Fallacy Vol 2

Thank you for sharing that with me!

Now, how about sharing what is wrong with it. I am not saying I am not wrong, but it doesn't do a lot of good to tell someone they are in error and not explain why. I would be interested in knowing, perhaps you are correct.

 

Why not just answer his question and give your whining a rest? He did not attack your character - he asked you a question.

 

Sorry if the reference was unclear......it was to this part of your post....."So, this is pure nonsense by Calvin which no reasonable person would agree with."


Seems like lots of otherwise reasonable people agree with it , you and I don't.:love2:

 

Do you really agree with it? If you were selected to be on a jury trying a man for armed robbery, and the robber's attorney argued the victim willingly gave the robber his wallet, would you find the robber not guilty?

Never mind, I missed that you do not agree. Sorry 'bout that Chief!

 

BINGO!

Poor reading comprehension. Never said everyone is a minimalist.

Both describing someone's theology "stink".

Scripture that the Bible uses false teacher to describe the saved?

What false charge? I never said you hated calvinists...supply where I ever said that. THAT is a false charge.

 

Hi Webdog, here is what we said:

Van: I am a minimalist, which means I try to stick with what scripture and logical necessity requires and then not go beyond that.

Webdog: ...yet every believer states this, but does not do it in actuality. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. The "minimalist" view on this passage is what the calvinists claim...you just take it at face value. Do you agree?

Van: Every believer does not state or accept this!! The doctrines that divide are all based on unwarranted extrapolations of the text.

Webdog: Accept what...the minimalist view? The key is context, not minimalism or maximalism (if there is such a thing)

Van: First you said everyone is a minimalist and now you say you are not a minimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.

Webdog: Poor reading comprehension. Never said everyone is a minimalist.

Question what part of “every believer states this [I am a minmalist] did my poor reading comprehension miss.

Webdog, you started out saying you agree with me but did not think my use of “fiction” was appropriate. Lets leave it there, I have no interest in your contentless posts.
!

 

As far as scripture using folks whose doctrines miss the mark, do a study of Apollos. He listened and learned and corrected his views.

 

Yes...this is what I said "yet every believer states this" Every believer BELIEVES they are a minimalist, but in actuality none of us are. Like I said, I never said every believer IS a minimalist.

 

Lets see, every believer says they are minimalists, which is a fact not in evidence, but no believer is a minimalist, which is a fact not in evidence. First you said everyone is a minimalist in that they believe they are minimalists, and now you say you are not a minimalist, in that you do not believe you are a mimimalist. Me thinks thou protest too much.

 

"Me" thinks you're not reading this correctly. I understand exactly what he is saying.

 

No kidding... (And me siding with Webdog for once :laugh

 

Has the moon turned blue & do pigs fly? LOL:thumbs:

 

I am reporting this post as a violation .....it just seems wrong.....and not right. This way I can report posts too!:laugh:

 

Calvin says man because of the fall is unable to seek God and therefore always chooses sin. Yet this does not make God the "author of sin." With this perverse logic you could pull the wings off a fly and then punish the fly for not flying. It is simply absurd. A moving the goal post argument and everyone knows it.

 

Does Romans 9:14-18 say God punishes man for what He compels man to do?

This passage does not say God causes you to sin and still hold you responsible. Here is what is actually being said, according to the light God has given me:
a) God has mercy on some people and God hardens other people for His sovereign purposes.

b) This is not injustice because those hardened get justice and giving mercy is also not injustice.

c) If God hardens a person, why does He still find fault? This question Paul addresses indirectly, the person is "finding fault" with God saying God should not punish someone whose heart God hardened. But who is the man to judge God. So even if we do not fully understand why God does what God does, we should not suppose God's actions are not just and perfect and holy.

Now, Paul could have answered the question more directly but perhaps he thought the direct answer was obvious and was being ignored on purpose, therefore he answered it as he did. But when God hardens a person's heart to bring about His purpose, the person's opportunity to obtain mercy ends, just like when a person dies, their opportunity ends. They will be punished for the wrath they piled up before God hardened their hearts, at a minimum and so God's action is obviously not injustice.

Another oft cited claim is Paul is talking about his life after he was born again in Romans chapter 7, rather than as an unregenerate. But this is pure fiction. Lets skim over the Romans chapter 7 passage. Verse 5, for while we were in the flesh... this refers to prior to being born again. If you doubt it do a search of all the times Paul uses this phrase. Verse 6, but now we have been released from the law... this refers to after being born again. Verse 7, Paul says he would not have come to know sin except through the Law... this refers to before being born again, before being released from the Law.

Now verse 9 is difficult and many misunderstand it, but what Paul is saying is he thought he was alive, not dead in his sin, when ignorant of the Law, i.e apart from the Law. But when he learned the Law, he became aware he was a covetous sinner, he knew that sin lived in him and he was therefore dead. All this revelation of his actual condition, dead in sin, occurred while he was dead in sin, i.e. prior to being born again and being made alive together with Christ.

Verse 14 again clearly indicates Paul is talking of when he was unregenerate, of the flesh, sold into bondage to sin. Thus the whole passage Romans 7:14-21 refers to Paul's wretched existence before being born again. Then in verse 24 we see how Paul was set free from this wretched condition of wishing to seek God in the inner man, but being governed by the sin in his flesh. Then in Chapter 8, verse 1, Paul says there is therefore NOW no condemnation, because he has now been born again.

Bottom line, Romans 7 refers to Paul as an unregenerate wretch man.

In summary, (1) the Bible teaches unregenerate men, in their inner man, seek to follow God, some of the time, but are unable to not sin, and therefore when they sin, they are not seeking God. There is no support in scripture for the fiction of "total spiritual inability" being the consequence of the Fall, but there is support for some men to have "total spiritual inability" (the first soil of Matthew 13), and that if a person hardens their own heart by the practice of sin, or if God hardens their heart for His purpose, their limited spiritual ability is taken away.

 

People are accountable for their sin. It is because of the perversity of their hearts that they sin --not because the Lord sets up a perfect environment in which they can sin. Do you think Calvinists believe that God infuses people with sin?!

 

What? Are you angry and have to count to 10?

 

Errrrr...... 1st thing an Italian child learns at his mommas knee....that is not to (rat out) anyone. Its in the blood.:laugh:

 

No, Paul's point is that the potter has power over the clay, and that he can therefore make vessels for honor and vessels of dishonor because he has the right as the potter. Not to be trite, but that is what the text says. The answer is not obvious and left to our reasoning. It is directly and fully addressed.

Keep in mind that Paul goes here because he knew the reader could object to God's choice of Jacob and rejection Esau before either of them were born and before either of them did good or bad. Paul is explaining that it is not injustice because God, the potter, can do as he wishes with the clay.

 

How is it, then, that Paul sees two forces in conflict "in his members" all at once in verses 21-24?