straw men?

[justbyfaith]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.; and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

It is not an idea that cannot be constructed from Calvinistic thinking, that I am dealing with here.

And of course it is refuted by a general reading of John 6:37; and therefore those who are Calvinists, and who also have their eyes in their heads, take issue with everything and want to decry it as a straw man.

It is no straw man. The thing that is refuted is the logical conclusion of two of the most basic tenets in Calvinism (even the "U" and the "L").

One can say that Calvinism does not really teach that;

However, in that, they are saying that the most basic tenets of Calvinism are in departure from what Calvin really meant when he gave his doctrine.

I think that Calvinistic authors also say things in contradiction to the basic tenets of Calvinism in an attempt to deal with some of the most basic objections,

Another issue that I have with Calvinism is that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

However, if that is the case, then regeneration can happen apart from faith; since if it can happen before faith comes it can happen without faith.

This is an abject heresy that must be dealt with within the framework of Calvinistic thinking if it is going to survive.

It denies a most basic tenet of the gospel: that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved: instead teaching that we can be saved through the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God and that we believe as the result.

And while this may be true from the perspective of eternity, it is not true from the perspective of time.

In time, there comes a moment when we pass over from death into everlasting life. And we may be of the elect while we have not yet crossed over. Because predestination is from the perspective that God is outside of time.

Like a blimp in a parade, God is over the whole parade and sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end; and the whole parade from everywhere in between; whereas we see the parade going by float by float.

 

[CrowCross]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.; and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

It is not an idea that cannot be constructed from Calvinistic thinking, that I am dealing with here.

And of course it is refuted by a general reading of John 6:37; and therefore those who are Calvinists, and who also have their eyes in their heads, take issue with everything and want to decry it as a straw man.

It is no straw man. The thing that is refuted is the logical conclusion of two of the most basic tenets in Calvinism (even the "U" and the "L").

One can say that Calvinism does not really teach that;

However, in that, they are saying that the most basic tenets of Calvinism are in departure from what Calvin really meant when he gave his doctrine.

I think that Calvinistic authors also say things in contradiction to the basic tenets of Calvinism in an attempt to deal with some of the most basic objections,

Another issue that I have with Calvinism is that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

However, if that is the case, then regeneration can happen apart from faith; since if it can happen before faith comes it can happen without faith.

This is an abject heresy that must be dealt with within the framework of Calvinistic thinking if it is going to survive.

It denies a most basic tenet of the gospel: that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved: instead teaching that we can be saved through the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God and that we believe as the result.

And while this may be true from the perspective of eternity, it is not true from the perspective of time.

In time, there comes a moment when we pass over from death into everlasting life. And we may be of the elect while we have not yet crossed over. Because predestination is from the perspective that God is outside of time.

Like a blimp in a parade, God is over the whole parade and sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end; and the whole parade from everywhere in between; whereas we see the parade going by float by float.

Why would one man choose to believe yet another not when exposed to the exact same message?

 

[justbyfaith]

Why would one man choose to believe yet another not when exposed to the exact same message?

It might depend on circumstances in that man's life up to that point and whether or not they are being ministered to.

There are some who have crossed over the line into blasphemy of the Holy Ghost who will never believe even if all force were to be applied. These are those who "always resist the Holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51).

 

[CrowCross]

It might depend on circumstances in that man's life up to that point and whether or not they are being ministered to.

Are you saying a persons salvation is based upon the circumstances or happenstance of their life? It depends upon where they might have been born, who their parents may have been, their education and so on?

There are some who have crossed over the line into blasphemy of the Holy Ghost who will never believe even if all force were to be applied. These are those who "always resist the Holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51).

What is that line people have crossed over?

 

[justbyfaith]

Are you saying a persons salvation is based upon the circumstances or happenstance of their life? It depends upon where they might have been born, who their parents may have been, their education and so on?

Act 17:24, God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25, Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26, And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27, That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28, For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29, Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

 

[justbyfaith]

What is that line people have crossed over?

The Pharisees crossed over it when they attributed the good miracles of Jesus to satan.

It has to do with an inherent rejection of Jesus so that no matter how much evidence is given to you of the truth, you would never believe in Him.

It is a choice that is made by every person who rejects Christ as it is the only other option to receiving Christ when a person is drawn to Christ by the Father.

 

[CrowCross]

The Pharisees crossed over it when they attributed the good miracles of Jesus to satan.

Is this something you "feel"...or is it found in the Bible?

 

[CrowCross]

Act 17:24, God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25, Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26, And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27, That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28, For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29, Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

So, it doesn't dependi upon the circumstances in a man's life....but rather God must do something first?

 

[GoKart Mozart]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.; and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

It is not an idea that cannot be constructed from Calvinistic thinking, that I am dealing with here.

And of course it is refuted by a general reading of John 6:37; and therefore those who are Calvinists, and who also have their eyes in their heads, take issue with everything and want to decry it as a straw man.

It is no straw man. The thing that is refuted is the logical conclusion of two of the most basic tenets in Calvinism (even the "U" and the "L").

One can say that Calvinism does not really teach that;

However, in that, they are saying that the most basic tenets of Calvinism are in departure from what Calvin really meant when he gave his doctrine.

