Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Straw-manning of Calvinists

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by David1701 View Post

    2) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is EXTREMELY serious and should not be watered down to "rejection of the Lord until you die"
    This is jolting: rejection of Jesus is "watered down" in importance compared to blasphemy?
    This Blasphemy is more important than rejecting Jesus?

    Neither can be forgiven, both lead to eternal damnation.
    But rejection of Jesus is watered down compared to blasphemy.
    This is equally as strange as Theo claiming rejection of Jesus could be forgiven if God decided to.
    Last edited by SethProton; 08-12-19, 08:21 PM.
    by faith we understand...
    Didn't I tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by David1701 View Post

      1) No-one resists (not effectually at least) the drawing to Jesus.
      Of course I don't agree with that but that's another discussion.

      2) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is EXTREMELY serious and should not be watered down to "rejection of the Lord until you die",
      Of course this sin should never be as you say be watered down but Seth had explained what he meant as seen in blue,

      You are already aware that I spoke specifically of the sin of rejecting Jesus until you die. Not simply rejecting Him during your life time. That sin I speak of is unforgivable.

      So if one actually got to the end of their life and they died would they be saved? No! They resisted the work therefore of the Holy Spirit and did it in the ultimate sense with no time or chance left. Well it's still rejecting his work and doing it to the end makes it unforgivable.

      I do believe there's more to be said about this subject too but Seth and "Focus On The Family" can still be said to be right. And they don't believe it's rejecting Christ during their life time....they've stated it's when they get to the actual end of their life. It's Basic 101. If you don't know Jesus when you die you're not forgiven.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Rockson View Post

        Of course I don't agree with that but that's another discussion.



        Of course this sin should never be as you say be watered down but Seth had explained what he meant as seen in blue,

        You are already aware that I spoke specifically of the sin of rejecting Jesus until you die. Not simply rejecting Him during your life time. That sin I speak of is unforgivable.

        So if one actually got to the end of their life and they died would they be saved? No! They resisted the work therefore of the Holy Spirit and did it in the ultimate sense with no time or chance left. Well it's still rejecting his work and doing it to the end makes it unforgivable.

        I do believe there's more to be said about this subject too but Seth and "Focus On The Family" can still be said to be right. And they don't believe it's rejecting Christ during their life time....they've stated it's when they get to the actual end of their life. It's Basic 101. If you don't know Jesus when you die you're not forgiven.
        It's not as complicated as people make it.

        Luke
        15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 16 Others, to test Him, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. 18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges. 20 But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.22 But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder. 23 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.

        Matthew
        22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23 All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.” 25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31 “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

        Mark
        22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

        Be careful little mouths what you say.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by SethProton View Post
          This is jolting: rejection of Jesus is "watered down" in importance compared to blasphemy?
          This Blasphemy is more important than rejecting Jesus?

          Neither can be forgiven, both lead to eternal damnation.
          But rejection of Jesus is watered down compared to blasphemy.
          This is equally as strange as Theo claiming rejection of Jesus could be forgiven if God decided to.
          There is no repentance in this life or the life to come with the unpardonable sin once committed . Every single person is born rejecting Christ and that sin can be forgiven in this life but not the life to come. It’s time you line up your beliefs with the Bible and it’s truth. 40 years and counting and you are unable to see the difference between the two types of sin ?

          hope this helps !!!
          His true identity as both Lord (κύριος used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός used by the LXX to translate Elohim)netbible John 20:28[In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3) refer to the Son. Of the remainder most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent. 1 John 5:20, Wallace

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by SethProton View Post
            This is jolting: rejection of Jesus is "watered down" in importance compared to blasphemy?
            This Blasphemy is more important than rejecting Jesus?
            <sigh>

            The point is that you can reject Jesus for decades and you could still be saved.

            If you commit the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ONCE, then you have had it.
            John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Rockson View Post

              Of course I don't agree with that but that's another discussion.



              Of course this sin should never be as you say be watered down but Seth had explained what he meant as seen in blue,

              You are already aware that I spoke specifically of the sin of rejecting Jesus until you die. Not simply rejecting Him during your life time. That sin I speak of is unforgivable.

              So if one actually got to the end of their life and they died would they be saved? No! They resisted the work therefore of the Holy Spirit and did it in the ultimate sense with no time or chance left. Well it's still rejecting his work and doing it to the end makes it unforgivable.

