Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Received]

I put this into bullets so that it would be easier to critique individual premises. Logically, in order for an argument to be proven to be invalid, all you have to do is show how the premises don't follow to a conclusion, which can be done through showing how one of the premises are wrong.

1. According to Calvinism, man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, and can only come to salvation through irresistible grace.
2. If man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, then he can't help but sin (there is no middle ground between faith and sin).
3. Therefore, according to Calvinism, man can't help but sin.
4. Blame implies freedom, such that a person can only be blamed for what he's free to accept or reject. I.e., you can't blame a person for doing that which he can't help but do.
5. Calvinism holds that the individual isn't free to accept or reject God except through irresistible grace.
6. Therefore, Calvinism shouldn't place blame on sinners, given that blame implies a freedom to accept or reject God that isn't possible without irresistible grace.
7. However, Calvinism does place blame on sinners; therefore Calvinism is logically inconsistent.

The only way out of this inconsistency:

1. Hold that individuals are free to reject grace, which would allow them to be blameworthy, given that blame implies freedom to accept or reject -- but here you don't have Calvinism.
2. Hold that individuals are born in a state of innocence, not in sin, and that they're blameworthy in the sense of sinning first -- but here you have an unorthodox position that rejects original sin.
3. Hold that theology doesn't need to be logically consistent -- but here you can believe anything about God given the lack of logic with exegesis.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Rather than rebut this post premise-by-premise, I will simply address the premise of the entire post, and that is this, "In order for man to be 'blame-able,' he must be free."

The way I will respond to this will be different, as it will be in the form of a question (later on). But first, I would like to say this. You say that blame requires freedom. Of course, I believe this is true. Here, for your reference, is my confession's description of "free will."

CHAPTER IX Of Free Will.

Paragraph 1. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.

Paragraph 2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.

Paragraph 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Paragraph 4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

Paragraph 5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.

Notice, in the first paragraph the confession states, "God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil." This is tremendous, as it, I believe, dissolves the issue completely. The words I highlighted are important, because what it is saying it that man certainly has the power to choose, and that it is indeed not forced. However, you seem to assume that because we "can not help but sin," that we are thus forced to sin. That is simply not true. Force connotes that the one being forced wills the opposite. In our fallen, corrupted state, we sin willingly and joyfully. Nobody forces me to eat, but I simply must because my nature demands it. Nobody forces us to sin, but we must because our corrupted nature demands it—that is, until by regeneration our wills are made willing to do good.

Now, my question is this: How do you deal with a passage like Isaiah 10:5-15? If your premise is true (that in order for man to be "blame-able," he must be free), then how could God rightly punish the Assyrians (v. 12b) for the things he made them do (vv. 5-6)?

Obviously, I disagree with your premise completely. You say that "man can't help but sin." Well, of course not! Again, he is fallen in Adam (Rom. 5). Yet, how does this in any way make him "un-blame-able"? I wish you would at least see the absurdity this thought: Man fell from life of his own doing and is trapped in the pit of sin, unable to do anything else, yet because God's grace is required to save them and change their will, somehow now God is unrighteous (and, by your conclusion, illogical) to condemn those he chooses not to save?

This, I say, is what does not follow.

Regardless, we are not bound by what our fallen logic tells us, but by what the Scriptures tell us. Scripture tells us that man in his fallen condition can do nothing but sin until the grace of God regenerates his heart, and that we are at the same time responsible for the sin which we "cannot help but do." In the last day, saying, "I couldn't help but sin!" will not be an excuse, for we sin willfully and joyfully. We cannot blame God and we cannot blame our corrupted nature, for we are responsible for it.

 

[Received]

Taylor, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Rather than rebut this post premise-by-premise, I will simply address the premise of the entire post, and that is this, "In order for man to be 'blame-able,' he must be free."

The way I will respond to this will be different, as it will be in the form of a question (later on). But first, I would like to say this. You say that blame requires freedom. Of course, I believe this is true. Here, for your reference, is my confession's description of "free will."

​

Notice, in the first paragraph the confession states, "God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil." This is tremendous, as it, I believe, dissolves the issue completely. The words I highlighted are important, because what it is saying it that man certainly has the power to choose, and that it is indeed not forced. However, you seem to assume that because we "can not help but sin," that we are thus forced to sin. That is simply not true. Force connotes that the one being forced wills the opposite. In our fallen, corrupted state, we sin willingly and joyfully. Nobody forces me to eat, but I simply must because my nature demands it. Nobody forces us to sin, but we must because our corrupted nature demands it—that is, until by regeneration our wills are made willing to do good.

