The New and Improved No-Straw-Man Challenge

[Grip Docility]

Published or not, it’s extra-biblical.

I will be sincere… I believe that you are trying to engage people into your dogma on this thread. Am I incorrect or correct?

 

[Hammster]

But according to Calvin’s theology no one can repent unless God has enabled them to

I think it’s more accurate to say that no one will repent unless given a new heart.

 

[Hammster]

I will be sincere… I believe that you are trying to engage people into your dogma on this thread. Am I incorrect or correct?

My OP is clear.

 

[bling]

That doesn’t mean God won’t ultimately be glorified by every action man does, though.

I asked: "Do you feel an individual can do stuff which does not bring glory to God?" and you said: "Yes" But are you not saying "No" here?

 

[bling]

I think it’s more accurate to say that no one will repent unless given a new heart.

In the Prodigal son story you have the young son "repenting" changing his direction as a result of him individually coming to his senses anf turning to the father. He did nothing worthy, deserving, holy, righteous or honorable, but out of a selfish desire (sinful) for some kind of life, he turned to the father.

 

[Hammster]

I asked: "Do you feel an individual can do stuff which does not bring glory to God?" and you said: "Yes" But are you not saying "No" here?

No, I’m not. For instance, crucifying Christ wasn’t done to bring glory to God. But it did glorify God.

 

[Hammster]

In the Prodigal son story you have the young son "repenting" changing his direction as a result of him individually coming to his senses anf turning to the father. He did nothing worthy, deserving, holy, righteous or honorable, but out of a selfish desire (sinful) for some kind of life, he turned to the father.

That story isn’t about salvation.

 

[bling]

That story isn’t about salvation.

The prodigal son story has salvation in it for the young son, but it also leaves the Pharisees (the older son) with the question: will you share a table with the Gentiles?
Was the young son needing to be saved from the pigsty?

 

[Hammster]

The prodigal son story has salvation in it for the young son, but it also leaves the Pharisees (the older son) with the question: will you share a table with the Gentiles?
Was the young son needing to be saved from the pigsty?

Saved from poverty, yes.

 

[bling]

Saved from poverty, yes.

He was going to starve to death in the worst place a Jew could imagine (representing a hell on earth).

 

[Hammster]

He was going to starve to death in the worst place a Jew could imagine (representing a hell on earth).

Right. Poverty.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think it’s more accurate to say that no one will repent unless given a new heart.

Not according to how Calvinists interpret 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8:5-7.

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The Calvinist interpretation of these verses is that they are unable to repent. You really don’t offer much of an explanation of the verses that I’ve presented in Romans 2. Your answers are always extremely short and getting any sort of explanation from you about these requires me to keep asking a ton of questions because you’re not actually forthcoming about giving an actual comprehensive explanation.

 

[Hammster]

Not according to how Calvinists interpret 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8:5-7.

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The Calvinist interpretation of these verses is that they are unable to repent. You really don’t offer much of an explanation of the verses that I’ve presented in Romans 2. Your answers are always extremely short and getting any sort of explanation from you about these requires me to keep asking a ton of questions because you’re not actually forthcoming about giving an actual comprehensive explanation.

If that’s your argument, then read the OP, and show your work. Otherwise, it’s just a straw man.

 

[bling]

Right. Poverty.

It is a parable, so what does a Jew starving to death wanting to eat with pig he is feeding represent in the spiritual meaning, to those first century Jews, Jesus is addressing?
This is not just some handout to someone down on their luck, but a deserved disciplining (punishment) on someone fully deserving a horrible death (like a sinner deserving hell).

 

[Hammster]

It is a parable, so what does a Jew starving to death wanting to eat with pig he is feeding represent in the spiritual meaning, to those first century Jews, Jesus is addressing?
This is not just some handout to someone down on their luck, but a deserved disciplining (punishment) on someone fully deserving a horrible death (like a sinner deserving hell).

The parables had lessons. The lesson was not how to be saved. The focus was the older brother who represented the Pharisees.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If that’s your argument, then read the OP, and show your work. Otherwise, it’s just a straw man.

Why put the hurdle in the discussion if that is actually your own personal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:14? Here you are with your own words defining 1 Corinthians 2:14 exactly as I described it.

Maybe if you deconstruct the text you can come up with that. But the language is damning.

as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;”
I think we can agree on the meaning of this one

“There is none who understands,”
This goes along with with:
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
— 1 Corinthians 2:14
So the natural man doesn’t understand because he cannot.

“There is none who seeks for God;”
You seem to think that there are.

“All have turned aside, together they have become useless;”
As a result of the Fall.

“There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
Well, except for those who are convicted sinners, it would seem.

“Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And the path of peace they have not known.”
Not sounding like one who wants anything to do with God.
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
— Romans 3:10-18
And the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

And this is the person whom you think can just change and want to repent.