I think that Calvinistic authors also say things in contradiction to the basic tenets of Calvinism in an attempt to deal with some of the most basic objections,

Another issue that I have with Calvinism is that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

However, if that is the case, then regeneration can happen apart from faith; since if it can happen before faith comes it can happen without faith.

This is an abject heresy that must be dealt with within the framework of Calvinistic thinking if it is going to survive.

It denies a most basic tenet of the gospel: that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved: instead teaching that we can be saved through the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God and that we believe as the result.

And while this may be true from the perspective of eternity, it is not true from the perspective of time.

In time, there comes a moment when we pass over from death into everlasting life. And we may be of the elect while we have not yet crossed over. Because predestination is from the perspective that God is outside of time.

Like a blimp in a parade, God is over the whole parade and sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end; and the whole parade from everywhere in between; whereas we see the parade going by float by float.

I just read through a thread you started where one poster had a series of posts..I didn't count but easily 5 to 10 posts in succession where the only thing said was, "fallacy this, fallacy that, non-sequiter, straw-man.." I had to scroll back several pages to find the actual content being debated.
I like discussion. I hate debates and this is a large part of why.
Usually, the only thing learned is who has the greater debate skill-set. A skilled debater can win on either side of a subject matter and the truth of the matter be d@amned.

On the point you raised, it's part and parcel of the divide between synergism and monergism. The ancient churches, east and west, were and still are synergists. The monergism of Calvin borders, if not crosses the line, into monotheletism at times.

As personal opinion, I find Calvinism in it's various extremes to be clich-ish Christianity. It's "God chose me, I'm in everybody else is out.." arrogance and pride on full display. Yet they would dare say that one who recognizes their inadaquacy and turns to Christ is the arrogant one.

Debates? i scan through them but more often than not it loses direction into arguing the rules of debate and the subject gets lost.

 

[CrowCross]

As personal opinion, I find Calvinism in it's various extremes to be clich-ish Christianity. It's "God chose me, I'm in everybody else is out.." arrogance and pride on full display. Yet they would dare say that one who recognizes their inadaquacy and turns to Christ is the arrogant one.

Believe me...a Calvinist doesn't see it as "pride". As to arrogance I don't see how that fits in.

If you ask a calvinist why they were predestined their answer will be...I don't know. They all understand they don't deserve salvation.

Then again one could make the same statement about the Armenian sect....they all think they were smart enough to "choose" Jesus.

 

[Arial]

As personal opinion, I find Calvinism in it's various extremes to be clich-ish Christianity. It's "God chose me, I'm in everybody else is out.." arrogance and pride on full display. Yet they would dare say that one who recognizes their inadaquacy and turns to Christ is the arrogant one.

I would suggest that is more of a projection than fact. A perception of how you feel you would feel if you thought God chose you and then say that is the way the Calvinist feels. It is a false humility that refuses to accept the doctrines of election on the basis that one would never make such a claim as being chosen by God.

Clique-ish is also a matter of perception. One that confuses genuine contending for the doctrine with scriptural support and doing so in the proper manner of exegesis and the whole of scripture, rather than proof texting their way through a discussion, with being clique-ish, arrogant, and full of pride.

I have never met a Calvinist who was not humbled in much the same way Job was when God began to speak to him, when finding and pursuing the doctrines in election. The reason for that is that their eyes are for the first time, completely turned away from themselves to gaze upon the One true God as He is.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

If you ask a calvinist why they were predestined their answer will be...I don't know. They all understand they don't deserve salvation.

I've seen that type of response. My perception is purely anecdotal and based on the whole of conversations, not merely the point-blank question.

Then again one could make the same statement about the Armenian sect....they all think they were smart enough to "choose" Jesus.

No one has room to boast.

 

[Josheb]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

No, it is clear that straw men have been argued.

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.; and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

It is not an idea that cannot be constructed from Calvinistic thinking, that I am dealing with here.

And of course it is refuted by a general reading of John 6:37; and therefore those who are Calvinists, and who also have their eyes in their heads, take issue with everything and want to decry it as a straw man.

It is no straw man. The thing that is refuted is the logical conclusion of two of the most basic tenets in Calvinism (even the "U" and the "L").

One can say that Calvinism does not really teach that;

However, in that, they are saying that the most basic tenets of Calvinism are in departure from what Calvin really meant when he gave his doctrine.

I think that Calvinistic authors also say things in contradiction to the basic tenets of Calvinism in an attempt to deal with some of the most basic objections,

Another issue that I have with Calvinism is that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

However, if that is the case, then regeneration can happen apart from faith; since if it can happen before faith comes it can happen without faith.

This is an abject heresy that must be dealt with within the framework of Calvinistic thinking if it is going to survive.

It denies a most basic tenet of the gospel: that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved: instead teaching that we can be saved through the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God and that we believe as the result.

And while this may be true from the perspective of eternity, it is not true from the perspective of time.

In time, there comes a moment when we pass over from death into everlasting life. And we may be of the elect while we have not yet crossed over. Because predestination is from the perspective that God is outside of time.

