The New and Improved No-Straw-Man Challenge

[Grip Docility]

Personal statement of opinionated thought in reference to OP, before stepping away for a little bit.

Jesus' easy yoke is far superior to Calvin's "yoke".

Jesus ensures that Repentance (Changing one's mind from self to Jesus as our Savior... aka initial Belief, the mustard seed) is Guaranteed Salvation.

Calvin's "straight and narrow" way comes with one nagging question to the follower of his precepts. Is the follower a Reprobate? It's a genuine stick in the matter of the Doctrine.

Jesus "stick" is the CROSS and are we Loving mankind as much as He Loved us? The answer is always no, but our Love is a reflection of God's Love, while God Is LOVE.

 

[Hammster]

It was intended to mean Canon only. Luther accused the HRCC of using Papal infallibility and proceeding Papal writings, which he argued against the HRCC on those matters and demanded that only Canon be used. The proceeding events even led to redefining books that were Deuterocanonical and included in Paul's Septuagint, and quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in several places as Apocryphal (false).

It was about Canon only. The later derailing of this actually re-established the same error's that extra biblical writ caused the HRCC.

This isn't speculation. This is what we now see. Jesus foretold it. The only response is to go to Canon only.

I explained it. You’ve disagree. Okay.

 

[Hammster]

If you don't understand what John 5:39 means, I apologize for asking the uncomfortable question about what it means. Maybe you do understand it. I'm not sure. I was just hoping you could state what Jesus is saying in John 5:39, by your personal understanding, through the Holy Spirit, in reference to the passage.

It would be commentary. It would be no different than if I quoted Calvin, Gill, etc. You are against it.

 

[Hammster]

Personal statement of opinionated thought in reference to OP, before stepping away for a little bit.

Jesus' easy yoke is far superior to Calvin's "yoke".

Jesus ensures that Repentance (Changing one's mind from self to Jesus as our Savior... aka initial Belief, the mustard seed) is Guaranteed Salvation.

Calvin's "straight and narrow" way comes with one nagging question to the follower of his precepts. Is the follower a Reprobate? It's a genuine stick in the matter of the Doctrine.

Jesus "stick" is the CROSS and are we Loving mankind as much as He Loved us? The answer is always no, but our Love is a reflection of God's Love, while God Is LOVE.

This would be a straw man. See the OP.

 

[Grip Docility]

It would be commentary. It would be no different than if I quoted Calvin, Gill, etc. You are against it.

What this means is that you are all too eager to discuss commentary, but most likely not eager to discuss scripture, by it's self, only evaluated by it's self, by it's self.... in my opinion, which could be wrong.

I would like to know your "opinion" which isn't "Commentary" about what the infallible scripture is showing us, within John 5:39, please.

Discussion.

It is a Straw Man to dislike that I reject extra biblical Commentary, but am desiring discussion. This is your OP. If you would like to Straw Man on an OP about Straw Manning, that is actually entertaining. However, I'm not here to entertain, nor be entertained. I'm sincerely asking what you personally make of John 5:39.

 

[Hammster]

What this means is that you are all too eager to discuss commentary, but most likely not eager to discuss scripture, by it's self, only evaluated by it's self, by it's self.... in my opinion, which could be wrong.

I would like to know your "opinion" which isn't "Commentary" about what the infallible scripture is showing us, within John 5:39, please.

Discussion.

It is a Straw Man to dislike that I reject extra biblical Commentary, but am desiring discussion. This is your OP. If you would like to Straw Man on an OP about Straw Manning, that is actually entertaining. However, I'm not here to entertain, nor be entertained. I'm sincerely asking what you personally make of John 5:39.

I have no problem with commentary. You are the one who seems to reject it. If I posted what that verse means, it would be commentary.

 

[Grip Docility]

I have no problem with commentary. You are the one who seems to reject it. If I posted what that verse means, it would be commentary.

What this means is that you are all too eager to discuss commentary, but most likely not eager to discuss scripture, by it's self, only evaluated by it's self, by it's self.... in my opinion, which could be wrong.

