posts here to something like "no response to Bob's satisfaction".[/qutoe]Has there been a response to your satisfaction that I don't know about? There is no revision at all involved when you say that there has been no response to your satisfaction. There is a revision when you say that responses have not been Bible based or detailed.

Obviously I am Arminian

We usually just say "wrong" ... It is easier to type ... ... Just kidding (A little levity to lighten the load).

My point is that the "details" of each of the scenarios do not get adressed by the Calvinist responses - that GLOSS OVER them.

I have addressed your posts for a very long time. The details have been addressed. They are all wrong. You start with a faulty foundation and it is virtually impossible to end up in a right place.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to SEE that I have repeatedly appealed TO THE DETAILS, numbered and listed them and still wait for a Calvinist reponse TO THEM.

They have been. The fact that we no longer respond to them means that the answers haven't changed.

Your scenario would be a great movie. It is just bad theology. I think you know that, but want to keep fighting. Whatever ... Just don't make stuff up about what I or others say. If you say we said something, then say what we said. Don't change it to fit your own little ends. A lot of these little misquotes are no big deal. But in the context of this discussion where there is so much distorting and twisting and misrepresentation about what Calvinists say, it is unacceptable to let them go.

Lift the conversation by being accurate in your words.

 

[BobRyan]

Claiming to "soundly refute" a position "by actually paying attention to the details" is not accomplished (in real life) by glossing over and ignoring them.

This has been a difficult concept for Calvinists when it comes to this specific topic.

As can be shown here - Calvinists alternately "claim to refute" the scenario in general but then "actually DEFEND" the Calvinist future scenario IN DETAIL whenever they can bring themselves to ever address a single "detail".

This was SHOWN in my quote of Pastor Larry on this topic in the few instances where you actually deai with a detail.

The same is true here of Whatever - when asking questions that are SEEN to DEFEND the scenario yet "in general" claiming to want to refute it.

This conflicted and self-defeating (and incredibly obvious) tactic of the Calvinist response so far has not served them well.

Specific "details" to follow.

In Christ,

Bob