MUTUAL BENFITS FOR MY NEW POLICY
#1. (No repetition for you to create; Time Management)
#2. (No distractions for you or those reading your blog)
#3. (No size limitations for you)
#4 (No time pressure for you, more thoughtful, edited, substantive entries)
#5. (Less Tangents for you to be dragged into).
#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves presented to you).
#7 (No fighting to get the Last Word with you).
#8. (No one falsely accuses you of being argumentative).
#9. (Your joy and peace should not be based on your blog's attempt to convince others; as some attempt in FB threads.).
#10. (Your readers will not take it personally).
#11 (You will not sense that you are being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, inundated, escalation).
#12 (Easier Editing, Reading, Formatting, Control, Archiving of your points)
for elaboration see:
1. THIS EXPLANATION
2. http://cid-ee707e96478c2486.office.live.com/view.aspx/118min/Policy%20Benefits.docx
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Response Policy Why
APPENDED: SECTION TWO: (WHY I HAVE THIS POLICY.)
At least TEN ADVANTAGES FOR YOU (and me) from this new policy:
#1. (No repetition) When you encounter others like me who deny padeobaptism (or the topic at hand), you will not have to type your thoughts twelve plus times over twelve months on twelve different threads; instead you will have one growing entry that you can update and direct people to time and again. This translate to better time stewardship over the months, instead of repeating the same attacks 12x a year.
#2. (No distractions) If interested, I can read your blog without having to weed out the entries of 6 other people on a FB thread, never having to click the FB "see more" link. It is much easier for your readers.
#3. (No size limitations) If interested, I will read your thoughts in full, you will have 15-20-30 pages to state your case and evidence, you will not be limited to 8-9 paragraphs; I personally find it difficult to read 10 paragraphs in the little blue FB margins, especially when it is among 30 other replies in that thread. I would imagine that you would be bothered by me coming to your post and pasting 8 pages into the comment box;
#4 (No time pressure) On your blog you can state your case over 12 weeks of editing, not 24 hours of constant reactions to the latest reply. I have no interest to hunting down a thread from 8 days ago on FB, thus the pressure is to exhaust the topic in 2-3 days, which is a counter-productive restraint. You now do not have to cram all your points into 2-3 days of tit-for-tat replies on a thread, weeding out 8 rabbits, hoping to resolve everything by sunrise. Now you can use your blog without time pressure.
#5. (Less Tangents). Admittedly blog entries can accidentally tackle multiple topics at the same time, but with practice we can edit them, and isolate topics into separate files. This constant editing is not possible on FB threads. If someone comes to your wall and raises 4 topics, then you can give them 4 links of the 4 files you have been working on over the past months.
#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves). Admittedly blog entries can include emotion-driven rants and raves, but with practice we can edit them, delete the rant/rave component, delete weaknesses, add strengths, remove previous ad hominems, strawmen, fallacies we have accidentally used previously.
#7 (No fighting for the Last Word; No accusation of being argumentative). If I disagree with your blog entry, I can add my rebuttal to my on-going blog entry; but in due time the majority of topics will be exhausted, we each will have as much space as desired to state our case. In essence every 2 weeks you can tell each other of the updates to our file, but no one is getting the last word, because every one is getting their presentation granted. If you are no longer interested in updating your file, that is up to you; there will be times when I am not currently motivated to revamp my corresponding file.
#7b. When FB has 20 exchanges on a thread, persons will accuse the other to being argumentative, due to the nature of the conversation length. However on our own blogs, we only have 2-3 growing entries per topic which is updated and improved upon through the weeks; In such a setting the blogger can be as thorough and detailed and methodical as they would like, without being accused of being argumentative.
#8. (Even my blog is not an attempt to convince you.). We can have 50 pages about the errors of Mormonism, Atheism, Hinduism, the Pope, Praying to Mary, Islam, post it, link it and it not convince our readers.
Even among other topics this is true. We can have 50 pages about the errors of King James Onlyism, Padeobaptism, Women deacons, Sunday-Sabbath, 10% tithe....post it, link it, and it not convince our reader. So I am not sending my blog link to "convince you" as the basis of my validity. There are many topics which you can send me your link and evidence, and I remain unconvinced. If life were this easy, I would quickly find the ultimate file on who should be baptized, send it to all dissenters, and unify Reformed Denominations under the same banner, which ever it may be. So my blog, and your blog, is not presented with the primairy aim of changing someone's mind. If so, our joy will be robbed daily. We will find hundreds of people who remain unconvinced on 50 topics that we have posted on.
#9. (Will not make it, take it, personally). FB threads can quickly turn into name calling. "You are a heretic, You are a false prophet. You are a blasphemer. You are crazy. You are pitiful. (etc, etc)." There are times when we can call someone a heretic and a false prophet, but repeating this mantra every 10 sentences really amounts to nothing. If you want to create a blog and call those supporting Unconditonal Election or Particular Redemption to be heretics, then you are free to do so; but do it on your own blog then link me to that blog; Do not write the entry as pinpointed to "me", but pinpointed to the "topic". Other persons, like me, who do not support women-elders will visit your site and not be bogged down trying to figure out who this Todd-dude is in your material.
However, my advice is, on any topic, not to build your case on repeated labeling. You waste your time from the constructive evidence needed to support such a deduction. I've had Mormons and the Kingdom Hall repeatedly in my home, and even for an hour at a time. I told them both that I saw Joseph Smith and Charles Russel Taze as false prophets, but I did not say this more than three times within the hour, doing so is not productive. This model would translate into typing the deduction once every four pages, not every 10 sentences.
I hope my blog entries keeps the focus on the topic, not the individuals asserting the counterpoint. I am sure the majority of you are nice, helpful, friendly, moral, benevolent, and enjoyable; you can make a better breakfast, lunch, supper, and batch of cookies than I can; you offer great wisdom and skill on car repair, house repair, and computer repair. So do not take my disagreement with you personally. I will try to state everything in objective neutral terms, without "hammering" my point.
In college-debate class one is forced to represent views they disagree with, it is a helpful practice to stay focused on addressing the TOPIC, not the INDIVIDUALS who support the topic. If you are a theist, how would you present a case against THEISM? If you are an Arminian, how would you present a case ARMINIANISM? This mindset should be the approach for presenting your counterpoints to my assertions. Stick to my assertions, not the one asserting.
#10 (no sense of being out-numbered, flooded from 4 directions, innundated, esculation). This outcome can happen to both parties: to the affirmative side, and to the negating side. It is unpleasant. Everyone feeds off the other comments they like and dislike. People amen each other. People start using the same slogans made in rebutal. "your sad"....."no your sad"...."no really your sad". While admittedly this new policy protects me from being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, and being over-whelmed, it also protects you from the same experience. You might see 4 posts in the thread, but be unaware of the 3 private email notifications calling me a false-prophet repeatedly and a blasphemer repeatedly.
I sincerely told the person I was very busy addressing other studies and projects, but that was immediately rejected with insults, attacks, vehemence and fervor. I found it very hard to be constructive for the next hour because I was now being buried by private inbox notes, multiple posts on mulitple threads, and all the while my personal project was suffering from all these distractions. This new policy aims to prevent YOU from being distracted in your projects, as well as prevent myself from being distracted from my projects as multiple notifications and in-box materials overwhelm both of us.
So these 10 benefits (among others) are a few reasons why I am adopted the aforementioned policy. This policy is presented in all the friendliness and good-will that I pray the grace of God will manifest in me, with the hope that in due time I might possibly read your blog; and if so motivated might reply back on my own blog.
Finally and most importantly, Colossians. 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
At least TEN ADVANTAGES FOR YOU (and me) from this new policy:
#1. (No repetition) When you encounter others like me who deny padeobaptism (or the topic at hand), you will not have to type your thoughts twelve plus times over twelve months on twelve different threads; instead you will have one growing entry that you can update and direct people to time and again. This translate to better time stewardship over the months, instead of repeating the same attacks 12x a year.
#2. (No distractions) If interested, I can read your blog without having to weed out the entries of 6 other people on a FB thread, never having to click the FB "see more" link. It is much easier for your readers.