Like a blimp in a parade, God is over the whole parade and sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end; and the whole parade from everywhere in between; whereas we see the parade going by float by float.

All of which is a series straw men and faulty fallacious thinking. This op asserted a claim it then disproved. The op boils down to "Let me prove I am not erecting straw men with these following straw men."

 

[GoKart Mozart]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment he has barred to door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation
(Institutes 3.21.7, Calvin 1960:931)

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.; and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

Therefore, though all of us are by nature suffering from the same disease, only those whom it pleases the Lord to touch with his healing hand will get well. The others, whom he, in his righteous judgment, passes over, waste away in their own rottenness until they are consumed. There is no other reason why some persevere to the end, while others fall at the beginning of the course
(Institutes 2.5.3; Calvin 1960:320)

 

[Josheb]

We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy...

If I may....

When monergists say, "...His freely given mercy..." we mean free. We mean autonomous, and completely, thoroughly, wholly autonomous. We mean unfettered, unobstructed, not-conditioned, or in any way shape or form limited. This unfettered autonomous freeness is stated in comparison to the synergist view God has limited Himself and conditioned His giving to the will or decision of the sinful creature. The limitation and conditional aspects are directly contrary to the premise of "freely given." This reveals an internal contradiction inherent in synergism whenever they say, "Yes, God gives freely... but only when X, Y, or Z occur." That claim is self-contradictory because a condition giving is not free. It is conditioned. A limited giving is not free, either. It is limited, confined, restricted, fettered.

Hope you don't mind the elaboration intended for the benefit of @justbyfaith's understanding. Please feel free to correct anything just said if it misrepresents your post.

 

[Carbon]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

If it is not true then why didn't you direct your teaching to God's word for proof they are true?

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

Why should it be clear? On what basis?

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

Are biblical doctrines established and taught by a logical conclusion? Or is this done by God's word?

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

Why not let scripture interpret scripture, instead of your logical conclusions?
Let me be clear in stating that if your religion is built on logical conclusions I'll pass on it.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.;

Is the size, a small group, a logical conclusion?

and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

I think your logical conclusion are deceptive and leading you into error.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

You just said this was taught by logical conclusions?
Are you one of those Calvinist haters? It seems so.

It is not an idea that cannot be constructed from Calvinistic thinking, that I am dealing with here.

Would you like to hear some ideas that can be constructed by synergistic thinking?

And of course it is refuted by a general reading of John 6:37; and therefore those who are Calvinists, and who also have their eyes in their heads, take issue with everything and want to decry it as a straw man.

Wish you were around to debate this.

It is no straw man. The thing that is refuted is the logical conclusion of two of the most basic tenets in Calvinism (even the "U" and the "L").

Your logical conclusions you mean?

One can say that Calvinism does not really teach that;

However, in that, they are saying that the most basic tenets of Calvinism are in departure from what Calvin really meant when he gave his doctrine.

I think that Calvinistic authors also say things in contradiction to the basic tenets of Calvinism in an attempt to deal with some of the most basic objections,

Is that your conclusion?

Another issue that I have with Calvinism is that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

Opps, wrong.
Calvinism just points out what scripture is teaching. So, why would a Calvinist teach something contrary to scripture?

However, if that is the case, then regeneration can happen apart from faith; since if it can happen before faith comes it can happen without faith.

The only reason one can have faith is because they are born again (regenerated), which is where faith comes from, ie, the new man.

This is an abject heresy that must be dealt with within the framework of Calvinistic thinking if it is going to survive.

Is that your conclusion?

It denies a most basic tenet of the gospel: that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved:

Where does Calvinism teach differently?

instead teaching that we can be saved through the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God and that we believe as the result.

And while this may be true from the perspective of eternity, it is not true from the perspective of time.

Your conclusions are way out of line.

In time, there comes a moment when we pass over from death into everlasting life. And we may be of the elect while we have not yet crossed over. Because predestination is from the perspective that God is outside of time.

Like a blimp in a parade, God is over the whole parade and sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end; and the whole parade from everywhere in between; whereas we see the parade going by float by float.

Where does scripture say this? Just curious.

 

[Carbon]

Is this something you "feel"...or is it found in the Bible?

Probably a conclusion?

 

[Synergy]

So, it doesn't dependi upon the circumstances in a man's life....but rather God must do something first?

I would say it's God and God through people doing something first. And that which is done first is not regeneration.

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The Word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart"; that is, the Word of Faith which we proclaim;
Rom 10:9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone believing on Him shall not be put to shame."
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call on Him.
Rom 10:13 For everyone, "whoever shall call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace and bring glad tidings of good things!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
Rom 10:17 Then faith is of hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

First the Word of God has to be proclaimed, then believed and confessed, and then you are saved. Regeneration is not explicitly mentioned; it is implied when you are saved.

 

[Josheb]

Why would one man choose to believe yet another not when exposed to the exact same message?

That sort of thing happens every day.

 

[CrowCross]

I would say it's God and God through people doing something first. And that which is done first is not regeneration.

If God puts a preacher in front of you..yeah, that's not regeneration. If God allows your "heart to be open" so to speak and believe the word that would be regeneration...or part of it.