Valid Scenarios for Calvinism and Arminianism

[BobRyan]

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!

Pastor Larry said --
Your scenario would be a great movie. It is just bad theology

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

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)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1212/19.html#000271
Pastor Larry said :
No one has ever suggested cherry picking of favored souls. One of the reasons why unconditional election is so vital is that God is not a player of favorites, or a respecter of persons. His election is based on things wholly outside of the person. Your view makes God a respecter of those who chose him, or those "lucky" enough to be born in an area or time where the gospel is prevalent. God does not work that way. That is one reason, among others, that your concept is simply invalid and unbiblical. It makes God a respecter of persons in direct violation of his word.

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

Pastor Larry Said --
In Scripture, all mankind (is) willingly and freely sinning against God, and is deserving of hell. For God to let them go there is not uncaring; He simply lets them do what they want to do of their own free will. For some, because of reasons in Himself, God chooses to show his mercy and save them.

</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

 

[BobRyan]

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)

Pastor Larry --
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.

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

In Christ,

Bob

 

[whatever]

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

I guess I should have been more obvious. The questions were designed to show how silly that scenario is, which is why I led off by saying that the scenario is neither inevitable nor Calvinist. I'll try to be more obvious next time.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Whatever

The questions were designed to show how silly that scenario is,
...
I'll try to be more obvious next time.

[/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

 

[BobRyan]

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever said


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

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

"Obviously".

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

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

How odd that it is then called "Silly"

Whatever --

Why does it make you feel better for God to give a child to Christian parents, knowing that the child will never believe, but telling them that it is her own fault?

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).

How would He answer?

Why do you let your emotions drive what you believe?

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

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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.

If at any time in the past month or so I had seen any indication that you were interested in an honest debate of any subject then I would be glad to reply. But when I make a clear statement that your scenario is not Calvinist, and you take that post to be a defense of the scenario as Calvinist, then I have to believe that you are being intentionally dishonest. That's why this debate is over.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[BobRyan]

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)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1212/19.html#000271
Pastor Larry said :
No one has ever suggested cherry picking of favored souls. One of the reasons why unconditional election is so vital is that God is not a player of favorites, or a respecter of persons. His election is based on things wholly outside of the person. Your view makes God a respecter of those who chose him, or those "lucky" enough to be born in an area or time where the gospel is prevalent. God does not work that way. That is one reason, among others, that your concept is simply invalid and unbiblical. It makes God a respecter of persons in direct violation of his word.

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

Pastor Larry Said --
In Scripture, all mankind (is) willingly and freely sinning against God, and is deserving of hell. For God to let them go there is not uncaring; He simply lets them do what they want to do of their own free will. For some, because of reasons in Himself, God chooses to show his mercy and save them.

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

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000806
posted June 18, 2003 04:29 PM
Tyndale1946 (Glenn)
I love the doctrine of Election because it tells me of a Sovereign God who was in control of the Eternal Salvation of his children before Man ever graced this earth... The doctrine of Election is beautiful because it tells us God know and will save ALL his children he purposed to save and none else... Some will say that the doctrine of election is unjust... Is it?... Would not the Sovereign God Of All Glory been justified if seeing the end from the beginning and those thing not yet done... Said I will do all my pleasure!... The Son of God saying... Father they have sinned against you and are not worth it let them all die in their sins... There is no redemption for their like... Did we not ALL deserve a sinners HELL?... GOD FORBID!

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)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1463/3.html#000041

John said –

He punishes us for simply carrying out His plans and wishes until He saves us, then we are forgiven. The others He punishes for simply carrying out His plans and wishes. Pharaoh will tell you that. EX 4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

…
And if I treated my kids like God treats man I would be locked up for a long long time! HaHa! You forget that I am not Sovereign Wes. Look what He did to Pharaoh man! He can do as He pleases.

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

John said –

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1463/4.html#000045

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Bob.

Bob said -- Are you talking about God or Satan?

Then why does God still blame us Bob? Satan can do nothing he is under the Despot as we all are. God is Sovereign.

Bob said -- I thought you had agreed that God is not the author/designer/master/originator/maker of sin?

Not me. God is the Author of sin. God is Sovereign. You made an assumption and you are wrong.
</font>

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.

Pastor Larry

Christ was Arminian? (Page 6) posted April 16, 2003 10:55 AM
You said How can Calvinists speak of Doctrines of Grace when behind the title--God selects the majority for Hell and only saves the relative few? Is this something to shout about?. The biblical response is "Yes, this is something to shout about since the angels in heaven shout over even one." The "relative few" (in your words) are certainly more than one and bring great joy, and great shouting in heaven.

Calvinist scenario “confirmed”.

 

[BobRyan]

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)

5 and 4 pt Calvinist Future Scenario:

“Showing” the requirement of 4 and 5 point Calvinism to have the “luxury” of a cold disregard for the non-elect “When the non-Elect are finally Known”. This scenario simply removes that “luxury” in order to emphasize the point 4-5 Pt Calvinism makes about God Himself – vs the view that “God so Loved the World that He Gave…Really” (something that both Arminians and 3-pt Calvinists seem to Agree on).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
When the 4 OR 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of eternal roasting in hell - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry

"Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Couldn't you have done Something for my precious child??"

And of course the answer will come back that Calvinism so loves to hear - "Why of course I COULD - IF I had Cared to"!

"Hallelujah!" cries out the Calvinist - that IS the Gospel I was proclaiming!! Ahh that blissful eternity with calvinism's God that unfairly saved you but not your precious daughter - and you will be praising through all eternity that YOU were spared though she was not. (For it IS all about You in the end) Blessing the fact that He chose You - that it was "unfair" as you say - but it was graciously unfair IN YOUR favor - just not your precious daughter's.

So just enjoy! Enjoy! Unjust Mercy - oh the Calvinist bliss.

&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!

 

[BobRyan]

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[johnp.]

Calivnism NEEDS a cold heartless disconcern for the lost!!

Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."

john.

 

[johnp.]

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[johnp.]

Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."

Not what of Calvinists what of scripture?

john.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[johnp.]

Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."

i'm at least one

john.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."

I did answer you explicitly by showing an example. As you know I have not died yet and the Day of Judgement is yet to come for some. I take my lead from the people who lived for me. Eli took the news with decorum, Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes." He did not break down in tears as his children, not yet dead, were sentenced to Hell against their will before they died. So much for choice.
What did you not understand in my simple sentence. My Eli is more of a man than your god that's all. Might be that the flood was caused by God's tears as He broke down in utter absolute grief that He was going to drown the lot of them! It's madness.

I said, "i'm at least one
You asked, "You are "at least one" that what??"
Sorry to confuse you but you asked, "I will settle for a direct answer from at least one Calvinist." In the post before don't you remember?

So I keep this very simple. Whatever the Lord does is ok with me and that means whatever the Lord does is ok with me. He will give more grace where it is needed.
But I have never heard the like before. You claim that God in His righteous anger is stricken with grief because of His righteous acts. Now that is odd. The god of sobs is hard joke.

john.

 

[rc]

John,

Don't you know that our God worships man more than Himself? That He is focus on man and not His own glory? He spends every waking moment "trying, begging, pleading" to bring home His loved ones? He is so heart stricken, and worried, that He forgot that HE actually has the power to do what PLEASES Him, and He could save all if He PLEASED! Poor God, doesn't He know that He should be worshiping Himself or He would become an idolater?

God doesn't weep over US. HE HATES what we do! And He hates those who do it. He does not take PLEASURE in punishing, but He glorifies in it because it gives Him glory for His justice.