[post=48200136]JDIBe:[/post]
> Forgive me if I have missed some things in the past, but when I got
> here, I see thread titles like "The 39 questions the Armenian can't
> answer" and "The Armenian game of semantics". These posts seem to be
> rather "offensive" (not of-fensive ) in nature rather than "defensive".
> Would these be sinful as well? I also notice one of you has a signature
> speaking of anti-Calvinist "logic" on each of his posts. Is this
> "pre-emptive defense"?
This is a common mistake, by the way: Armenian and Arminian are two
entirely different words--the first, an ethnicity; the second, a
theology. Mix those two up in the wrong crowd, and you'll get in
trouble. Here, we know what you mean, but I'm just mentioning it now.
You could probably say it's less of a "pre-emptive defnse" and more of a
reaction to perceived failure of coherent argumentation against the
Calvinist position. (I actually have had signatures turned off since
registering with the website, so I only see them when I visit a user's
profile.) I think it'd be "pre-emptive" if, say, the person had not
encountered (or only rarely encountered) poor arguments and decided he
should it out on the table first before he does encounter it. However, I
think that's not the case here.
Also, I think there's good reason it's in a signature: Signatures appear
with each post (at least for those who've enabled them), and it's a good
method to call attention to something constantly without being troubled
to write it up each time--so long as it's something that requires we be
reminded of it. Say, for instance, if the quote in the signature is
"Remember 9/11," a statement which all Americans recognize. If that's
close to the user's heart, he'll make sure it's known with every post of
his. Or, in another instance, say a user is a known Internet troll, a
persistent trouble-maker--a user might wish to insert in his profile,
"So-and-so is a known troll." There is then no need to seek out every
place the troll posts and follow up with a declaration that he is a
troll. It's just a ubiquitous statement.
Incidentally, for a good example that I think some users should adopt,
Andrew C. Bain is what I would call a troll of sorts. He is a
hyper-Calvinist (which is different from "Calvinist") who is fairly
active on the Internet with his condemnation of Christians that he feels
are too "liberal"--notably, Christians such as John Calvin and Charles
Spurgeon, listed in his "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame." As I said, he seems
to be active all over the Internet (and I would not be surprised if he's
been banned from here), and so I would not have any problem with a
signature or two that reacts to that by proclaiming that he is what he
is.
This is how I see such signatures that you mention--a way of saying, "Be
it known, this character makes a marked habit of this."
The thread you mention, I'll admit, is on offense, but it seems to be
another of the circular types of threads that so often make their
appearance here.
> I take you at your word that you believe the above. However, I am still
> puzzled. Not knowing HOW one is saved and knowing that one WILL be saved
> regardless of your effort are two different things to me. If God has
> already chosen, and our efforts are futile (positively or negatively),
> what difference does "hearing" from us make? What does "willy-nilly"
> mean? (Or more to the point, "what does "not willy-nilly" " mean? Does
> the Calvinist play some small role in the overall process with others?
What I mean is that preaching the word is the means by which men are
saved. When I say that God does not save "willy-nilly," I mean that
people are not saved without some means towards it. The predestining of
how people are saved is just as predestined as who are saved. I can't
see it making sense any other way without violating Scripture. We know
from Scripture that there is an elect, chosen by God. We know from
Scripture that people are saved through hearing "the folly of what we
preach" (1 Cor. 1:21). It does not follow that God leaves one up to
chance and while securing the other.
> I do understand the sense of frustration when you believe something and
> cannot seem to get others to see it the same way. With the Catholic,
> when he argues, he believes (I suppose) that he could actually change
> someone's mind. But with the Calvinist, believing what I think you
> believe, I keep coming back to the same question: "Why does it matter to
> you?"
I read a book called The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination and found
this to be an interesting quote, if I may:
> Practically, Mohammedanism holds to a predestination of ends regardless
> of means. The contrast with the Christian system is seen in the
> following story. A ship crowded with Englishmen and Mohammedans was
> ploughing through the waves. Accidentally one of the passengers fell
> overboard. The Mohammedans looked after him with indifference, saying,
> "If it is written in the book of destiny that he shall be saved, he
> shall be saved without us; and if it is written that he shall perish, we
> can do nothing"; and with that they left him. But the Englishmen said,
> "Perhaps it is written that we should save him." They threw him a rope
> and he was saved.
I think this is an accurate Biblical answer to your concern above. Only
in this case, it's less of a question of "perhaps" it is written that
one should be saved (from the water); rather, in our current discussion,
it is on evangelism, and knowing that the primary means of conversion
God has given to us: preaching of His Word--which, as we've already
found out, is done through a person speaking, using words. If what you
meant about changing minds is actually convincing the non-Calvinists to
become Calvinists, well, I cannot comment, because I don't know of a
reason to believe that that's certainly a predestined fact. I do say I
applaud their exaltation of God and abasement of man--a belief which I
think more Christians ought to hold.
