The heresy that I find inherent in Calvinism

[Arial]

I haven't heard any kind of refutation of my logic coming from you.

Because your ears are stopped up.

Saying that you have already answered it is I don't know what type of logical fallacy.

It is not a logical fallacy because I did, you know it, and probably everyone reading this thread knows it. And it is not only me who had done this with you but every Reformed believer engaged in the thread.

You can easily prove me wrong if you have answered it by using the quote feature and quoting the post where you answered it.

Answered what exactly? Now you have widened my simple request to stop asking people to do what they have already done, to encompass all the threads you have been in on the same subject. And then hiding behind such a request as the one above. You may be fooling yourself, but you are not fooling anyone else. So pick a specific, and then make your accusation of its not having been refuted----keeping in mind that the fact you disagree with something does not mean it was not soundly refuted and then ignored by you. But this type of back and forth ends here. It does not deal with posts but posters.

 

[Arial]

No; because He does not save everyone whom He draws. And He said that He would raise up at the last day those who would come to Him.

This is evidence of a false doctrine having been refuted by the scriptures and the person being given this sticking to his guns in spite of it, and then saying no one refuted what he said. Don't confuse not believing something as the same thing as not being told.

 

[Arial]

Nope, it is those who come to Him whom He will raise up at the last day.

And those who come to Him Jesus says are the ones granted to do so by the Father and also the very ones God gives Him.

 

[Arial]

He will raise up at the last day all who come to Him, in context.

Right. In context, but the context also includes who these people are. The ones who are given to Christ and have been granted to come to Him.

 

[Arial]

The question being, does receiving Him constitute an act of free will?

No. Man along with his will is in slavery to sin. The opposite of being free.

 

[Arial]

I'm certain that it was not Jesus' aim to point out contradictions in His own teaching.

I am certain of that too which is why it baffled me when someone is shown in black and white that what they are teaching is a contradiction of other scriptures, and they still insist that they are not.

Just quoting the scriptures isn't going to cut it in this; you are going to have to type out how and why you see a contradiction when it comes to each scripture that you believe is contradicting itself in light of my theology.

Then pray tell why is all you do is proof text, and why when I do type out how and why you have made a contradiction, you insist that I have not
.

 

[justbyfaith]

Again, you have failed to even read my post. I've already dealt with this, and your sentence on thinking about it has already been demonstrated to be a straw man. I will present my post to you again because you clearly have not read it with comprehension. I will even underline key parts to get you up to speed with real positions, rather than your straw man.

"Notice the if/then or since/then type of argument. If this is true, then something follows. A non-sequitur fallacy is when a conclusion does not follow from the premise. In this case, we have an amazing example of the non-sequitur fallacy.

The argument: since regeneration happens before coming to Christ (and thus apart from it), then coming to Christ isn't necessary.
We have the premise and the conclusion.

(1) This only demonstrates an incompetent ignorance of Calvinism. In Calvinism regeneration precedes faith logically, not temporally. And regeneration brings about faith. It is a change of nature in the depraved person that then leads to the person's action. There is a tight causal connection between the change of nature and the actions that follow from it (i.e. conversion, actions that are brought about by the change).

(2) Not only does it demonstrate ignorance, but the argument demonstrates a straw man. The phrase "and thus apart from it" is simply not held by Calvinism. It is a foreign object inserted into Calvinism falsely.

(3) With the foreign object removed, then coming to Christ is completely necessary; and coming to Christ necessarily follows from the change of nature produced by God. Hence, we go right back to the original fallacy. It is a rather blatant non-sequitur fallacy, for the conclusion absolutely does not follow from the premise. Where once a person loved darkness and hated the light, after the change, then the person sees Christ and his sin in a new light, and belief and repentance necessarily follow."

Now, you can live in fictional straw man fallacy land, or you can read with a little comprehension. You aren't even dealing with Calvinism, but rather fighting against a fiction in your own head.

Yes, I understand that you believe that it does not follow logically that, if regeneration precedes faith, that regeneration happens apart from faith, and that therefore faith isn't necessary.

However, this is simply because you cannot see the truth. If I were you, I would ask the Lord to open my eyes.

 

[justbyfaith]

Because your ears are stopped up.

No; I've been listening.

 

[justbyfaith]

Because your ears are stopped up.

It is not a logical fallacy because I did, you know it, and probably everyone reading this thread knows it. And it is not only me who had done this with you but every Reformed believer engaged in the thread.

Answered what exactly? Now you have widened my simple request to stop asking people to do what they have already done, to encompass all the threads you have been in on the same subject. And then hiding behind such a request as the one above. You may be fooling yourself, but you are not fooling anyone else. So pick a specific, and then make your accusation of its not having been refuted----keeping in mind that the fact you disagree with something does not mean it was not soundly refuted and then ignored by you. But this type of back and forth ends here. It does not deal with posts but posters.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/straw-men.1446/

 

[justbyfaith]

This is evidence of a false doctrine having been refuted by the scriptures and the person being given this sticking to his guns in spite of it, and then saying no one refuted what he said. Don't confuse not believing something as the same thing as not being told.

No; for the scripture in question clearly does not say that He will raise up at the last day those He would draw to Him...but those who would come to Him.

 

[justbyfaith]

And those who come to Him Jesus says are the ones granted to do so by the Father and also the very ones God gives Him.