#3. (No size limitations) If interested, I will read your thoughts in full, you will have 15-20-30 pages to state your case and evidence, you will not be limited to 8-9 paragraphs; I personally find it difficult to read 10 paragraphs in the little blue FB margins, especially when it is among 30 other replies in that thread. I would imagine that you would be bothered by me coming to your post and pasting 8 pages into the comment box;
#4 (No time pressure) On your blog you can state your case over 12 weeks of editing, not 24 hours of constant reactions to the latest reply. I have no interest to hunting down a thread from 8 days ago on FB, thus the pressure is to exhaust the topic in 2-3 days, which is a counter-productive restraint. You now do not have to cram all your points into 2-3 days of tit-for-tat replies on a thread, weeding out 8 rabbits, hoping to resolve everything by sunrise. Now you can use your blog without time pressure.
#5. (Less Tangents). Admittedly blog entries can accidentally tackle multiple topics at the same time, but with practice we can edit them, and isolate topics into separate files. This constant editing is not possible on FB threads. If someone comes to your wall and raises 4 topics, then you can give them 4 links of the 4 files you have been working on over the past months.
#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves). Admittedly blog entries can include emotion-driven rants and raves, but with practice we can edit them, delete the rant/rave component, delete weaknesses, add strengths, remove previous ad hominems, strawmen, fallacies we have accidentally used previously.
#7 (No fighting for the Last Word; No accusation of being argumentative). If I disagree with your blog entry, I can add my rebuttal to my on-going blog entry; but in due time the majority of topics will be exhausted, we each will have as much space as desired to state our case. In essence every 2 weeks you can tell each other of the updates to our file, but no one is getting the last word, because every one is getting their presentation granted. If you are no longer interested in updating your file, that is up to you; there will be times when I am not currently motivated to revamp my corresponding file.
#7b. When FB has 20 exchanges on a thread, persons will accuse the other to being argumentative, due to the nature of the conversation length. However on our own blogs, we only have 2-3 growing entries per topic which is updated and improved upon through the weeks; In such a setting the blogger can be as thorough and detailed and methodical as they would like, without being accused of being argumentative.
#8. (Even my blog is not an attempt to convince you.). We can have 50 pages about the errors of Mormonism, Atheism, Hinduism, the Pope, Praying to Mary, Islam, post it, link it and it not convince our readers.
Even among other topics this is true. We can have 50 pages about the errors of King James Onlyism, Padeobaptism, Women deacons, Sunday-Sabbath, 10% tithe....post it, link it, and it not convince our reader. So I am not sending my blog link to "convince you" as the basis of my validity. There are many topics which you can send me your link and evidence, and I remain unconvinced. If life were this easy, I would quickly find the ultimate file on who should be baptized, send it to all dissenters, and unify Reformed Denominations under the same banner, which ever it may be. So my blog, and your blog, is not presented with the primairy aim of changing someone's mind. If so, our joy will be robbed daily. We will find hundreds of people who remain unconvinced on 50 topics that we have posted on.
#9. (Will not make it, take it, personally). FB threads can quickly turn into name calling. "You are a heretic, You are a false prophet. You are a blasphemer. You are crazy. You are pitiful. (etc, etc)." There are times when we can call someone a heretic and a false prophet, but repeating this mantra every 10 sentences really amounts to nothing. If you want to create a blog and call those supporting Unconditonal Election or Particular Redemption to be heretics, then you are free to do so; but do it on your own blog then link me to that blog; Do not write the entry as pinpointed to "me", but pinpointed to the "topic". Other persons, like me, who do not support women-elders will visit your site and not be bogged down trying to figure out who this Todd-dude is in your material.
However, my advice is, on any topic, not to build your case on repeated labeling. You waste your time from the constructive evidence needed to support such a deduction. I've had Mormons and the Kingdom Hall repeatedly in my home, and even for an hour at a time. I told them both that I saw Joseph Smith and Charles Russel Taze as false prophets, but I did not say this more than three times within the hour, doing so is not productive. This model would translate into typing the deduction once every four pages, not every 10 sentences.
I hope my blog entries keeps the focus on the topic, not the individuals asserting the counterpoint. I am sure the majority of you are nice, helpful, friendly, moral, benevolent, and enjoyable; you can make a better breakfast, lunch, supper, and batch of cookies than I can; you offer great wisdom and skill on car repair, house repair, and computer repair. So do not take my disagreement with you personally. I will try to state everything in objective neutral terms, without "hammering" my point.
In college-debate class one is forced to represent views they disagree with, it is a helpful practice to stay focused on addressing the TOPIC, not the INDIVIDUALS who support the topic. If you are a theist, how would you present a case against THEISM? If you are an Arminian, how would you present a case ARMINIANISM? This mindset should be the approach for presenting your counterpoints to my assertions. Stick to my assertions, not the one asserting.
#10 (no sense of being out-numbered, flooded from 4 directions, innundated, esculation). This outcome can happen to both parties: to the affirmative side, and to the negating side. It is unpleasant. Everyone feeds off the other comments they like and dislike. People amen each other. People start using the same slogans made in rebutal. "your sad"....."no your sad"...."no really your sad". While admittedly this new policy protects me from being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, and being over-whelmed, it also protects you from the same experience. You might see 4 posts in the thread, but be unaware of the 3 private email notifications calling me a false-prophet repeatedly and a blasphemer repeatedly.
I sincerely told the person I was very busy addressing other studies and projects, but that was immediately rejected with insults, attacks, vehemence and fervor. I found it very hard to be constructive for the next hour because I was now being buried by private inbox notes, multiple posts on mulitple threads, and all the while my personal project was suffering from all these distractions. This new policy aims to prevent YOU from being distracted in your projects, as well as prevent myself from being distracted from my projects as multiple notifications and in-box materials overwhelm both of us.
So these 10 benefits (among others) are a few reasons why I am adopted the aforementioned policy. This policy is presented in all the friendliness and good-will that I pray the grace of God will manifest in me, with the hope that in due time I might possibly read your blog; and if so motivated might reply back on my own blog.
Finally and most importantly, Colossians. 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
TULIP REJECTERS HUB
I fully affrim TULIP. These internal links are provided for persons who affirm the TULIP to prepare a proper defense. They are also provided for those who REJECT Tulip, so that Facbook Threads will not be swamped with verses, pleas, and assertions that have already been heard and examined.
1. Link to 50-70 Blogs, Books, Writiers, Persons who reject the TULIP.
2. Link to Verses cited to dispute each segment of the TULIP.
3. Link to 45+ Questions/Accusations/Assertions to reject the TULIP.
A. Link to my new Facebook counterpoint policy.
B. Link to Mutual Benefits for this policy.
I've already provided you with 90% of the verses and counterpoints you would present. I am not sure what is accomplished for you to clutter my wall with the exact same material that I myself have already stated, and rejected. If your post, verse, assertion is original I will seek to incorporate it into these materials.
If you are in some manner "undecided" in these matters, let it be known that Reformed Theologians are well-aware of these verses and questions and have responded in detail to each verse and question for centuries now. One of my goals is to assemble those detailed responses on my blogs.
---- COPY AND PASTE FOR FUTURE FACEBOOK -----
------- END --------
1. Link to 50-70 Blogs, Books, Writiers, Persons who reject the TULIP.
2. Link to Verses cited to dispute each segment of the TULIP.
3. Link to 45+ Questions/Accusations/Assertions to reject the TULIP.
A. Link to my new Facebook counterpoint policy.
B. Link to Mutual Benefits for this policy.
I've already provided you with 90% of the verses and counterpoints you would present. I am not sure what is accomplished for you to clutter my wall with the exact same material that I myself have already stated, and rejected. If your post, verse, assertion is original I will seek to incorporate it into these materials.
If you are in some manner "undecided" in these matters, let it be known that Reformed Theologians are well-aware of these verses and questions and have responded in detail to each verse and question for centuries now. One of my goals is to assemble those detailed responses on my blogs.
---- COPY AND PASTE FOR FUTURE FACEBOOK -----
------- END --------
CITED BY TULIP REJECTERS
Last Modified 01/05/2011. Created: 01/05/2011/
Common References cited by TULIP-rejecters to dispute: Categorized (catch-all list to follow)
1. "Total Depravity"; Assert Free-will.
Genesis 6:5-6; God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15: An offer of choice implies the freedom and ability to choice.
Ezekiel 18:24, 32: If a righteous person turns from his righteousness he will die. So people can loose their salvation. And God has "no pleasure in the death of one who dies."