I would like to know your "opinion" which isn't "Commentary" about what the infallible scripture is showing us, within John 5:39, please.

Discussion.

It is a Straw Man to dislike that I reject extra biblical Commentary, but am desiring discussion. This is your OP. If you would like to Straw Man on an OP about Straw Manning, that is actually entertaining. However, I'm not here to entertain, nor be entertained. I'm sincerely asking what you personally make of John 5:39.

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. So here is the challenge.

Matthew 15:9 .......".teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'

Did Jesus hold dialogue? Yes. Did Jesus appreciate Commentary? No.

Do you still desire to build a straw man to avoid discussing scripture only within the framework of scripture? Would you listen if I pulled up Calvin's commentary on John 5:39?

If this is so. What is the implication?

Zero logical conclusions made... simply supplying thread history ideas to possibly contribute to possible conclusions. Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

[Hammster]

Matthew 15:9 .......".teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'

Did Jesus hold dialogue? Yes. Did Jesus appreciate Commentary? No.

Do you still desire to build a straw man to avoid discussing scripture only within the framework of scripture? Would you listen if I pulled up Calvin's commentary on John 5:39?

If this is so. What is the implication?

Zero logical conclusions made... simply supplying thread history ideas to possibly contribute to possible conclusions. Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

I know what John 5:39 means. I’m just honoring your desire to avoid commentary.

 

[Grip Docility]

I know what John 5:39 means. I’m just honoring your desire to avoid commentary.

I have asked more than enough times and defined the criteria of my convictions to show that what you are writing to stonewall the discussion is a misunderstanding of my words, which, I am well aware happens to us.

Please, in simple discussion, not bound to volumes of brick and mortar extra biblical doctrines of men.... Would you, please, be willing to share what you believe it to mean, in your humble, personal opinion? I would appreciate this. On this matter, I free you from "honoring" your misunderstood perception of my "convictions".

 

[Hammster]

I have asked more than enough times and defined the criteria of my convictions to show that what you are writing to stonewall the discussion is a misunderstanding of my words, which, I am well aware happens to us.

Please, in simple discussion, not bound to volumes of brick and mortar extra biblical doctrines of men.... Would you, please, be willing to share what you believe it to mean, in your humble, personal opinion? I would appreciate this. On this matter, I free you from "honoring" your misunderstood perception of my "convictions".

Any comment would be extra biblical. Maybe context will help you understand.

But the witness I have is greater than the witness of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness about Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that bear witness about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
— John 5:36-40

 

[Grip Docility]

Any comment would be extra biblical. Maybe context will help you understand.

But the witness I have is greater than the witness of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness about Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that bear witness about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
— John 5:36-40

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him

So... Did The Son reveal the very Character of God?

Could we suggest that the very Incarnation of God is the biggest deal in ALL of scripture?

 

[Grip Docility]

Any comment would be extra biblical. Maybe context will help you understand.

But the witness I have is greater than the witness of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness about Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that bear witness about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
— John 5:36-40

I would appreciate your discussion. Your discussion is not recognized world wide as Extra Canonical Holy Writ by Brick and Mortar. Therefore, as stated before, unless you are publishing a 4 volume, leather bound Commentary set, and distributing it as the foundation of Christendom, I would actually enjoy hearing your personal understanding of these passages.

 

[Hammster]

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him

So... Did The Son reveal the very Character of God?

Could we suggest that the very Incarnation of God is the biggest deal in ALL of scripture?

Any answer I give will be commentary.

 

[Hammster]

I would appreciate your discussion. Your discussion is not recognized world wide as Extra Canonical Holy Writ by Brick and Mortar. Therefore, as stated before, unless you are publishing a 4 volume, leather bound Commentary set, and distributing it as the foundation of Christendom, I would actually enjoy hearing your personal understanding of these passages.

Published or not, it’s extra-biblical.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Exactly that. How He provides shouod lead to repentance.

