Logical Problems with Calvinism

[tulipbee]

I am talking against one of the points of Calvinism which allows for a believer to think they can sin and still be saved. Granted, not all people who believe in Calvinism may agree with that assessment, but then again, not all Calvinists believe the same thing, though.


...

why not let God's word corrdct your errors?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Which point of Calvinism states that a regenerated believer is permitted to freely sin and has no need to repent? Which point explicitly states that a person who continuously lives in unrepentant sin is saved? Which point suggests that a child of God will take pleasure in living in sin?

Hi there.

I'm reminded of the question put by the editor of an Irish newspaper to the Chief of Staff of the illegal Irish Republican Army.

"How many people are members of the IRA?"

"Do you think you are a member of the IRA?"

"Umm, no, I don't think so."

"Well, then. You're not."

Moral: If people think something, then it supposedly must be so.

(Application: there are as many variants to Calvinism as there are of people who have opinions on the matter. It often seems like 'What saith the Scriptures?' is irrelevant.)

 

[Marvin Knox]

Hi there.

I'm reminded of the question put by the editor of an Irish newspaper to the Chief of Staff of the illegal Irish Republican Army.

"How many people are members of the IRA?"

"Do you think you are a member of the IRA?"

"Umm, no, I don't think so."

"Well, then. You're not."

Moral: If people think something, then it supposedly must be so.

(Application: there are as many variants to Calvinism as there are of people who have opinions on the matter. It often seems like 'What saith the Scriptures?' is irrelevant.)

It would be nice to not have to label people at all wouldn't it?

But then the title of this thread is "Logical Problems With Calvinism".

It's hard to participate in such a thread without referring to Calvinism at least in general.

When someone misrepresents what Calvinists believe in order to show how illogical it is - there has to be some correction of them.

If we limited those from the generally Calvinist side to those who believed in the Reformed tenets in only one very narrow way it would be hard to decide who gets to talk about it from the Calvinist side of things on this thread.

Of course - then those who oppose Calvinism would far outnumber those who defend such things as Calvinists believe on this thread.

Under those circumstances there would be little or no checks on the misrepresentation of people like Jason.

By the way - the original concept in the OP that was meant to show exactly why Calvinism isn't logical has long since been shown to be bankrupt. What we have now is a very general series of attacks on and defenses of Reformed theology in general. It's bouncing around a bit because of that.

I'll have to take some exception to your statement that - "It often seems like 'What saith the Scriptures?' is irrelevant."

Most people here from both sides of the fence seem to have no shortage of supposed scripture support for their position.

Whether they are right in the conclusions they draw from those scriptures is another matter of course.

 

[sdowney717]

I have used Scripture and talked in a respectful way in my post. If you disagree, then feel free to explain what those verses are really saying instead of insulting me. Fo insulting me in no way helps to prove your case but it only helps to weaken it.


....

Jason, your being offended does not nullify what God and Christ have said. You still do not agree with the sound words of Christ as I and others have showed you. You sure are set and hardened into your theology, of course so are many others also hardened into theirs. The only theology that matters is what Christ and scripture specifically says. All those who don't agree with scripture are destined to be of these sort mentioned here, who are evil men and imposters. Regarding imposters I doubt they even know that they are such a thing. Such people also do this, they
"who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, " have been marked out for condemnation from long ago.

The Just Live by Faith
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Since the just live by faith, that means they do not live by good works. Anyone who says otherwise is an antichrist. Regarding the gospel of CHRIST it says
The gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes,

2 Timothy 3
13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[faroukfarouk]

It would be nice to not have to label people at all wouldn't it?

But then the title of this thread is "Logical Problems With Calvinism".

It's hard to participate in such a thread without referring to Calvinism at least in general.

When someone misrepresents what Calvinists believe in order to show how illogical it is - there has to be some correction of them.

If we limited those from the generally Calvinist side to those who believed in the Reformed tenets in only one very narrow way it would be hard to decide who gets to talk about it from the Calvinist side of things on this thread.

Of course - then those who oppose Calvinism would far outnumber those who defend such things as Calvinists believe on this thread.

Under those circumstances there would be little or no checks on the misrepresentation of people like Jason.

By the way - the original concept in the OP that was meant to show exactly why Calvinism isn't logical has long since been shown to be bankrupt. What we have now is a very general series of attacks on and defenses of Reformed theology in general. It's bouncing around a bit because of that.

I'll have to take some exception to your statement that - "It often seems like 'What saith the Scriptures?' is irrelevant."

Most people here from both sides of the fence seem to have no shortage of supposed scripture support for their position.

Whether they are right in the conclusions they draw from those scriptures is another matter of course.

I can see what you say, certainly.

For myself, I can see that there are many Scriptures which can support the five points of Calvinism if they are taken in isolation.

What I do also struggle with is the way some practitioners of Reformed theology go about constructing their arguments: sometimes it seems that they are projecting onto Scripture their own logical structures and propositions, rather than doing direct exposition and making Scripture their starting point. (It's interesting that theologians such as Melanchthon opened aped the Medieval Schoolmen in his style of doing theology; Melanchthon was not the only one to reflect the influence of logicians whose style of writing had little to do with Scripture passages.)