Ezekiel 33:11: God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Matthew 5:43-48 We are to love our enemies, as God loves everyone.
Romans 2:11 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Romans 3:27 Faith is not a "work" plea.
Romans 12:3: God gives every man a "measure of faith," so all have the ability to choose to accept God's offer of salvation.
2 Corinthians 3:16: The "veil" is taken away after one turns to the Lord; so people are capable of turning to God on their own.
Ephesians 2:8-9 Grace is the offer, faith is not a work.
Ephes. 6:9 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Col. 3:25 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
1 Timothy 2:3-4: God desires "all" to be saved.
1 Timothy 4:10: God is the Savior of all men.
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." So God’s grace is available to everyone.
2 Peter 3:9: God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Revelation 22:17: "whosoever desires" is called to salvation.
FREEWILL OFFERINGS teaches Freewill: Leviticus 22:18 (also see: Leviticus 22:21 Leviticus 22:23 Leviticus 23:38 Numbers 15:3 Numbers 29:39 Deut. 12:6 Deut. 12:17 Deut. 16:10 Deut. 23:23 2 Chron. 31:14 Ezra 1:4 Ezra 3:5 Ezra 7:13 Ezra 7:16 Ezra 8:28 Psalm 119:108
2. "Unconditional Election"
(premised off universal appeals, universal love, cited above)
b. To Assert that God loves each individual: John 3:16, 1 John 4:8,16; Matthew 5:43-48
3. "Definite Atonement. Particular Redemption."
John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42: Christ "takes away the sin of the world," God loves the "world" and Jesus is "Savior of the world." So the atonement is universal, not limited.
John 3:16: God gave His one and only Son to the "world"
Hebrews 2:9: Christ tasted "death for everyone." So the atonement is universal.
2 Peter 2:1: The false prophets are "denying the Lord who bought them" so Jesus died even for unbelievers.
1 John 2:2: Jesus died for the sins of "the whole world" not just the elect.
4. "Effectual Grace" (also based #1. rejected appeals)
Acts 7:51, 24:25: People can resist the Holy Spirit and consequently, God's offer of salvation. Therefore God's grace is resistible by man's free will.
5. "Preservation of the Saints"
Psalm 69:28: "Let them be blotted out of the book of life" indicates people can lose their salvation.
Hebrews 6:4-6: A description of true believers who are in danger of loosing their salvation.
Revelation 2:7: Only those who "overcome" will ultimately be saved.
CATCH-ALL LIST 98% REPEATED, BUT JUST IN CASE.
Genesis 6:5-6; God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15: An offer of choice implies the freedom and ability to choice.
FREEWILL OFFERINGS teaches Freewill: Leviticus 22:18 (also see: Leviticus 22:21 Leviticus 22:23 Leviticus 23:38 Numbers 15:3 Numbers 29:39 Deut. 12:6 Deut. 12:17 Deut. 16:10 Deut. 23:23 2 Chron. 31:14 Ezra 1:4 Ezra 3:5 Ezra 7:13 Ezra 7:16 Ezra 8:28 Psalm 119:108
Psalm 69:28: "Let them be blotted out of the book of life" indicates people can lose their salvation.
Isaiah 53:6: Christ died for "all" people.
Ezekiel 18:24, 32: If a righteous person turns from his righteousness he will die. So people can loose their salvation. And God has "no pleasure in the death of one who dies."
Ezekiel 33:11: God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Matthew 5:43-48 We are to love our enemies, as God loves everyone.
Matthew 23:37: "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are capable of resisting God's grace. Therefore irresistible grace is not true. Jesus' love, offer, desire, appeal, doesn't get want He wants.
John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42: Christ "takes away the sin of the world," God loves the "world" and Jesus is "Savior of the world." So the atonement is universal, not limited.
John 3:16: God gave His one and only Son to the "world"
John 12:32: Christ will draw "all peoples" to Himself.
Acts 7:51, 24:25: People can resist the Holy Spirit and consequently, God's offer of salvation. Therefore God's grace is resistible by man's free will.
Romans 2:11 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Romans 3:27 Faith is not a "work" plea.
Romans 12:3: God gives every man a "measure of faith," so all have the ability to choose to accept God's offer of salvation.
2 Corinthians 3:16: The "veil" is taken away after one turns to the Lord; so people are capable of turning to God on their own.
Ephesians 2:8-9 Grace is the offer, faith is not a work.
Ephes. 6:9 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Col. 3:25 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
1 Timothy 2:3-4: God desires "all" to be saved.
1 Timothy 4:10: God is the Savior of all men.
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." So God’s grace is available to everyone.
Hebrews 2:9: Christ tasted "death for everyone." So the atonement is universal.
Hebrews 6:4-6: A description of true believers who are in danger of loosing their salvation.
1 Peter 1:17 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
2 Peter 2:1: The false prophets are "denying the Lord who bought them" so Jesus died even for unbelievers.
2 Peter 2:20-22: People escape "the pollutions of the world" and then return to them.
2 Peter 3:9: God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
1 John 2:2: Jesus died for the sins of "the whole world" not just the elect.
Revelation 2:7: Only those who "overcome" will ultimately be saved.
Revelation 22:17: "whosoever desires" is called to salvation.
-------
Common References cited by TULIP-rejecters to dispute: Categorized (catch-all list to follow)
1. "Total Depravity"; Assert Free-will.
Genesis 6:5-6; God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15: An offer of choice implies the freedom and ability to choice.
Ezekiel 18:24, 32: If a righteous person turns from his righteousness he will die. So people can loose their salvation. And God has "no pleasure in the death of one who dies."
Ezekiel 33:11: God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Matthew 5:43-48 We are to love our enemies, as God loves everyone.
Romans 2:11 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Romans 3:27 Faith is not a "work" plea.
Romans 12:3: God gives every man a "measure of faith," so all have the ability to choose to accept God's offer of salvation.
2 Corinthians 3:16: The "veil" is taken away after one turns to the Lord; so people are capable of turning to God on their own.
Ephesians 2:8-9 Grace is the offer, faith is not a work.
Ephes. 6:9 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Col. 3:25 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
1 Timothy 2:3-4: God desires "all" to be saved.
1 Timothy 4:10: God is the Savior of all men.
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." So God’s grace is available to everyone.
2 Peter 3:9: God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Revelation 22:17: "whosoever desires" is called to salvation.
FREEWILL OFFERINGS teaches Freewill: Leviticus 22:18 (also see: Leviticus 22:21 Leviticus 22:23 Leviticus 23:38 Numbers 15:3 Numbers 29:39 Deut. 12:6 Deut. 12:17 Deut. 16:10 Deut. 23:23 2 Chron. 31:14 Ezra 1:4 Ezra 3:5 Ezra 7:13 Ezra 7:16 Ezra 8:28 Psalm 119:108
2. "Unconditional Election"
(premised off universal appeals, universal love, cited above)
b. To Assert that God loves each individual: John 3:16, 1 John 4:8,16; Matthew 5:43-48
3. "Definite Atonement. Particular Redemption."
John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42: Christ "takes away the sin of the world," God loves the "world" and Jesus is "Savior of the world." So the atonement is universal, not limited.
John 3:16: God gave His one and only Son to the "world"
Hebrews 2:9: Christ tasted "death for everyone." So the atonement is universal.
2 Peter 2:1: The false prophets are "denying the Lord who bought them" so Jesus died even for unbelievers.
1 John 2:2: Jesus died for the sins of "the whole world" not just the elect.
4. "Effectual Grace" (also based #1. rejected appeals)
Acts 7:51, 24:25: People can resist the Holy Spirit and consequently, God's offer of salvation. Therefore God's grace is resistible by man's free will.
5. "Preservation of the Saints"
Psalm 69:28: "Let them be blotted out of the book of life" indicates people can lose their salvation.
Hebrews 6:4-6: A description of true believers who are in danger of loosing their salvation.
Revelation 2:7: Only those who "overcome" will ultimately be saved.
CATCH-ALL LIST 98% REPEATED, BUT JUST IN CASE.
Genesis 6:5-6; God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15: An offer of choice implies the freedom and ability to choice.