This confession seems to indicate man before he sinned. Yet man is born in sin, otherwise there is no original sin. See below.

Now, my question is this: How do you deal with a passage like Isaiah 10:5-15? If your premise is true (that in order for man to be "blame-able," he must be free), then how could God rightly punish the Assyrians (v. 12b) for the things he made them do (vv. 5-6)?

I'm not reading this in the verses you emphasized.

Obviously, I disagree with your premise completely. You say that "man can't help but sin." Well, of course not! Again, he is fallen in Adam (Rom. 5). Yet, how does this in any way make him "un-blame-able"? I wish you would at least see the absurdity this thought: Man fell from life of his own doing and is trapped in the pit of sin, unable to do anything else, yet because God's grace is required to save them and change their will, somehow now God is unrighteous (and, by your conclusion, illogical) to condemn those he chooses not to save?

If man is born in sin, and sin leads to bondage, and this bondage is negated only through grace, and this grace is attainable only by those God has given it to, then it follows that man is born into a state of bondage that he can't free himself from by his own power -- he sins by necessity, not freely. If your response is that man is responsible for his sin, then by logical necessity he must be able to resist grace. You simply can't have man being born in sin, man being free in his sinfulness, and irresistible grace all being true; one of them must logically be false.

Romans 5 indicates how Adam is responsible for the sinfulness of the rest of the human race. Again, unless we understand this to mean that all people are born into sin as a result of Adam, we're not down with original sin.

Regardless, we are not bound by what our fallen logic tells us, but by what the Scriptures tell us. Scripture tells us that man in his fallen condition can do nothing but sin until the grace of God regenerates his heart, and that we are at the same time responsible for the sin which we "cannot help but do." In the last day, saying, "I couldn't help but sin!" will not be an excuse, for we sin willfully and joyfully. We cannot blame God and we cannot blame our corrupted nature, for we are responsible for it.

Logic is absolutely indispensable for exegesis, so if logic is faulty then our interpretation of scripture will be faulty.

 

[TaylorSexton]

This confession seems to indicate man before he sinned. Yet man is born in sin, otherwise there is no original sin.

Paragraph 1 deals with man in general. Man before he fell is described in Paragraph 2.

I'm not reading this in the verses you emphasized.

O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger,
And the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
I will send him against an hypocritical nation,
And against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge...

—Isaiah 10:5-6

Later on, God goes even further to describe Assyria as thus:

Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith?
Or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it?
As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up,
Or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.

—Isaiah 10:15

These Scriptures describe the Assyrians as weapons in the very hand of God. He even says that he will punish them because what they did they took credit for (vv. 13-14)!

If your response is that man is responsible for his sin, then by logical necessity he must be able to resist grace.

Of course! He only will ever resist grace until acted upon by the Spirit of God. (Of course, we must always be careful to distinguish between general and saving grace, which is regeneration itself; in this case and in every case man only resists general grace, for who could possibly resist saving grace, something over which they have no say or control?) However, I assert that it does not necessarily follow that in order for one to be responsible, he must be just as able to do one thing as the other. I would think the passage in Isaiah speaks to that rather effectively. The Assyrians were doing exactly what God had them to do (remember, they are merely a weapon in his hand), yet they are punished by God for doing what he himself had them do!

Logic is absolutely indispensable for exegesis, so if logic is faulty then our interpretation of scripture will be faulty.

I absolutely agree. However, does logic stand above Scriptural affirmations? Is logic the ultimate judge of Scripture, or is there some point at which we must say, "My mind cannot contain this, yet Scripture says it, so I must believe it," (keep in mind the doctrine of the Trinity; is it not logically impossible for the Father, Son, and Spirit to all be equally God, yet there is only one God?). Now, using logic, how do you respond to the events I presented in Isaiah 10? I find that the Assyrians were unable to do anything else but plunder Israel, yet they are held fully responsible. And, as if the passage could not be clearer, they were not only punished for what they did, they were punished for thinking that what they did they did by themselves of their own volition! The problem is not that I am trying to dispense with logic for exegesis, but I am dispensing with preconceived logical constructs. What you are doing is not just applying logic to Scripture, but you are going further in saying, "I affirm libertarian free will, so if my exegesis of Scripture does not fit that, my interpretation must be wrong." That, I say, is an illegitimate use of logic.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

I put this into bullets so that it would be easier to critique individual premises. Logically, in order for an argument to be proven to be invalid, all you have to do is show how the premises don't follow to a conclusion, which can be done through showing how one of the premises are wrong.