Romans 3:23 is the summation of all he’s written from Romans 1:18 up until that point. It’s his summation of both Gentiles and Jews. That whole section show how both Jews and Gentiles are sinful. 3:10-18 is just the overall description of them. He gives no wiggle room. You are creating wiggle room.

So why duck and dodge your own interpretation of the passage by placing unnecessary restrictions on the discussion? Why not just openly explain why you actually believe this and how this interpretation doesn’t contradict Romans 2:4-5? I mean I just nailed your interpretation of the passage exactly and now you’re trying to place barriers in the discussion to hide the fact that you do actually believe this and it is contradictory to Romans 2:4-5 because it makes no sense whatsoever for God to be showing patience and leading people to repentance who are incapable of repenting. But you keep trying to hide this fact by dodging the discussion.

 

[bling]

The parables had lessons. The lesson was not how to be saved. The focus was the older brother who represented the Pharisees.

There are always many "lessons" you can get from a parable, look at the ones Jesus did explain to us.

 

[Hammster]

Why put the hurdle in the discussion if that is actually your own personal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:14? Here you are with your own words defining 1 Corinthians 2:14 exactly as I described it.


So why duck and dodge your own interpretation of the passage by placing unnecessary restrictions on the discussion? Why not just openly explain why you actually believe this and how this interpretation doesn’t contradict Romans 2:4-5? I mean I just nailed your interpretation of the passage exactly and now you’re trying to place barriers in the discussion to hide the fact that you do actually believe this and it is contradictory to Romans 2:4-5 because it makes no sense whatsoever for God to be showing patience and leading people to repentance who are incapable of repenting. But you keep trying to hide this fact by dodging the discussion.

Maybe you didn’t read the OP. Here it is.

Let me start by saying that this is a Soteriology thread. The challenge presented will stay within that realm.

I have noticed lately that there have been what I would consider strawman arguments against reformed theology, or if you’d prefer Calvinism. Understandably, when people present these challenges, they think that they are accurately representing what Calvinism teaches. For instance, one of the most recent arguments is that in Calvinism, God forces people to believe. So here is the challenge.

Using notable doctrines with reform theology, such as the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, or Calvin‘s Institutes of Christian Religion, make your argument on whatever issue you have against Calvinism, but you must be able to quote one of these sources to support your claim. I will allow other sources, but they must be something that is considered in historic document document within reformed theology (Heidelberg catechism, for example).

 

[Hammster]

There are always many "lessons" you can get from a parable, look at the ones Jesus did explain to us.

Right. One lesson.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe you didn’t read the OP. Here it is.

Let me start by saying that this is a Soteriology thread. The challenge presented will stay within that realm.

I have noticed lately that there have been what I would consider strawman arguments against reformed theology, or if you’d prefer Calvinism. Understandably, when people present these challenges, they think that they are accurately representing what Calvinism teaches. For instance, one of the most recent arguments is that in Calvinism, God forces people to believe. So here is the challenge.

Using notable doctrines with reform theology, such as the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, or Calvin‘s Institutes of Christian Religion, make your argument on whatever issue you have against Calvinism, but you must be able to quote one of these sources to support your claim. I will allow other sources, but they must be something that is considered in historic document document within reformed theology (Heidelberg catechism, for example).

Why are you running away from your own beliefs?

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
— Romans 8:5-8

When it comes to regeneration, there are two arguments. Or at least two that I know of. One is that we believe, and then are regenerated, and the other is that we are regenerated and then believe. I think the above passage makes a clear argument that we cannot believe prior to be regenerated. The reason is that faith or belief is something that pleases God. Being obedient to Christ’s command is something that pleases God. I also think that believing the gospel and being obedient or things that must be done in the spirit and not in the flesh. And the reason is, as the above passage says, we cannot please God in the flesh.

If the only way to pleaseGod is to be in the Spirit, then the argument would be that one must be in the Spirit before he or she can be obedient to Christ’s command to believe and repent.

Right here you’re interpreting Romans 8 exactly how I described it. Here’s my description below.

Not according to how Calvinists interpret 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8:5-7.

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The Calvinist interpretation of these verses is that they are unable to repent. You really don’t offer much of an explanation of the verses that I’ve presented in Romans 2. Your answers are always extremely short and getting any sort of explanation from you about these requires me to keep asking a ton of questions because you’re not actually forthcoming about giving an actual comprehensive explanation.

That’s exactly how you interpreted Romans 8 in the quote above. You’re just trying to weasel out of the discussion by making me jump thru a bunch of hoops to hide the fact that you don’t want to answer the questions I’m asking about Romans 2:4-5. Why would God have patience on people and lead them to repentance knowing that they are incapable of repenting? You don’t want to answer this question because you know that it doesn’t make any sense so you’re trying to bog down the discussion with your two & three word replies that don’t amount to any type of explanation and placing restrictions trying to make me have to go hunt down Calvinist doctrines when I’ve already quoted you making these statements yourself. Why are you backpedaling now? If it’s what you believe then own it and provide an answer to my question otherwise admit that you don’t have an answer.