FREEWILL OFFERINGS teaches Freewill: Leviticus 22:18 (also see: Leviticus 22:21 Leviticus 22:23 Leviticus 23:38 Numbers 15:3 Numbers 29:39 Deut. 12:6 Deut. 12:17 Deut. 16:10 Deut. 23:23 2 Chron. 31:14 Ezra 1:4 Ezra 3:5 Ezra 7:13 Ezra 7:16 Ezra 8:28 Psalm 119:108
Psalm 69:28: "Let them be blotted out of the book of life" indicates people can lose their salvation.
Isaiah 53:6: Christ died for "all" people.
Ezekiel 18:24, 32: If a righteous person turns from his righteousness he will die. So people can loose their salvation. And God has "no pleasure in the death of one who dies."
Ezekiel 33:11: God is hurt by our actions (He loves us), so He can't be in control of our destinies.
Matthew 5:43-48 We are to love our enemies, as God loves everyone.
Matthew 23:37: "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are capable of resisting God's grace. Therefore irresistible grace is not true. Jesus' love, offer, desire, appeal, doesn't get want He wants.
John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42: Christ "takes away the sin of the world," God loves the "world" and Jesus is "Savior of the world." So the atonement is universal, not limited.
John 3:16: God gave His one and only Son to the "world"
John 12:32: Christ will draw "all peoples" to Himself.
Acts 7:51, 24:25: People can resist the Holy Spirit and consequently, God's offer of salvation. Therefore God's grace is resistible by man's free will.
Romans 2:11 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Romans 3:27 Faith is not a "work" plea.
Romans 12:3: God gives every man a "measure of faith," so all have the ability to choose to accept God's offer of salvation.
2 Corinthians 3:16: The "veil" is taken away after one turns to the Lord; so people are capable of turning to God on their own.
Ephesians 2:8-9 Grace is the offer, faith is not a work.
Ephes. 6:9 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
Col. 3:25 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
1 Timothy 2:3-4: God desires "all" to be saved.
1 Timothy 4:10: God is the Savior of all men.
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." So God’s grace is available to everyone.
Hebrews 2:9: Christ tasted "death for everyone." So the atonement is universal.
Hebrews 6:4-6: A description of true believers who are in danger of loosing their salvation.
1 Peter 1:17 God is no respector of persons, shows no paritiality.
2 Peter 2:1: The false prophets are "denying the Lord who bought them" so Jesus died even for unbelievers.
2 Peter 2:20-22: People escape "the pollutions of the world" and then return to them.
2 Peter 3:9: God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
1 John 2:2: Jesus died for the sins of "the whole world" not just the elect.
Revelation 2:7: Only those who "overcome" will ultimately be saved.
Revelation 22:17: "whosoever desires" is called to salvation.
-------
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Hector Asserts Freewill
Hector asserts Free-will.---to rebut later:
My almighty God exercised free will in the creation.Humanity is created in His image. therefore we possess the free will God "inherited."
Salvation, however, is a free gift of God through Jesus Christ atoning sacrifice.God is not "WILLING"... that anyone should perish but all of us should come to repentance. Jesus is God incarnate.ANYONE WHO REJECTS JESUS REJECTS GOD !!!
My almighty God exercised free will in the creation.Humanity is created in His image. therefore we possess the free will God "inherited."
Salvation, however, is a free gift of God through Jesus Christ atoning sacrifice.God is not "WILLING"... that anyone should perish but all of us should come to repentance. Jesus is God incarnate.ANYONE WHO REJECTS JESUS REJECTS GOD !!!
Chets post denying particular redemption
Archiving Chet's Denial of Particular Redemption: To be rebuted later:
Obviously we disagree about this and I have no illusions of being able to convince you otherwise...but for the potential sake of someone else out there...let the reader of this note not neglect the clear teaching of John 3, I John 2, I Timo...thy 2, and the heart of the Scriptures as a whole. We have a merciful God who takes no pleasure at the death of the wicked, but rather, "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ (Ezekiel 33) and does not desire for any to perish (II Peter 3:9). The argument that if Christ died for all men and yet some perish then Christ is a failure is exactly the same logic of the Muslims that tell me if God had a Son He would not fail by letting His Son die. These are both logical arguments of humans and not the clear teaching of Scripture. What success is from God's perspective is not that His Son would not die or that some whom He died for would not receive eternal life. But that His Son did die for all and that one way or another as the Apostle Paul stated, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,"
THE FALSE JESUS
RHETORICAL QUESTION: Can one be a Christian, and believe:
1. Jesus is a sinner?
2. Jesus merely passed out on the cross without dying?
3. Jesus is not God?
4. Jesus was not a man?
5. Jesus was not born of a virgin?
6. Jesus failed the Father?
7. Jesus failed at what he attempted?
8. Jesus did not rise again, but his death was enough to save sinners?
9. Jesus merely adds to your works to make your efforts acceptable?
10. The sinner can and does make the difference in his salvation?
11. The sinner can and does met the conditions for his salvation?
12. Jesus was a self-proclaimed Lord, but not a fulfillment of Old Testament Promise of a Messiah.
13. Jesus could have died on the cross and zero souls be saved?
14. The entire bible is heresy except John 3:16?
15. Jesus is the same Jesus spoken of in the Koran as well as the writings of Joseph Smith as well as the messages from Mary.
16. Jesus was basically a Buddhist variant of his day teaching primarily "Christ conciousness" and the emptying of self.
17. God failed to accomplish what He intended to accomplish through Jesus Christ.
18. Neither the Father nor the Son intended to save sinners, but merely intended to make salvation a possibility.
19. that they are a sinner, but they can make the difference in their standing with God on the basis of meeting 2, 7, 10, 613 requirements.
20. Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven;
21. the Jesus of a 3 sentence prayer, without being dupped into Matthew 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Mark 13:22 False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
1. Jesus is a sinner?
2. Jesus merely passed out on the cross without dying?
3. Jesus is not God?
4. Jesus was not a man?
5. Jesus was not born of a virgin?
6. Jesus failed the Father?
7. Jesus failed at what he attempted?
8. Jesus did not rise again, but his death was enough to save sinners?
9. Jesus merely adds to your works to make your efforts acceptable?
10. The sinner can and does make the difference in his salvation?
11. The sinner can and does met the conditions for his salvation?
12. Jesus was a self-proclaimed Lord, but not a fulfillment of Old Testament Promise of a Messiah.
13. Jesus could have died on the cross and zero souls be saved?
14. The entire bible is heresy except John 3:16?
15. Jesus is the same Jesus spoken of in the Koran as well as the writings of Joseph Smith as well as the messages from Mary.
16. Jesus was basically a Buddhist variant of his day teaching primarily "Christ conciousness" and the emptying of self.
17. God failed to accomplish what He intended to accomplish through Jesus Christ.
18. Neither the Father nor the Son intended to save sinners, but merely intended to make salvation a possibility.
19. that they are a sinner, but they can make the difference in their standing with God on the basis of meeting 2, 7, 10, 613 requirements.
20. Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven;
21. the Jesus of a 3 sentence prayer, without being dupped into Matthew 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Mark 13:22 False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
RESPONSE POLICY
SECTION ONE: (WHAT IS MY POLICY)
Why you have been given a link directing you to this entry? It is because:
1. My aim on Facebook is primairly to
a. state my views;
b. have discussions;.
c. allow disagreements to be stated.
d. allow opposing/modified/clarified assertions/stance to be stated. (but not the evidence). Feel free to state your stance and disagreement, on any matter posted. It is not my goal to censor you, or censor your view.
f. allow persons to ask for simple clarification or re-statement of my stance. Such as "Are you suggesting, implying that we _______? Am I understanding you correctly?"
e. gain supportive points, quotes, articles, links, clarifications on what I stating.
2. My aim on FB is to avoid:
a. engaging in debates; and also fleshly debates.
b. rabbit- chasing-tangents,
c. name calling,
d. heated emotion, (brewing rants and raves)
e. strawman fallacies,
f. getting the last-word,
h. 40+ exchanges per thread which brings exhaustion and frustration to everyone invovled.
i. 9+ topics in one thread;
j. ***I do not permit my wall be the location for your evidence.