1. According to Calvinism, man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, and can only come to salvation through irresistible grace.
2. If man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, then he can't help but sin (there is no middle ground between faith and sin).
3. Therefore, according to Calvinism, man can't help but sin.
4. Blame implies freedom, such that a person can only be blamed for what he's free to accept or reject. I.e., you can't blame a person for doing that which he can't help but do.
5. Calvinism holds that the individual isn't free to accept or reject God except through irresistible grace.
6. Therefore, Calvinism shouldn't place blame on sinners, given that blame implies a freedom to accept or reject God that isn't possible without irresistible grace.
7. However, Calvinism does place blame on sinners; therefore Calvinism is logically inconsistent.

The only way out of this inconsistency:

1. Hold that individuals are free to reject grace, which would allow them to be blameworthy, given that blame implies freedom to accept or reject -- but here you don't have Calvinism.
2. Hold that individuals are born in a state of innocence, not in sin, and that they're blameworthy in the sense of sinning first -- but here you have an unorthodox position that rejects original sin.
3. Hold that theology doesn't need to be logically consistent -- but here you can believe anything about God given the lack of logic with exegesis.

This is sort of a pedantic request, but for completeness could you add an item 0a - "Salvation is _______" and 0b - "Grace is ______" and maybe a 0c - "Sin is ________"

I think without these definitions, any discourse based on your argument will be prone to equivocation.

Thanks

 

[Received]

Paragraph 1 deals with man in general. Man before he fell is described in Paragraph 2.

So if it's saying that man is free, this means he's free to sin or not to sin, which isn't Calvinism. What's the meaning of man's freedom in this paragraph if it doesn't refer to his freedom to sin or not?

Later on, God goes even further to describe Assyria as thus:

These Scriptures describe the Assyrians as weapons in the very hand of God. He even says that he will punish them because what they did they took credit for (vv. 13-14)!

Forgive me, but I'm not seeing how God is blaming the people who he used as a puppet of sorts. Unless you're saying "charge" connotes being found guilty. That's just a bad translation: the ESV has it "and against the people of my wrath I command him."

Of course! He only will ever resist grace until acted upon by the Spirit of God. (Of course, we must always be careful to distinguish between general and saving grace, which is regeneration itself; in this case and in every case man only resists general grace, for who could possibly resist saving grace, something over which they have no say or control?) However, I assert that it does not necessarily follow that in order for one to be responsible, he must be just as able to do one thing as the other. I would think the passage in Isaiah speaks to that rather effectively. The Assyrians were doing exactly what God had them to do (remember, they are merely a weapon in his hand), yet they are punished by God for doing what he himself had them do!

What does a person resisting and not resisting general grace look like?

I absolutely agree. However, does logic stand above Scriptural affirmations? Is logic the ultimate judge of Scripture, or is there some point at which we must say, "My mind cannot contain this, yet Scripture says it, so I must believe it," (keep in mind the doctrine of the Trinity; is it not logically impossible for the Father, Son, and Spirit to all be equally God, yet there is only one God?). Now, using logic, how do you respond to the events I presented in Isaiah 10? I find that the Assyrians were unable to do anything else but plunder Israel, yet they are held fully responsible. And, as if the passage could not be clearer, they were not only punished for what they did, they were punished for thinking that what they did they did by themselves of their own volition! The problem is not that I am trying to dispense with logic for exegesis, but I am dispensing with preconceived logical constructs. What you are doing is not just applying logic to Scripture, but you are going further in saying, "I affirm libertarian free will, so if my exegesis of Scripture does not fit that, my interpretation must be wrong." That, I say, is an illegitimate use of logic.

A contradiction indicates that something simply cannot be. We can use logic to determine whether a point is even possible, whatever source it comes from. So if I read that God commands person A to do X and simultaneously not do X, that's a contradiction, which is to say it's an impossibility, and therefore I know that the passages from which I get this idea can't be true. Likewise, even if the passage in Isaiah 10 showed (and I don't think it does) that God is overriding a nation's wills and then blaming them for what he commanded, we must understand any sense of condemnation in a different way than being responsible. Because responsibility implies the person is "response able", able to respond (i.e., freely); to say that someone is responsible when you've taken away their ability to respond by overriding their will is a contradiction, therefore a nonentity, an impossibility -- like God commanding X and not-X simultaneously. Therefore we either look for another interpretation, or hold that scripture (at least this specific verse) can't be inerrant.

 

[Received]

This is sort of a pedantic request, but for completeness could you add an item 0a - "Salvation is _______" and 0b - "Grace is ______" and maybe a 0c - "Sin is ________"

I think without these definitions, any discourse based on your argument will be prone to equivocation.