              I do believe there's more to be said about this subject too but Seth and "Focus On The Family" can still be said to be right. And they don't believe it's rejecting Christ during their life time....they've stated it's when they get to the actual end of their life. It's Basic 101. If you don't know Jesus when you die you're not forgiven.
              There is a difference between "not forgiven" for a forgivable sin (unbelief), because the time period has run out, and committing an UNFORGIVABLE sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

              Why do you and Seth seem to find this so hard to understand? It is not an intellectually abstruse matter. It must be because you DON'T WANT to believe the truth, in this area.
              John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by David1701 View Post

                There is a difference between "not forgiven" for a forgivable sin (unbelief), because the time period has run out, and committing an UNFORGIVABLE sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

                Why do you and Seth seem to find this so hard to understand? It is not an intellectually abstruse matter. It must be because you DON'T WANT to believe the truth, in this area.
                They like to play the semantics game to oppose whatever it is we believe.
                His true identity as both Lord (κύριος used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός used by the LXX to translate Elohim)netbible John 20:28[In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3) refer to the Son. Of the remainder most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent. 1 John 5:20, Wallace

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by civic View Post

                  They like to play the semantics game to oppose whatever it is we believe.
                  Sadly, this seems to be true.
                  John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by David1701 View Post

                    Sadly, this seems to be true.
                    It is strange how we, on my side of these discussions, are absolutely convinced that Calvinists resort to any kind of game needed just to appear right.
                    And your side thinks the same about us.
                    If your posts are to be believed, you feel your posts are honest and not riddled with game playing.
                    I feel the same about my posts as I see no value in being right, only in expressing what I see in the Word.
                    by faith we understand...
                    Didn't I tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by SethProton View Post

                      It is strange how we, on my side of these discussions, are absolutely convinced that Calvinists resort to any kind of game needed just to appear right.
                      And your side thinks the same about us.
                      If your posts are to be believed, you feel your posts are honest and not riddled with game playing.
                      I feel the same about my posts as I see no value in being right, only in expressing what I see in the Word.
                      Then please respond to my last post where I quoted you earlier in this thread, thanks !
                      His true identity as both Lord (κύριος used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός used by the LXX to translate Elohim)netbible John 20:28[In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3) refer to the Son. Of the remainder most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent. 1 John 5:20, Wallace

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by SethProton View Post
                        If your posts are to be believed, you feel your posts are honest and not riddled with game playing.
                        That's exactly right.
                        And that's precisely why assuming, and then accusing us, of "playing games" is completely counterproductive, and only guarantees a destruction of communication.

                        I feel the same about my posts as I see no value in being right, only in expressing what I see in the Word.
                        Fair enough...
                        But one of the problems seems to be that all you seem to do is repeat yourself over and over (and to be fair, David does as well), and I really don't see the point in wasting time repeating yourself over and over.

                        The inference is that you seem to think we're morons, and simply don't understand what you're saying, and so you think that if you simply repeat yourself again, we'll suddenly understand (and therefore agree) with your view. The reason we disagree with your view is NOT because we don't understand what you're saying, it's because we DO understand what you're saying, and we simply believe you're WRONG. So simply repeating yourself doesn't accomplish anything, because we're going to disagree with it no matter how many times you repeat yourself. And I think David has demonstrated his ability to understand what you're saying by the fact that he listed a number of unorthodox doctrines you hold, and you confirmed the accuracy of his summary of your beliefs.

                        What I would like to see more of (and this goes for everyone) is less repeating yourself, and more trying to "actively listen", and rephrase David's (or whoever's) opinion, to show that you actually understand it (or are trying to understand it) instead of simply repeating your own view over and over.

                        And maybe some recognition that some of your views are predicated on other views that you hold that we disagree with (such as the idea that knowledge of God comes by faith), and so we're not going to accept positions which depend on other underlying views we disagree with.
                        "We are not to understand the other side; we are to discuss to expound the truth." -- A misguided apologist
                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        "The Law is a storm which wrecks your hopes of self-salvation,
                        but washes you upon the Rock of Ages."
                        -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Theo1689 View Post
                          Sadly, I woke up this morning to find no less than THREE different posters making straw-man arguments against Calvinists and Calvinism.

                          Just so that everyone knows what a "straw-man" actually is, I present the following from dictionary.com:

                          straw man (noun)
                          1. 1.
                            an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
                          The "advantageous" thing (if you can call MISREPRESENTATION and "advantage") about using a straw-man argument, is that it is something that is easy to argue against, and so the person using it thinks he's looking superior, in defeating his opponent. Of course, since his opponent doesn't even HOLD the position being attacked and destroyed, nothing of substance is accomplished.

                          So this is what I came across this morning, sadly:



                          This poster errantly claims that my theology "requires" the word "world" to mean "elect".
                          It does NOT.
                          This poster doesn't even UNDERSTAND "[my] theology", so he is certainly in no position to make claims about what my theology allegedly "requires".

                          So this poster is trying to FORCE me to "defend" a position I DON'T EVEN HOLD.
                          This is a textbook "straw-man".

                          Then I read the following:



                          So this poster claims to be able to "mind-read", and falsely projects the above position on us, which we DO NOT HOLD. Does he think we hold it because we have claimed to hold it? Nope, because we never have, because it is NOT something we actually believe. He came up with it through "rationalization" (see his explanation above). He simply ASSUMES that his thought process is the exact same as our thought process (hint: it isn't), and so if he can come up with a "rationalization", he thinks he is JUSTIFIED in falsely claim that it is our position.