***If you ignore this protocol I will delete your material, and you will have to type it all over again on your own blog, so in kindness, this warning is given for your own benefit.
j2. If you want to state your evidence, you can state it on your own free blogger account or free wordpress account. Take the topics that interest you to your own blog, assert your view, evidence your view, and oppose the views of mine at that location. (your blog, not my wall).
j3. [EXAMPLE] Here is a great example of an ideal response to my orignal wall post:
I do not send persons to this current entry to be dimissive, short, rude, abrupt, or offensive. You are not my enemy because I sent you here. In fact, my objective includes fostering the exact opposites concerning your counterpoint. My new system allows for more time, length, attention, care, analysis, thoughtfulness in reading and responding. So again, I appreciate your interest in the point or a counterpoint, however I will most likely not be responding to your material in the next week. Thus I ask that you locate your concerns and position on your blog instead of swamping my thread with long exchanges and material. (just send me a link to your related blog entry instead.)
4. I afford you these same standard for moderating your own wall and posts you started. I will not swamp your wall with material, but merely provide a link for my "positon paper/blog" for you to consider if you have the interest.
I am making this entry as a standard for my Facebook (FB) and online interactions from this day January 1st, 2011 and forward. I am making this entry on 01/01/2011. Saturday Night; started around 8 pm finished 11:30 pm. EST.
(You do not have to read the rest if you don't have the time or interest)
---------------------
APPENDED: SECTION TWO: (WHY I HAVE THIS POLICY.)
I am making this entry in light of the my FB and online experiences in the past 2-3 years.
We will BOTH have numerous benefits from this system.
#1. (No repetition) When you encounter others like me who deny padeobaptism (or the topic at hand), you will not have to type your thoughts twelve plus times over twelve months on twelve different threads; instead you will have one growing entry that you can update and direct people to time and again.
#2. (No distractions) If interested, I can read your blog without having to weed out the entries of 6 other people on a FB thread, never having to click the FB "see more" link. It is much easier for your readers.
#3. (No size limitations) If interested, I will read your thoughts in full, you will have 15-20-30 pages to state your case and evidence, you will not be limited to 8-9 paragraphs; I personally find it difficult to read 10 paragraphs in the little blue FB margins, especially when it is among 30 other replies in that thread. I would imagine that you would be bothered by me coming to your post and pasting 8 pages into the comment box;
#4 (No time pressure) On your blog you can state your case over 12 weeks of editing, not 24 hours of constant reactions to the latest reply. I have no interest to hunting down a thread from 8 days ago on FB, thus the pressure is to exhaust the topic in 2-3 days, which is a counter-productive restraint. You now do not have to cram all your points into 2-3 days of tit-for-tat replies on a thread, weeding out 8 rabbits, hoping to resolve everything by sunrise. Now you can use your blog without time pressure.
#5. (Less Tangents). Admittedly blog entries can accidentally tackle multiple topics at the same time, but with practice we can edit them, and isolate topics into separate files. This constant editing is not possible on FB threads. If someone comes to your wall and raises 4 topics, then you can give them 4 links of the 4 files you have been working on over the past months.
#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves). Admittedly blog entries can include emotion-driven rants and raves, but with practice we can edit them, delete the rant/rave component, delete weaknesses, add strengths, remove previous ad hominems, strawmen, fallacies we have accidentally used previously.
#7 (No fighting for the Last Word; No accusation of being argumentative). If I disagree with your blog entry, I can add my rebuttal to my on-going blog entry; but in due time the majority of topics will be exhausted, we each will have as much space as desired to state our case. In essence every 2 weeks you can tell each other of the updates to our file, but no one is getting the last word, because every one is getting their presentation granted. If you are no longer interested in updating your file, that is up to you; there will be times when I am not currently motivated to revamp my corresponding file.
#7b. When FB has 20 exchanges on a thread, persons will accuse the other to being argumentative, due to the nature of the conversation length. However on our own blogs, we only have 2-3 growing entries per topic which is updated and improved upon through the weeks; In such a setting the blogger can be as thorough and detailed and methodical as they would like, without being accused of being argumentative.
#8. (Even my blog is not an attempt to convince you.). We can have 50 pages about the errors of Mormonism, Atheism, Hinduism, the Pope, Praying to Mary, Islam, post it, link it and it not convince our readers.
Even among other topics this is true. We can have 50 pages about the errors of King James Onlyism, Padeobaptism, Women deacons, Sunday-Sabbath, 10% tithe....post it, link it, and it not convince our reader. So I am not sending my blog link to "convince you" as the basis of my validity. There are many topics which you can send me your link and evidence, and I remain unconvinced. If life were this easy, I would quickly find the ultimate file on who should be baptized, send it to all dissenters, and unify Reformed Denominations under the same banner, which ever it may be. So my blog, and your blog, is not presented with the primairy aim of changing someone's mind. If so, our joy will be robbed daily. We will find hundreds of people who remain unconvinced on 50 topics that we have posted on.
#9. (Will not make it, take it, personally). FB threads can quickly turn into name calling. "You are a heretic, You are a false prophet. You are a blasphemer. You are crazy. You are pitiful. (etc, etc)." There are times when we can call someone a heretic and a false prophet, but repeating this mantra every 10 sentences really amounts to nothing. If you want to create a blog and call those supporting Unconditonal Election or Particular Redemption to be heretics, then you are free to do so; but do it on your own blog then link me to that blog; Do not write the entry as pinpointed to "me", but pinpointed to the "topic". Other persons, like me, who do not support women-elders will visit your site and not be bogged down trying to figure out who this Todd-dude is in your material.
However, my advice is, on any topic, not to build your case on repeated labeling. You waste your time from the constructive evidence needed to support such a deduction. I've had Mormons and the Kingdom Hall repeatedly in my home, and even for an hour at a time. I told them both that I saw Joseph Smith and Charles Russel Taze as false prophets, but I did not say this more than three times within the hour, doing so is not productive. This model would translate into typing the deduction once every four pages, not every 10 sentences.
I hope my blog entries keeps the focus on the topic, not the individuals asserting the counterpoint. I am sure the majority of you are nice, helpful, friendly, moral, benevolent, and enjoyable; you can make a better breakfast, lunch, supper, and batch of cookies than I can; you offer great wisdom and skill on car repair, house repair, and computer repair. So do not take my disagreement with you personally. I will try to state everything in objective neutral terms, without "hammering" my point.
In college-debate class one is forced to represent views they disagree with, it is a helpful practice to stay focused on addressing the TOPIC, not the INDIVIDUALS who support the topic. If you are a theist, how would you present a case against THEISM? If you are an Arminian, how would you present a case ARMINIANISM? This mindset should be the approach for presenting your counterpoints to my assertions. Stick to my assertions, not the one asserting.
#10 (no sense of being out-numbered, flooded from 4 directions, innundated, esculation). This outcome can happen to both parties: to the affirmative side to the negating side. It is unpleasant. Everyone feeds off the other comments they like and dislike. People amen each other. People start using the same slogans made in rebutal. "your sad"....."no your sad"...."no really your sad". While admittedly this new policy protects me from being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, and being over-whelmed, it also protects you from the same experience. You might see 4 posts in the thread, but be unaware of the 3 private email notifications calling me a false-prophet repeatedly and a blasphemer repeatedly.
I sincerely told the person I was very busy addressing other studies and projects, but that was immediately rejected with insults, attacks, vehemence and fervor. I found it very hard to be constructive for the next hour because I was now being buried by private inbox notes, multiple posts on mulitple threads, and all the while my personal project was suffering from all these distractions. This new policy aims to prevent YOU from being distracted in your projects, as well as prevent myself from being distracted from my projects as multiple notifications and in-box materials overwhelm both of us.
So these 10 benefits (among others) are a few reasons why I am adopted the aforementioned policy. This policy is presented in all the friendliness and good-will that I pray the grace of God will manifest in me, with the hope that in due time I might possibly read your blog; and if so motivated might reply back on my own blog.
Finally and most importantly, Colossians. 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Why you have been given a link directing you to this entry? It is because:
1. My aim on Facebook is primairly to
a. state my views;
b. have discussions;.
c. allow disagreements to be stated.
d. allow opposing/modified/clarified assertions/stance to be stated. (but not the evidence). Feel free to state your stance and disagreement, on any matter posted. It is not my goal to censor you, or censor your view.
f. allow persons to ask for simple clarification or re-statement of my stance. Such as "Are you suggesting, implying that we _______? Am I understanding you correctly?"
e. gain supportive points, quotes, articles, links, clarifications on what I stating.