But according to Calvin’s theology no one can repent unless God has enabled them to and if God has enabled them to then they are equally incapable of failing to repent, at least to the point of losing their election and receiving God’s wrath on Judgement Day. And of course God is well aware of this so according to Calvin’s theology “how He provides” absolutely CANNOT lead to repentance if He has not enabled them. So you can’t actually say that it should lead them to repentance if your theology is that they are incapable of repentance. You can’t have an expectation of someone to do something that they are absolutely incapable of doing. So you can’t say that God providing for these people should lead them to repentance if He has not enabled them to repent and if He had enabled them to repent then they couldn’t actually be storing up God’s wrath on Judgement Day according to Calvin’s theology because there is no wrath on the elect on Judgement Day.

2 Peter 3:9 provides a similar example.

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Now, I know that you would say that 2 Peter 3:9 is only referring to the elect but what’s the point of being patient with people who don’t have the ability to repent? I’m sure your very familiar Romans 9 since it seems to be a Calvinist favorite but verse 20 again shows God’s patience on those who are not elected to salvation.

“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭22‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Again what’s the point of God’s patience towards the unelected if God knows that they are incapable of repentance? Why is God kind and patient towards the unelected in Romans 2 and Romans 9? That’s like me being patient with my car waiting for it to start the engine when I know that there’s no battery in it. Or me being patient with my computer hoping it will connect to the internet when I know it’s not even plugged in. Wheres the logic in this kind of patience?

 

[Grip Docility]

Published or not, it’s extra-biblical.

You, Hammster, are able to out stonewall anyone I have ever debated. What may frustrate some, I find personally humorous.

 

[Grip Docility]

But according to Calvin’s theology no one can repent unless God has enabled them to and if God has enabled them to then they are equally incapable of failing to repent, at least to the point of losing their election and receiving God’s wrath on Judgement Day. And of course God is well aware of this so according to Calvin’s theology “how He provides” absolutely CANNOT lead to repentance if He has not enabled them. So you can’t actually say that it should lead them to repentance if your theology is that they are incapable of repentance. You can’t have an expectation of someone to do something that they are absolutely incapable of doing. So you can’t say that God providing for these people should lead them to repentance if He has not enabled them to repent and if He had enabled them to repent then they couldn’t actually be storing up God’s wrath on Judgement Day according to Calvin’s theology because there is no wrath on the elect on Judgement Day.

2 Peter 3:9 provides a similar example.

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Now, I know that you would say that 2 Peter 3:9 is only referring to the elect but what’s the point of being patient with people who don’t have the ability to repent? I’m sure your very familiar Romans 9 since it seems to be a Calvinist favorite but verse 20 again shows God’s patience on those who are not elected to salvation.

“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭22‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Again what’s the point of God’s patience towards the unelected if God knows that they are incapable of repentance? Why is God kind and patient towards the unelected in Romans 2 and Romans 9? That’s like me being patient with my car waiting for it to start the engine when I know that there’s no battery in it. Or me being patient with my computer hoping it will connect to the internet when I know it’s not even plugged in. Wheres the logic in this kind of patience?

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

I am adding this to your verses, because this is where Peter was quoting from, in your 2 Peter quote. It bodes in your debate favor.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

I am adding this to your verses, because this is where Peter was quoting from, in your 2 Peter quote. It bodes in your debate favor.

Thank you I was unaware of this passage. It definitely does give us an indication of Peter’s intended interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

I am adding this to your verses, because this is where Peter was quoting from, in your 2 Peter quote. It bodes in your debate favor.

I feel like Hammster’s replies to Romans 2:4-5 have been extremely brief and not very forthcoming on how Calvinists actually interpret this passage. I get the feeling that he just doesn’t really want to explain the passage in a comprehensive manner.

 

[Grip Docility]

Thank you I was unaware of this passage. It definitely does give us an indication of Peter’s intended interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9.

I had accidentally put 1 Peter and changed it. Would you pretty please edit my quote to show 2 Peter… because… I goofed up…