                          But no, WE do not believe that "Dying having rejected Jesus" is the "unforgivable sin".
                          And since we do not believe it, we have no obligation to defend it (indeed, we CANNOT defend a belief we DO NOT hold!)

                          In fact, this poster is being incredibly disingenuous. HE is the one who has claimed that the unforgivable sin is "rejecting Jesus", and he has been challenged on it, so what he is obviously trying to do is to claim that WE hold to that belief as well (hint: we DON'T), and argue that if we hold to it, he is justified in holding to it as well.

                          And then, when challenged to actually PROVE that Calvinists believe and teach " 'world' means 'elect' ", another poster writes:



                          "Can't be bothered..."
                          "It's just common knowledge..."

                          And then just to hedge his bets, he provides a preemptive strike for Calvinists denying that's what we believe by making excuses, "they may use slightly different words but it's all basically what they're saying".

                          Well, if it's "basically what they're saying", then why can't you simply PROVIDE EXPLICIT QUOTES?!
                          Because it is NOT what we believe....



                          He claims it is "common knowledge", and I can understand why he can think that....
                          You see, this particular STRAW-MAN argument has been REPEATED by non-Calvinists HUNDREDS of times over years.

                          It has been straw-manned...
                          And it has been straw-manned...
                          And it has been straw-manned...
                          And it has been straw-manned...
                          And it has been straw-manned...
                          And it has been straw-manned...

                          And sadly, human nature is such that if you hear something many many times, you start believing it, whether it is true or whether it IS NOT. And that is the pernicious thing about gossip.


                          And that is PRECISELY why it is so important to provide EXPLICIT QUOTES, instead of simply depending on what you've "heard".



                          Bottom line....

                          I have no obligation to defend straw-man versions of what I believe.

                          I do not believe "world" means "elect", nor have I EVER taught it, therefore I have no obligation to defend it.

                          I do not believe "rejecting Jesus" is the original sin, nor have I EVER taught it, therefore I have no obligation to defend it.


                          People who use straw-man arguments or other fallacious arguments should be ashamed of themselves.
                          IMO.
                          You began with your conclusion. All such approaches are destined for failure. Your position is one of perspective. You proved nothing.

                          Not mentioning the fact you have never produced your own detailed systematic theology whereby the facts "as you see them" can be determined.

                          Your perspection of Calvinism and Calvinism are not one in the same. You presume you have a perfect knowledge of Calvinism. Facts prove you wrong.

                          I call this "Greasy pig Calvinism". You endless claim your perception is one and the same with the facts and you haven't even provided enough details whereby to prove such.

                          You then want to complain that others don't really understand.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by SethProton View Post

                            It is strange how we, on my side of these discussions, are absolutely convinced that Calvinists resort to any kind of game needed just to appear right.
                            And your side thinks the same about us.
                            If your posts are to be believed, you feel your posts are honest and not riddled with game playing.
                            I feel the same about my posts as I see no value in being right, only in expressing what I see in the Word.
                            I see no game playing by "Calvinists".

                            If you are being honest (I'll assume that you are), then your paradigms must be so non-Christian that meaningful dialogue becomes nearly impossible.

                            By the way, there is no "your side". You are on your own with many of the things you believe.
                            John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by praise_yeshua View Post

                              You began with your conclusion. All such approaches are destined for failure. Your position is one of perspective. You proved nothing.

                              Not mentioning the fact you have never produced your own detailed systematic theology whereby the facts "as you see them" can be determined.

                              Your perspection of Calvinism and Calvinism are not one in the same. You presume you have a perfect knowledge of Calvinism. Facts prove you wrong.

                              I call this "Greasy pig Calvinism". You endless claim your perception is one and the same with the facts and you haven't even provided enough details whereby to prove such.

                              You then want to complain that others don't really understand.
                              <Chuckle>

                              You seem to be trying to argue that anti-Calvinists understand Calvinism and represent it more accurately than Calvinists.
                              And that is simply another lame excuse to try to defend straw-man arguments.
                              "We are not to understand the other side; we are to discuss to expound the truth." -- A misguided apologist
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              "The Law is a storm which wrecks your hopes of self-salvation,
                              but washes you upon the Rock of Ages."
                              -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by David1701 View Post

                                I see no game playing by "Calvinists".

                                If you are being honest (I'll assume that you are), then your paradigms must be so non-Christian that meaningful dialogue becomes nearly impossible.

                                By the way, there is no "your side". You are on your own with many of the things you believe.
                                Yes, while I am mostly in step with the majority of the church who see calvinism as flawed, I do have 5 or 6 of my own understandings which set me apart.
                                by faith we understand...
                                Didn't I tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X