2. My aim on FB is to avoid:
a. engaging in debates; and also fleshly debates.
b. rabbit- chasing-tangents,
c. name calling,
d. heated emotion, (brewing rants and raves)
e. strawman fallacies,
f. getting the last-word,
h. 40+ exchanges per thread which brings exhaustion and frustration to everyone invovled.
i. 9+ topics in one thread;
j. ***I do not permit my wall be the location for your evidence.
***If you ignore this protocol I will delete your material, and you will have to type it all over again on your own blog, so in kindness, this warning is given for your own benefit.
j2. If you want to state your evidence, you can state it on your own free blogger account or free wordpress account. Take the topics that interest you to your own blog, assert your view, evidence your view, and oppose the views of mine at that location. (your blog, not my wall).
j3. [EXAMPLE] Here is a great example of an ideal response to my orignal wall post:
"Todd, I take it by your statement that you are not profess (topic at hand). However, I do support (topic at hand). Here is a link to my blog entry/pdf/doc/file that I wrote to (topic at hand) if you have the time or interest to read it; If you do get around to reading it, I would be curious to your response if you likewise have the time and interest to do so in the next few months."If your blog entry is 50% referals to videos, audios, articles, quotes, and blogs that you did not create yourself, then I might pass. (However, at times, I may decide to go ahead an consider these referals) I will likewise have outside videos, audios, articles, quotes, blogs for your consideration. But this pattern is still helpful to cut down on FB fussing. If the other person is interested--- the material is there; if they are not interested--- then there is no point in raving for 10 replies on a FB thread.
I do not send persons to this current entry to be dimissive, short, rude, abrupt, or offensive. You are not my enemy because I sent you here. In fact, my objective includes fostering the exact opposites concerning your counterpoint. My new system allows for more time, length, attention, care, analysis, thoughtfulness in reading and responding. So again, I appreciate your interest in the point or a counterpoint, however I will most likely not be responding to your material in the next week. Thus I ask that you locate your concerns and position on your blog instead of swamping my thread with long exchanges and material. (just send me a link to your related blog entry instead.)
4. I afford you these same standard for moderating your own wall and posts you started. I will not swamp your wall with material, but merely provide a link for my "positon paper/blog" for you to consider if you have the interest.
I am making this entry as a standard for my Facebook (FB) and online interactions from this day January 1st, 2011 and forward. I am making this entry on 01/01/2011. Saturday Night; started around 8 pm finished 11:30 pm. EST.
(You do not have to read the rest if you don't have the time or interest)
---------------------
APPENDED: SECTION TWO: (WHY I HAVE THIS POLICY.)
I am making this entry in light of the my FB and online experiences in the past 2-3 years.
We will BOTH have numerous benefits from this system.
#1. (No repetition) When you encounter others like me who deny padeobaptism (or the topic at hand), you will not have to type your thoughts twelve plus times over twelve months on twelve different threads; instead you will have one growing entry that you can update and direct people to time and again.
#2. (No distractions) If interested, I can read your blog without having to weed out the entries of 6 other people on a FB thread, never having to click the FB "see more" link. It is much easier for your readers.
#3. (No size limitations) If interested, I will read your thoughts in full, you will have 15-20-30 pages to state your case and evidence, you will not be limited to 8-9 paragraphs; I personally find it difficult to read 10 paragraphs in the little blue FB margins, especially when it is among 30 other replies in that thread. I would imagine that you would be bothered by me coming to your post and pasting 8 pages into the comment box;
#4 (No time pressure) On your blog you can state your case over 12 weeks of editing, not 24 hours of constant reactions to the latest reply. I have no interest to hunting down a thread from 8 days ago on FB, thus the pressure is to exhaust the topic in 2-3 days, which is a counter-productive restraint. You now do not have to cram all your points into 2-3 days of tit-for-tat replies on a thread, weeding out 8 rabbits, hoping to resolve everything by sunrise. Now you can use your blog without time pressure.
#5. (Less Tangents). Admittedly blog entries can accidentally tackle multiple topics at the same time, but with practice we can edit them, and isolate topics into separate files. This constant editing is not possible on FB threads. If someone comes to your wall and raises 4 topics, then you can give them 4 links of the 4 files you have been working on over the past months.
#6 (Less emotion-driven rants and raves). Admittedly blog entries can include emotion-driven rants and raves, but with practice we can edit them, delete the rant/rave component, delete weaknesses, add strengths, remove previous ad hominems, strawmen, fallacies we have accidentally used previously.
#7 (No fighting for the Last Word; No accusation of being argumentative). If I disagree with your blog entry, I can add my rebuttal to my on-going blog entry; but in due time the majority of topics will be exhausted, we each will have as much space as desired to state our case. In essence every 2 weeks you can tell each other of the updates to our file, but no one is getting the last word, because every one is getting their presentation granted. If you are no longer interested in updating your file, that is up to you; there will be times when I am not currently motivated to revamp my corresponding file.
#7b. When FB has 20 exchanges on a thread, persons will accuse the other to being argumentative, due to the nature of the conversation length. However on our own blogs, we only have 2-3 growing entries per topic which is updated and improved upon through the weeks; In such a setting the blogger can be as thorough and detailed and methodical as they would like, without being accused of being argumentative.
#8. (Even my blog is not an attempt to convince you.). We can have 50 pages about the errors of Mormonism, Atheism, Hinduism, the Pope, Praying to Mary, Islam, post it, link it and it not convince our readers.
Even among other topics this is true. We can have 50 pages about the errors of King James Onlyism, Padeobaptism, Women deacons, Sunday-Sabbath, 10% tithe....post it, link it, and it not convince our reader. So I am not sending my blog link to "convince you" as the basis of my validity. There are many topics which you can send me your link and evidence, and I remain unconvinced. If life were this easy, I would quickly find the ultimate file on who should be baptized, send it to all dissenters, and unify Reformed Denominations under the same banner, which ever it may be. So my blog, and your blog, is not presented with the primairy aim of changing someone's mind. If so, our joy will be robbed daily. We will find hundreds of people who remain unconvinced on 50 topics that we have posted on.
#9. (Will not make it, take it, personally). FB threads can quickly turn into name calling. "You are a heretic, You are a false prophet. You are a blasphemer. You are crazy. You are pitiful. (etc, etc)." There are times when we can call someone a heretic and a false prophet, but repeating this mantra every 10 sentences really amounts to nothing. If you want to create a blog and call those supporting Unconditonal Election or Particular Redemption to be heretics, then you are free to do so; but do it on your own blog then link me to that blog; Do not write the entry as pinpointed to "me", but pinpointed to the "topic". Other persons, like me, who do not support women-elders will visit your site and not be bogged down trying to figure out who this Todd-dude is in your material.
However, my advice is, on any topic, not to build your case on repeated labeling. You waste your time from the constructive evidence needed to support such a deduction. I've had Mormons and the Kingdom Hall repeatedly in my home, and even for an hour at a time. I told them both that I saw Joseph Smith and Charles Russel Taze as false prophets, but I did not say this more than three times within the hour, doing so is not productive. This model would translate into typing the deduction once every four pages, not every 10 sentences.
I hope my blog entries keeps the focus on the topic, not the individuals asserting the counterpoint. I am sure the majority of you are nice, helpful, friendly, moral, benevolent, and enjoyable; you can make a better breakfast, lunch, supper, and batch of cookies than I can; you offer great wisdom and skill on car repair, house repair, and computer repair. So do not take my disagreement with you personally. I will try to state everything in objective neutral terms, without "hammering" my point.
In college-debate class one is forced to represent views they disagree with, it is a helpful practice to stay focused on addressing the TOPIC, not the INDIVIDUALS who support the topic. If you are a theist, how would you present a case against THEISM? If you are an Arminian, how would you present a case ARMINIANISM? This mindset should be the approach for presenting your counterpoints to my assertions. Stick to my assertions, not the one asserting.
#10 (no sense of being out-numbered, flooded from 4 directions, innundated, esculation). This outcome can happen to both parties: to the affirmative side to the negating side. It is unpleasant. Everyone feeds off the other comments they like and dislike. People amen each other. People start using the same slogans made in rebutal. "your sad"....."no your sad"...."no really your sad". While admittedly this new policy protects me from being out-numbered, flooded from four directions, and being over-whelmed, it also protects you from the same experience. You might see 4 posts in the thread, but be unaware of the 3 private email notifications calling me a false-prophet repeatedly and a blasphemer repeatedly.
