Free Offer?

[JM]

 

[tulipbee]

Why is a Calvinist posting this?

 

[JM]

Haha, you should watch the video.

 

[98cwitr]

And there you have it folks...the video PROVES it! I chuckled pretty hard at that one.

 

[royal priest]

The offer is sincere in so far as IF you seek the Lord then you shall find Him; IF you confess with your mouth...then you shall be saved.
Of course, it is only guaranteed to those who actually believe.
Not to mention, the Gospel appeal is really a command, and not just a mere offer.

 

[Skala]

It seems Pedrito gets hung up on the word "Calvinist" and associates the entire theology with John Calvin.

Perhaps it would be helpful, Pedrito, to know that the theology Calvinism espouses pre-existed John Calvin, indeed, it pre-existed the 16th century Reformation.

Another name for it is Augustinianism. You can see monergism boldly declared as truth (and Pelagianism error) as early as 529 AD in the Council of Orange (which you can read online - just google it)

Basically, this negates any attempt to dismiss Calvinism due to it sharing a name with John Calvin. The more important thing to focus on is monergism, which is really the core and dividing issue between Calvinist-like soteriology and Arminian-like soteriology. To reiterate, the dividing line in this discussion is monergism vs synergism, not Calvinism vs non-Calvinism.

As I said, monergism was affirmed very early in church history.

You can call it whatever you want. If you get hung up on the label "Calvinism", then let's call it something else. Monergism perhaps, or Augustinianism. Or VanillaIceCreamCone-ism if that makes things easier for you.

Rather than getting hung up on names and labels, why we don't focus on the issues?

Does the bible teach monergism? Absolutely yes.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/newbirth2.html

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/newbirth3.html

 

[Pedrito]

Since I was addressed personally …

1. I find it is amazing how Church Councils are invoked when convenient, but generally treated as anathema.

2. I think I was following other people's leading when I used the term “Calvinism”. In fact, was it I that originally introduced the Calvinism Chart (with its 8 divisions) in Post #93?

3. “Basically, this negates any attempt to dismiss Calvinism due to it sharing a name with John Calvin.” I agree. But why say that? I did not make any such attempt.

Dear oh dear. Do we see here another series of attempts to invalidate by dishonest means, the points I have been making? That sort of approach is what I was highlighting earlier on.

The use of such techniques simply adds credence to what I have been saying, and subjects Calvinism (monergism) to unwanted negative light.

4. Just because something is “boldly declared as truth” does not make it so. Nor does declaring something else as error. And should Protestants not regard anything declared at a Church Council associated with the paganised Catholic Church, with suspicion?

5. So monergism was declared as early as 529AD. Therefore it took an idea associated with Augustine, that long to penetrate orthodox theological circles. Obviously that means the idea was in no way apostolic.

6. By the way, did the monergism of 529AD have 8 divisions?

7. In what way then, does the monergism of 529AD differ from each of the 8 divisions of Calvinism (or should I say monergism) promulgated in the present day?

 

[JM]

Pedrito your understanding of Calvinism (and your spelling of it - it's Calvinism not Calvanism) is way off.

Calvinism does not teach that the elect will be saved whether or not they hear the gospel. On the contrary it teaches that God works through means, and that He has ordained not only the ends, but also the means to those ends.

Evangelism is the tool that God designed to visit sinners with the message of their salvation. Through evangelism and the gospel message he quickens hearts and opens ears and grants faith and repentance, effectively (and without fail) bringing people to Jesus for their salvation.

Every single person God predestined in eternity past, he also calls (during their life), and every single person he calls, he justifies.

That means every single predestined person is ultimately saved.

“And those He predestined, He also called; those He called; He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified” (v. 30).

- Romans 8:29–31

More information for your study:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/resisting_spirit.html

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/effectual-calling/

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call

http://www.gotquestions.org/effectual-calling-call.html

 

[Pedrito]

With respect to the cartoon in Post #128, and other pictorial offerings from JM earlier in this thread:

I'm sure the Reader is aware that cartoons and derogatory pictures are employed as weapons only when the person or people employing them are faced with information or questions that threaten their belief structures, but which they are unable to refute or sensibly answer.

Instead of simply modifying their cherished beliefs, they embark on a path of disparagement in defence of them.

Whenever I see diversionary tactics being used, the truth of what the targeted person has been presenting, is always confirmed for me.