Thanks

That's not an easy set of questions for a lot of people! But:

Salvation is the "wholeness" or "healing" (from the morpheme salv-). Grace is that which enables you to do what you can't do in your own power. Sin is offense against God, also "whatever is not of faith" (Romans 14:23).

 

[Hammster]

For Calvinism to be false, it must be demonstrated that man can please God in the flesh. We know that belief is pleasing to God. So it would have to shown how a man in his natural state can do something pleasing to God.

 

[EmSw]

For Calvinism to be false, it must be demonstrated that man can please God in the flesh. We know that belief is pleasing to God. So it would have to shown how a man in his natural state can do something pleasing to God.

Hello Hammster, long time, no see.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster, long time, no see.

Took some time away to regroup.

 

[EmSw]

Took some time away to regroup.

I think we all need to do this every so often. Welcome back.

 

[fhansen]

Obviously, I disagree with your premise completely. You say that "man can't help but sin." Well, of course not! Again, he is fallen in Adam (Rom. 5). Yet, how does this in any way make him "un-blame-able"? I wish you would at least see the absurdity this thought: Man fell from life of his own doing and is trapped in the pit of sin, unable to do anything else, yet because God's grace is required to save them and change their will, somehow now God is unrighteous (and, by your conclusion, illogical) to condemn those he chooses not to save?

That makes sense. The problem arises only if God predestined man to Fall and/or to reprobation, in which case He'd be the author of all evil, wouldn't He? He would be the direct and only cause of their sin-and so the direct and only cause of eternal torment for beings who were destined for that from the beginning. It would be difficult to distinguish Him from satan if that were the case it would seem.

 

[TaylorSexton]

That makes sense. The problem arises only if God predestined man to Fall and/or to reprobation, in which case He'd be the author of all evil, wouldn't He? He would be the direct and only cause of their sin-and so the direct and only cause of eternal torment for beings who were destined for that from the beginning. It would be difficult to distinguish Him from satan if that were the case it would seem.

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power rover the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory?

—Romans 9:19-23

 

[bleitzel]

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power rover the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory?

—Romans 9:19-23

Taylor, that's great, but you're using the exact quote that defeats your argument. Paul is writing in Romans 9 to the Jews who thought there was a chosen/un-chosen dichotomy that no, that was wrong, there is no un-chosen group. All people are chosen by God. In Romans 9 Paul is answering the Jewish objector who would find this preposterous, saying that surely God wouldn't abandon them now at this late date, so many hundreds of years after Moses. But Paul says, who are you that replies against God...

The very quote you're using is actually Paul's strongest (and maybe most sarcastic) argument against the very tenets of Calvinism.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You are asking great questions. These conversations need to be had, and I thank you for that. I will do my best to respond.

So if it's saying that man is free, this means he's free to sin or not to sin, which isn't Calvinism. What's the meaning of man's freedom in this paragraph if it doesn't refer to his freedom to sin or not?

This confession is thoroughly Calvinistic. This shows me one of two things (if not both!): 1) you misunderstand the statement of the confession (I will address below) and 2)quite possibly you have been misled, misinformed, or caused to believe a caricature of what Reformed theology teaches. That being said, let's look carefully at the statement in paragraph one:

"God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil."

This does not say that man is "free to sin or not to sin." You are too quickly jumping to conclusions upon a cursory reading of the statement. Look very carefully at each word, for they were crafted with the utmost care and intention. It does not say that man is free to choose, but only free to act upon choice. This is a subtle, yet massive, difference. Do you see it? Even further, this choice is not forced, for, again, force means against the will, but we in our fallen state sin willfully and joyfully. What's more is that it is not even "by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil." What does this mean? It means that man in his created nature (not his fallen, corrupted nature) is not of necessity determined to do good or evil, because he is not in bondage. However, we are fallen, dead in sins, and are held captive and in bondage by sin, and are thus only able to sin unless restored by regeneration and, eventually, glorification, in which case we will be, as the confession wonderfully states, "made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only." Notice the confession defines freedom (true freedom!) the ability "to do good alone."

The fact that we are only able to choose one thing in our fallen state doesn't make it any less of a real choice. If that were so, then we could not be to blame for anything we do, because since God knows every thing that we will ever do, and since his knowledge is infallible, we will without fail do what he has seen that we will do; we cannot do anything else, otherwise God's knowledge is fallible. Does that make sense?

Forgive me, but I'm not seeing how God is blaming the people who he used as a puppet of sorts. Unless you're saying "charge" connotes being found guilty. That's just a bad translation: the ESV has it "and against the people of my wrath I command him."

The translations say the exact same thing, one is just four centuries older than the other.

What does a person resisting and not resisting general grace look like?