I sincerely told the person I was very busy addressing other studies and projects, but that was immediately rejected with insults, attacks, vehemence and fervor. I found it very hard to be constructive for the next hour because I was now being buried by private inbox notes, multiple posts on mulitple threads, and all the while my personal project was suffering from all these distractions. This new policy aims to prevent YOU from being distracted in your projects, as well as prevent myself from being distracted from my projects as multiple notifications and in-box materials overwhelm both of us.
So these 10 benefits (among others) are a few reasons why I am adopted the aforementioned policy. This policy is presented in all the friendliness and good-will that I pray the grace of God will manifest in me, with the hope that in due time I might possibly read your blog; and if so motivated might reply back on my own blog.
Finally and most importantly, Colossians. 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
ARMINIAN PRIMARY SOURCES.
I do not hold to Arminian Philosophy. However it is needful in apologetics and evangelism to know the primary sources of errant views. I do not suggest we spend 40 hours a week reading the writings of Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Atheists, Evolutionists, Arminians, Popes, etc. However, it is proper to be aware of their primary sources and central tenets. This list is to serve that purpose.
If you are Reformed in Theology, this list will help you avoid using the Strawman Fallacy in presenting your view. If you are not Reformed in Theology, this list might be shared to your detriment, but who knows, maybe God will bring you to see the inconsistencies presented by Arminians.
This list can serve another purpose, in that Arminians think, "You simply have not heard/studied/considered the other questions, views, concerns. So let me be the first to quote John 3:16 for you." In my case, I have read several Arminian books, articles, blogs; listened to many Arminian videos and audio files.
I was raised an Arminian for the 26 years as the son of a SBC Arminian pastor. I was Arminian in 4 years of college and 4 years of Seminary, and 2 years of Pastoral Ministry. I openly rejected the TULIP for 4-6 years during Seminary and ministry. I asserted then, many points that Arminians submit to me today; namely: "I do teach Savlation by Grace, God was gracious to make an offer, an offer that I did not deserve and could not earn."
But I digress, here is a list of primary sources for the aforementioned goals. In the future I might make annotations on which ones are more audacious than others, or on what parts of the TULIP they focus on.
PRIMARY SOURCES:
1. Norman Giesler. book "Chosen But Free" (youtube videos exist as well)
2. Dave Hunt. book "What Love is This"
3. Adrian Rogers.
4. John Wesley
5. Charles Finney
6. Luis De Molina (anything by Jesuits)
7. Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell. book: "Why I am not a Calvinist"
8. C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Calvinism and Arminianism
8b. Tim LaHaye
9. C. Gordon Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
10 F. Leroy Forlines and J. Matthew Pinson: book: "Classical Arminianism"
OVER 70 ARMINIAN WEBSTIES: (not sure which ones are still active)
1. http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/
2. List entirely grafted from the http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/ sidebar; I appreciate his provision of 20+ calvinistic sites as well; and have not had time to survey his own entries.
Ancient Christian Defender
Armini
Arminian Baptist
Arminian Chronicles
Arminian Perspectives
Arminian Sermons Online
Arminian Theology
Arminiblog
Awakening Theology
Beauty For Ashes
Ben Witherington
Bible Doctrines Study Page
Bible Thoughts From Chris (UK)
Biblical-Theology.net
Center For Theological Studies
Christian Courier
Christian With A View
Classic Holiness Sermons
Cramer's Comments
David Wilkerson
David Willis
Deliberations of Dawn
Dividing Word
Eric Landstrom
Eric Smith
Eternal Outlook
Eternal Security Examined
Evangelical Arminian
Evangelical Outreach
Examining Calvinism
Faith Experience
Fundamental Wesleyan Society
Gentle Wisdom
Greek Geek
Holiness UK
Humble Arminian
In Death or Life
Inquiring Minds
Introspectives of an Arminian Christian
Jacobus Arminius
James Arminius
JC Freak
Jesus Creed (Scot McKnight)
John Mark Hicks
Jon Earls
Josh Taylor
Kevin Jackson
Larry McCallister
Leeward Hope
Leonard Ravenhill
Matt Summers
No Calvinism
Obey God
One Baptist Voice
OSAS Arminian
Pastor Hightower (Ohio)
Perspectivas Arminianas (Portuguese)
Pneuma Foundation
Preach Faith
Pursuit of God
Revival Theology
SBC Tomorrow
Set Apart Place
Shawn Wilson
State of the Church
Steve Gregg
Stone-Campbell Disciple
Stop Sinning
The Arminian Magazine
The Arminian.net
The Rabyd Theologian
The Society of Evangelical Arminians
The Sound of Thunder
Theology and Snack
Thru Faith
Treasures Old & New
True Paradigm
Truth and Faith
Wesleyan Arminian
Wesleyan Heritage Fellowship
Women In The Word
X Calvinist
(this material is still a rough draft and to be updated repeatedly)
If you are Reformed in Theology, this list will help you avoid using the Strawman Fallacy in presenting your view. If you are not Reformed in Theology, this list might be shared to your detriment, but who knows, maybe God will bring you to see the inconsistencies presented by Arminians.
This list can serve another purpose, in that Arminians think, "You simply have not heard/studied/considered the other questions, views, concerns. So let me be the first to quote John 3:16 for you." In my case, I have read several Arminian books, articles, blogs; listened to many Arminian videos and audio files.
I was raised an Arminian for the 26 years as the son of a SBC Arminian pastor. I was Arminian in 4 years of college and 4 years of Seminary, and 2 years of Pastoral Ministry. I openly rejected the TULIP for 4-6 years during Seminary and ministry. I asserted then, many points that Arminians submit to me today; namely: "I do teach Savlation by Grace, God was gracious to make an offer, an offer that I did not deserve and could not earn."
But I digress, here is a list of primary sources for the aforementioned goals. In the future I might make annotations on which ones are more audacious than others, or on what parts of the TULIP they focus on.
PRIMARY SOURCES:
1. Norman Giesler. book "Chosen But Free" (youtube videos exist as well)
2. Dave Hunt. book "What Love is This"
3. Adrian Rogers.
4. John Wesley
5. Charles Finney
6. Luis De Molina (anything by Jesuits)
7. Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell. book: "Why I am not a Calvinist"
8. C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Calvinism and Arminianism
8b. Tim LaHaye
9. C. Gordon Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
10 F. Leroy Forlines and J. Matthew Pinson: book: "Classical Arminianism"
OVER 70 ARMINIAN WEBSTIES: (not sure which ones are still active)
1. http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/
2. List entirely grafted from the http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/ sidebar; I appreciate his provision of 20+ calvinistic sites as well; and have not had time to survey his own entries.
Ancient Christian Defender
Armini
Arminian Baptist
Arminian Chronicles
Arminian Perspectives
Arminian Sermons Online
Arminian Theology
Arminiblog
Awakening Theology
Beauty For Ashes
Ben Witherington
Bible Doctrines Study Page
Bible Thoughts From Chris (UK)
Biblical-Theology.net
Center For Theological Studies
Christian Courier
Christian With A View
Classic Holiness Sermons
Cramer's Comments
David Wilkerson
David Willis
Deliberations of Dawn
Dividing Word
Eric Landstrom
Eric Smith
Eternal Outlook
Eternal Security Examined
Evangelical Arminian
Evangelical Outreach
Examining Calvinism
Faith Experience
Fundamental Wesleyan Society
Gentle Wisdom
Greek Geek
Holiness UK
Humble Arminian
In Death or Life
Inquiring Minds
Introspectives of an Arminian Christian
Jacobus Arminius
James Arminius
JC Freak
Jesus Creed (Scot McKnight)
John Mark Hicks
Jon Earls
Josh Taylor
Kevin Jackson
Larry McCallister
Leeward Hope
Leonard Ravenhill
Matt Summers
No Calvinism
Obey God
One Baptist Voice
OSAS Arminian
Pastor Hightower (Ohio)
Perspectivas Arminianas (Portuguese)
Pneuma Foundation
Preach Faith
Pursuit of God
Revival Theology
SBC Tomorrow
Set Apart Place
Shawn Wilson
State of the Church
Steve Gregg
Stone-Campbell Disciple
Stop Sinning
The Arminian Magazine
The Arminian.net
The Rabyd Theologian
The Society of Evangelical Arminians
The Sound of Thunder
Theology and Snack
Thru Faith
Treasures Old & New
True Paradigm
Truth and Faith
Wesleyan Arminian
Wesleyan Heritage Fellowship
Women In The Word
X Calvinist
(this material is still a rough draft and to be updated repeatedly)
QUESTIONS TO THE REFORMED
last modified date: 1/01/2011 (original 2/19/2010)
For all those who profess the TULIP, and for all those who do not profess all or any part of the TULIP:
I am making and collecting an on-going list of Accusations against Reformed Theology. I hope to create responses to each one that I have listed so far, and all the other ones that come to mind, and all the ones you add.