 

[JM]

Actually, you have been thoroughly and soundly defeated. Many times. Your arguments are weak and show a lack of respect for those posting since, after all the work we have put in, you simply ignore what we have posted and continue on objecting without actually dealing with the posts made. You have broken the 9th commandment repeatedly in your interactions with Reformed and Calvinistic folks and play the victim card whenever you are called out for avoiding the posts we make.

jm

 

[Pedrito]

JM in Post #130:

Actually, you have been thoroughly and soundly defeated. Many times. Your arguments are weak and show a lack of respect for those posting since, after all the work we have put in, you simply ignore what we have posted and continue on objecting without actually dealing with the posts made.

You have broken the 9th commandment repeatedly in your interactions with Reformed and Calvinistic folks and play the victim card whenever you are called out for avoiding the posts we make.

Could that in fact be “thoroughly and soundly” untrue?

If Calvinist posts contain dishonest techniques, and I point those techniques out, I have not ignored “what we have posted and continue on objecting without actually dealing with the posts made”.

If dishonest techniques are constantly employed, it is only because they are perceived to be necessary, meaning that the people employing them know that their position is weak and needs bolstering; yet their emotional commitment is too strong for them to be willing to change.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as for:

You have broken the 9th commandment repeatedly in your interactions with Reformed and Calvinistic folks and play the victim card whenever you are called out for avoiding the posts we make.

I issue to JM a request of the same nature as one I made to twin1954 in another thread when he accused me of repeated malfeasance of a particular type, but which he has not yet answered as far as I can tell (and with which I perceive JM would have been only too quick to help if he could have). See the “Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate” thread, Post #140 on Page 7.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was the request:

In the interest of self improvement, I would like to refrain from such behaviour in future, behaviour I might add that I had no idea I was indulging in, if in fact I have been.

I therefore request that twin1954 present six highly definitive and relevant occurrences from among the many that are apparently peppered throughout my posts, together with the related post and page numbers.

By reviewing those occurrences presented by twin1954, I will be able to identify how my misdemeanors show themselves, and I should be able, on that basis, to rub sandpaper on the rough edges that give rise to them.

Wouldn't that be a good thing all around?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I hereby request that JM present six highly definitive and relevant occurrences from among the many that are apparently peppered (“repeatedly”) throughout my posts, together with the related post and page numbers. He should also include a direct and pointed explanation for each such occurrence, showing precisely how in that occurrence I have broken the 9th commandment.

Is that not a fair request?

 

[twin1954]

I issue to JM a request of the same nature as one I made to twin1954 in another thread when he accused me of repeated malfeasance of a particular type, but which he has not yet answered as far as I can tell

I will do so when you can actually show that you are willing and able to deal honestly with what is written. Until then you will only ignore or try to twist what is posted as you have in the past so why should I waste the time? Anyone who wishes to actually read the threads and your posts can easily see for themselves.

 

[Pedrito]

twin1954 in Post #132:

I will do so when you can actually show that you are willing and able to deal honestly with what is written. Until then you will only ignore or try to twist what is posted as you have in the past so why should I waste the time?

That sounds like another cop-out.

Why does twin1954 not simply show me up in the eyes of everybody else, by providing the six specific examples I requested, of the malfeasance that he has accused me of? (Detail shown further down.)

Again, twin1954 in Post #132:

Anyone who wishes to actually read the threads and your posts can easily see for themselves.

Actually that sort of statement is normally used as a rather effective ploy. The person using it relies on the fact that very few people, if any, will actually take the time to read the posts referred to. But the stated invitation to do so lends credence to other statements made.

So let me re-offer the invitation, an earnest offer. Please read my posts and document every occurrence you find, as defined below, of which I stand accused.

Here is a reproduction of Post #140 in the “Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate” thread:

In Post #79 on Page 4, I highlighted a technique that I have seen used many times in Evangelical circles:

“Assign to your opposition a label that somehow diminishes their credibility. Then if possible, use that label to lump them in with people or organisations that have negative connotations associated with them.”

I added:

Clever. Very clever.

It tricks most people.

But only as long as nobody points out to them how they are being dishonestly manipulated.

In response, in Post #82 on Page 5, twin1954 stated:

It seems that you are a master at this tactic. All one need do is read your posts and they will see the truth of it.

He seems to imply that I have been guilty of multitudinous misdemeanours of that kind, and that they have spanned many posts.

In the interest of self improvement, I would like to refrain from such behaviour in future, behaviour I might add that I had no idea I was indulging in, if in fact I have been.

I therefore request that twin1954 present six highly definitive and relevant occurrences from among the many that are apparently peppered throughout my posts, together with the related post and page numbers.

By reviewing those occurrences presented by twin1954, I will be able to identify how my misdemeanors show themselves, and I should be able, on that basis, to rub sandpaper on the rough edges that give rise to them.


Wouldn't that be a good thing all around?

Is it really that hard for twin1954 and JM to find just six out of the implied many in each case?