Every fallen human being every waking moment of their life before regeneration. For a good Scriptural example, read Romans chapter 1.

A contradiction indicates that something simply cannot be. We can use logic to determine whether a point is even possible, whatever source it comes from. So if I read that God commands person A to do X and simultaneously not do X, that's a contradiction, which is to say it's an impossibility, and therefore I know that the passages from which I get this idea can't be true. Likewise, even if the passage in Isaiah 10 showed (and I don't think it does) that God is overriding a nation's wills and then blaming them for what he commanded, we must understand any sense of condemnation in a different way than being responsible.

He does not command A to do X and at the same time command him not to do X. Where did you see this in Scripture? The failure here is to see the difference between God's prescription (command) versus God's purpose. As Scripture says, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29). What do we do with a passage like Acts chapter 4?

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

God commands all men everywhere not to kill, yet it is clear that Jesus' murder (the slaughtering of the only innocent man to ever live, no less) was purposed by God's very will. What do we say to this?

responsibility implies the person is "response able", able to respond

This is an assumption, and an imposed standard upon the interpretation of Scripture. How do you affirm original sin, then (I assume you do)? Romans chapter 5 says that we are guilty (i.e., responsible) for something we ourselves did not do (I sure didn't eat the fruit!). This is merely bringing human law in to bear upon spiritual matters, and that, I believe, is unwarranted. Sure, we men must not hold each other responsible for things over which we had no (even little) control. However, God many times holds grandchildren responsible for their grandfathers' sins (Ex. 20:5-6, 34:6-7; Num. 14:18) and, again, in Romans chapter 5 we are all held responsible for the sin of one ancient, long-dead man.

Therefore we either look for another interpretation, or hold that scripture (at least this specific verse) can't be inerrant.

I hold to Calvinism confidently and passionately and at the same time defend the inerrancy of Scripture will equal—if not more intense—ferocity. I say with all sincerity that I see no contradiction. If anything, I only see a mystery, much like the Trinity. For, let's face it, if we are going to subject Scripture (in a total sense) to the scrutiny of fallen human logic, we must deny the Trinity with vigor—yet, praise God, in his grace, we don't; for we accept the fact that we cannot understand, explain, or logically fully grasp the Trinity, and yet we affirm its glorious truth.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The very quote you're using is actually Paul's strongest (and maybe most sarcastic) argument against the very tenets of Calvinism.

Leighton Flowers used this same argument in his debate against James White, obviously to no success. I've even had correspondence with Mr. Flowers myself about it. I mentioned the fact that he has absolutely no exegetical evidence (absolutely none) for such an argument, and thus neither do you, brother.

Needless to say, Mr. Flowers never responded.

 

[bleitzel]

Leighton Flowers used this same argument in his debate against James White, obviously to no success. I've even had correspondence with Mr. Flowers myself about it. I mentioned the fact that he has absolutely no exegetical evidence (absolutely none) for such an argument, and thus neither do you, brother.

Needless to say, Mr. Flowers never responded.

We can exegete the whole thing if you like? Would you like to start a new thread on it? Or do it here?

 

[bleitzel]

Leighton Flowers used this same argument in his debate against James White, obviously to no success. I've even had correspondence with Mr. Flowers myself about it. I mentioned the fact that he has absolutely no exegetical evidence (absolutely none) for such an argument, and thus neither do you, brother.

Needless to say, Mr. Flowers never responded.

And I did listen to most of their debate. In fairness, Flowers did say that he was not as experienced debating as White was...

I on the other hand did have an opportunity to get under Dr. Oakley's skin once hehe.

 

[TaylorSexton]

We can exegete the whole thing if you like? Would you like to start a new thread on it? Or do it here?

I would love that. Just make sure you actually exegete the passage; poor Mr. Flowers did everything but. Stick to the text!

And I did listen to most of their debate. In fairness, Flowers did say that he was not as experienced debating as White was...

They are both pastors, preachers, and scholars with doctorate degrees. I am unsympathetic to claimed weakness in debate; it is simply a cop-out and cover-up for poor performance. While oratory skill helps, good, rigorous and faithful exegesis wins every debate, for how can God's very Word fail? Mr. Flowers lost not because he was an unskilled debater, but because he refused to actually exegete Romans 9.

I on the other hand did have an opportunity to get under Dr. Oakley's skin once.

Of course he did. Non-exegesis presented as exegesis and straw men presented as fact are frustrating for any man to have to fight.

 

[bleitzel]

Of course he did. Non-exegesis presented as exegesis and straw men presented as fact are frustrating for any man to have to fight.

Now you're projecting....

But seriously, would you like to start a new thread?