1. You are saying God made puppets/Robots; We are not puppets/Robots;
2. This makes God the author of evil.
3. Predestination precludes our responsibility, guilt, or judgment; but free-will, free-choice doesn't.
4. God cannot/would not cripple a man then punish hm for being crippled. (Why have you made me thus, what do you still find fault)
5. Command, and invitation, and offer: implies ability.
6. Without a choice we don't have free-will, or without free-will we don't have a choice.
7. But God is love;
8. This makes God to be cruel tyrannt, dictator, ogre, monster.
9. We are all God's Children.
10. Whosoever means Whosoever.
11. All means all.
12. World means world. (go read John 3:16, etc)
13. But God gives us all a choice.
14. Look, some in the Bible choose evil; see; they had a choice;
15. Look, some in the Bible choose Jesus/good; see; they had a choice.
16. Why witness if the elect are sure to be regenerate and the goats never will be?
17. Why did God, prophets, disciples, or evangelists give any commands or warnings in/from the Bible, if God knows what's going to happen, and causes it to happen.
18. You're arrogant to be "the chosen." ; you are the “proudly elected ones” You have nothing but “PRIDE”. (You are like the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-14)
19. You're arrogant to "know it, understand it, all", no one has it all figured out.
20. (This is Gnosticism; Secret Knowledge); You are a Gnostic, focused on knowledge, and information; you are void of relationship to Jesus and peope.
21. Stop fussing about this immaterial topic, and get out to the more important matters like witnessing to the lost.
22. Stop fussing about this immaterial topic, and just love people and do good works.
23. Stop teaching Church History and doctrines of men, Stop following/reading/worshipping Calvin, follow Jesus, read your Bible;
24. This promotes lawless license, just sin all you want, it is all forgiven.
25. This promotes laziness all around from:evangelism, obedience, good works, labor, prayer.
26. Calvin murdered Severtus. Ad Homenim. Didn't Luther hate and despise the Jews.
27. I am neither an Arminian nor Calvinist.
28. Both Arminianism and Calvinism are right; or, neither is right; the answer is somewhere in the middle; each camp is taking the issues to extremes.
29. It is just a mystery that we cannot, or never will, figure out.
30. The calvinists I know are mean, rude, arrogant, short, argumentative, sinful, and instigate division;
31. Calvinist are unloving, Cavlinism is unloving, the God portrayed in Calvinism is unloving; You are spewing out hate. You are a hate-monger.
32. Calvinism divides congregations and the people of God;
33. Church attendance does dwindle, will dwindle, if you teach this.
34. There are plenty of examples in the Bible where God does not always get what He wants.
35. Acts 7:51 says men resist the Holy Spirit.
36. Hate means "love less"
37. In Romans 9, Jacob and Easu are two nations, not two individuals.
38. God foresaw what Easu would do.
39. Foresee/Foreknowledge; God foresees our decisions, faith, choice, response. The bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, etc.
40. But we teach our children the song, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world." Are we lying to them?
41. We are to have a child-like faith, and become like children; so I don't have to understand this complex stuff; keep it simple;
42. if I offer you a Birthday/Christmas gift/present and you choose not to accept it that is your problem, and while that gift will remain waiting for you if you choose to leave it and not accept it this is your problem, and won't be your gift until you choose to accept it.
42b. This is one of the key components to a "relationship" with Christ. A realtionship is two sided, and if it is not it is considered as stalking.
43. The Lord never forces anything on us. The Lord is a "gentleman"; He knocks on the door of your heart, He does not barge in.
44. That is the most unscriptural statement I have ever heard and straight from the pit of hell/mouth of Satan.
45. How will you raise your children in this; view children in this; Don't you know the age of accountability. (The "age of accountability" is a topic to be handled separately from this list.)
For all those who profess the TULIP, and for all those who do not profess all or any part of the TULIP:
I am making and collecting an on-going list of Accusations against Reformed Theology. I hope to create responses to each one that I have listed so far, and all the other ones that come to mind, and all the ones you add.
1. You are saying God made puppets/Robots; We are not puppets/Robots;
2. This makes God the author of evil.
3. Predestination precludes our responsibility, guilt, or judgment; but free-will, free-choice doesn't.
4. God cannot/would not cripple a man then punish hm for being crippled. (Why have you made me thus, what do you still find fault)
5. Command, and invitation, and offer: implies ability.
6. Without a choice we don't have free-will, or without free-will we don't have a choice.
7. But God is love;
8. This makes God to be cruel tyrannt, dictator, ogre, monster.
9. We are all God's Children.
10. Whosoever means Whosoever.
11. All means all.
12. World means world. (go read John 3:16, etc)
13. But God gives us all a choice.
14. Look, some in the Bible choose evil; see; they had a choice;
15. Look, some in the Bible choose Jesus/good; see; they had a choice.
16. Why witness if the elect are sure to be regenerate and the goats never will be?
17. Why did God, prophets, disciples, or evangelists give any commands or warnings in/from the Bible, if God knows what's going to happen, and causes it to happen.
18. You're arrogant to be "the chosen." ; you are the “proudly elected ones” You have nothing but “PRIDE”. (You are like the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-14)
19. You're arrogant to "know it, understand it, all", no one has it all figured out.
20. (This is Gnosticism; Secret Knowledge); You are a Gnostic, focused on knowledge, and information; you are void of relationship to Jesus and peope.
21. Stop fussing about this immaterial topic, and get out to the more important matters like witnessing to the lost.
22. Stop fussing about this immaterial topic, and just love people and do good works.
23. Stop teaching Church History and doctrines of men, Stop following/reading/worshipping Calvin, follow Jesus, read your Bible;
24. This promotes lawless license, just sin all you want, it is all forgiven.
25. This promotes laziness all around from:evangelism, obedience, good works, labor, prayer.
26. Calvin murdered Severtus. Ad Homenim. Didn't Luther hate and despise the Jews.
27. I am neither an Arminian nor Calvinist.
28. Both Arminianism and Calvinism are right; or, neither is right; the answer is somewhere in the middle; each camp is taking the issues to extremes.
29. It is just a mystery that we cannot, or never will, figure out.
30. The calvinists I know are mean, rude, arrogant, short, argumentative, sinful, and instigate division;
31. Calvinist are unloving, Cavlinism is unloving, the God portrayed in Calvinism is unloving; You are spewing out hate. You are a hate-monger.
32. Calvinism divides congregations and the people of God;
33. Church attendance does dwindle, will dwindle, if you teach this.
34. There are plenty of examples in the Bible where God does not always get what He wants.
35. Acts 7:51 says men resist the Holy Spirit.
36. Hate means "love less"
37. In Romans 9, Jacob and Easu are two nations, not two individuals.
38. God foresaw what Easu would do.
39. Foresee/Foreknowledge; God foresees our decisions, faith, choice, response. The bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, etc.
40. But we teach our children the song, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world." Are we lying to them?
41. We are to have a child-like faith, and become like children; so I don't have to understand this complex stuff; keep it simple;
42. if I offer you a Birthday/Christmas gift/present and you choose not to accept it that is your problem, and while that gift will remain waiting for you if you choose to leave it and not accept it this is your problem, and won't be your gift until you choose to accept it.
42b. This is one of the key components to a "relationship" with Christ. A realtionship is two sided, and if it is not it is considered as stalking.
43. The Lord never forces anything on us. The Lord is a "gentleman"; He knocks on the door of your heart, He does not barge in.
44. That is the most unscriptural statement I have ever heard and straight from the pit of hell/mouth of Satan.
45. How will you raise your children in this; view children in this; Don't you know the age of accountability. (The "age of accountability" is a topic to be handled separately from this list.)
46. We are made in God’s image. God has Free-will, therefore we do too.
I will try to keep the list updated with new accusations, and in time create responses to these and other accusations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)