Those who are drawn to Him do not necessarily come to Him,

 

[His clay]

Yes, I understand that you believe that it does not follow logically that, if regeneration precedes faith, that regeneration happens apart from faith, and that therefore faith isn't necessary.

However, this is simply because you cannot see the truth. If I were you, I would ask the Lord to open my eyes.

Repeating yourself does not deal with what I helped you with earlier. I even underlined it for you. You need to deal with reality and real positions. Your ideas let us know what you are thinking, but they do not deal with what people actually hold. I will present my post yet again to try and help you. Please take the time to read it with comprehension, for you accomplish nothing by attacking your own mind and not dealing with reality.

Again, you have failed to even read my post. I've already dealt with this, and your sentence on thinking about it has already been demonstrated to be a straw man. I will present my post to you again because you clearly have not read it with comprehension. I will even underline key parts to get you up to speed with real positions, rather than your straw man.

"Notice the if/then or since/then type of argument. If this is true, then something follows. A non-sequitur fallacy is when a conclusion does not follow from the premise. In this case, we have an amazing example of the non-sequitur fallacy.

The argument: since regeneration happens before coming to Christ (and thus apart from it), then coming to Christ isn't necessary.
We have the premise and the conclusion.

(1) This only demonstrates an incompetent ignorance of Calvinism. In Calvinism regeneration precedes faith logically, not temporally. And regeneration brings about faith. It is a change of nature in the depraved person that then leads to the person's action. There is a tight causal connection between the change of nature and the actions that follow from it (i.e. conversion, actions that are brought about by the change).

(2) Not only does it demonstrate ignorance, but the argument demonstrates a straw man. The phrase "and thus apart from it" is simply not held by Calvinism. It is a foreign object inserted into Calvinism falsely.

(3) With the foreign object removed, then coming to Christ is completely necessary; and coming to Christ necessarily follows from the change of nature produced by God. Hence, we go right back to the original fallacy. It is a rather blatant non-sequitur fallacy, for the conclusion absolutely does not follow from the premise. Where once a person loved darkness and hated the light, after the change, then the person sees Christ and his sin in a new light, and belief and repentance necessarily follow."

Now, you can live in fictional straw man fallacy land, or you can read with a little comprehension. You aren't even dealing with Calvinism, but rather fighting against a fiction in your own head.

 

[justbyfaith]

Right. In context, but the context also includes who these people are. The ones who are given to Christ and have been granted to come to Him.

See above post.

 

[justbyfaith]

No. Man along with his will is in slavery to sin. The opposite of being free.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17). When a person is drawn to Christ, he is enabled to receive or reject Christ.

 

[His clay]

Those who are drawn to Him do not necessarily come to Him,

They are raised up on the last day. Right?

"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."

 

[justbyfaith]

Repeating yourself does not deal with what I helped you with earlier. I even underlined it for you. You need to deal with reality and real positions. Your ideas let us know what you are thinking, but they do not deal with what people actually hold. I will present my post yet again to try and help you. Please take the time to read it with comprehension, for you accomplish nothing by attacking your own mind and not dealing with reality.

Please try to read my post with comprehension.

 

[justbyfaith]

They are raised up on the last day. Right?

"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."

Those who come to Him are raised up.

 

[His clay]

Please try to read my post with comprehension.

Again, that does not respond to what I have written. Do you think that reality just goes away if you ignore it?

Again, you have failed to even read my post. I've already dealt with this, and your sentence on thinking about it has already been demonstrated to be a straw man. I will present my post to you again because you clearly have not read it with comprehension. I will even underline key parts to get you up to speed with real positions, rather than your straw man.

"Notice the if/then or since/then type of argument. If this is true, then something follows. A non-sequitur fallacy is when a conclusion does not follow from the premise. In this case, we have an amazing example of the non-sequitur fallacy.

The argument: since regeneration happens before coming to Christ (and thus apart from it), then coming to Christ isn't necessary.
We have the premise and the conclusion.

(1) This only demonstrates an incompetent ignorance of Calvinism. In Calvinism regeneration precedes faith logically, not temporally. And regeneration brings about faith. It is a change of nature in the depraved person that then leads to the person's action. There is a tight causal connection between the change of nature and the actions that follow from it (i.e. conversion, actions that are brought about by the change).

(2) Not only does it demonstrate ignorance, but the argument demonstrates a straw man. The phrase "and thus apart from it" is simply not held by Calvinism. It is a foreign object inserted into Calvinism falsely.

(3) With the foreign object removed, then coming to Christ is completely necessary; and coming to Christ necessarily follows from the change of nature produced by God. Hence, we go right back to the original fallacy. It is a rather blatant non-sequitur fallacy, for the conclusion absolutely does not follow from the premise. Where once a person loved darkness and hated the light, after the change, then the person sees Christ and his sin in a new light, and belief and repentance necessarily follow."

Now, you can live in fictional straw man fallacy land, or you can read with a little comprehension. You aren't even dealing with Calvinism, but rather fighting against a fiction in your own head.

 

[His clay]

Those who come to Him are raised up.

So those who are given are drawn, come to him, and are raised up on the last day?

 

[justbyfaith]

(2) Not only does it demonstrate ignorance, but the argument demonstrates a straw man. The phrase "and thus apart from it" is simply not held by Calvinism. It is a foreign object inserted into Calvinism falsely.

(3) With the foreign object removed, then coming to Christ is completely necessary;

What I am saying is that the foreign object cannot be logically removed.