While it's possible to 'prove' things quoting various Scriptures with different emphases, in the long term it's the balance of the revealed panorama of Scripture that gives a full and well weighed view of issues of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, taken in full.

Blessings.

I probably would not agree with some of the OP's presuppositions, though.

 

[GillDouglas]

Jason would try to make claim with all his false teachings that a person may be a son of God today and a son of the Devil tomorrow. He would say that even those who are born of the Spirit, justified and sanctified, may become reprobate and perish eternally. I believe it is because he does not understand the condition of a man from birth, and the condition of a man who is 'born again'; because he himself has not yet been made new, and he means to save himself.

Regeneration is a radical and supernatural change of a man's inner nature, a realm in which man has no control over. This process through which the soul is made spiritually alive gives a man new character, a character built to be progressively be more like Christ. This process, because it was started by the only Power capable of doing so, is a sufficient guarantee that the new life given shall be permanent. No creature is at liberty to change it's own nature in an effort to become either a son of God, or the Devil.

The one who attempts to earn the smallest part of his salvation by works becomes "a debtor to do the whole law" perfectly. This is a different system of salvation, diametrically opposed to salvation by grace, a system of a religion that is not Christianity. Faith and repentance are gifts of God, and the bestowing of these gifts are the revelation of His purpose to save those to whom these gifts are given. No one can return these gifts, and no one can take them away. True Christians have within them the principle of eternal life, and that principle is the Holy Spirit. How can a Christian man's body, which is a "temple of the Holy Spirit", become the habitation of the Devil? Impossible, for this would be an insult to God!

So long as men remain in this world, they have remnants of the old sinful nature clinging to them. Our judgments may at times be wrong, as was that of the Galatians (Galatians 3:1); and our affections may cool, as in the Ephesian church (Revelation 2:4). "The church may become drowsy, yet her heart awakes" (Song 5:3). There is no possibility of anyone escaping the omnipotent power of God, so that like Jonah, who fled from the will of God eventually carried the message to Nineveh. If a man is truly saved, other than by an act of God Himself (which would mean He's gone back on His word), there is no possibility that he cannot fall away completely for His grace.

As Jason has clearly stated about us that we are careless and indifferent about our moral conduct and our growth in grace to be more like Christ. What he fails to realize is that the means as well as the end are both preordained by God. If it was foretold that a farmer would have a full field of delicious corn at the end of a harvest, then would all the means necessary for that to happen also be. The ideal Christian would commit no sin at all, however we understand that in our present place it is impossible. All those whom God has designed to render perfectly happy in eternity, He has designed to make in part happy in this world; and as holiness is essential to perfection, there is is a beginning of such perfection in our present place by way of the Holy Spirit.

I feel bad for guys like Jason who can never be certain of his eternal salvation. He may indeed have the assurance of his present salvation, but he can not be certain of his inevitable salvation with its potential to be lost. According to his teachings his salvation might be highly probable, but there is no guarantee. Since faith in Christ, which is a gift from God, is the means of salvation, and since this faith is not given to ALL men, the person who has it can be assured of their salvation. I am thankful to God that my salvation does not rest upon the probability of my keeping it through fallible means, but by the completed work of Christ.

 

[sdowney717]

Jason would try to make claim with all his false teachings that a person may be as son of God today and a son of the Devil tomorrow. He would say that even those who are born of the Spirit, justified and sanctified, may become reprobate and perish eternally. I believe it is because he does not understand the condition of a man from birth, and the condition of a man who is 'born again' because he himself has not yet been made new.

Regeneration is a radical and supernatural change of a man's inner nature, a realm in which man has no control over. This process through which the soul is made spiritually alive gives a man new character, a character built to be progressively be more like Christ. This process, because it was started by the only Power capable of doing so, is a sufficient guarantee that the new life given shall be permanent. No creature is at liberty to change it's own nature in an effort to become either a son of God, or the Devil.

The one who attempts to earn the smallest part of his salvation by works becomes "a debtor to do the whole law" perfectly. This is a different system of salvation, diametrically opposed to salvation by grace, a system of a religion that is not Christianity. Faith and repentance are gifts of God, and the bestowing of these gifts are the revelation of His purpose to save those to whom these gifts are given. No one can return these gifts, and no one can take them away. True Christians have within them the principle of eternal life, and that principle is the Holy Spirit. How can a Christian man's body, which is a "temple of the Holy Spirit", become the habitation of the Devil? Impossible, for this would be an insult to God!

So long as men remain in this world, they have remnants of the old sinful nature clinging to them. Our judgments may at times be wrong, as was that of the Galatians (Galatians 3:1); and our affections may cool, as in the Ephesian church (Revelation 2:4). "The church may become drowsy, yet her heart awakes" (Song 5:3). There is no possibility of anyone escaping the omnipotent power of God, so that like Jonah, who fled from the will of God eventually carried the message to Nineveh. If a man is truly saved, other than by an act of God Himself (which would mean He's gone back on His word), there is no possibility that he cannot fall away completely for His grace.

As Jason has clearly stated about us that we are careless and indifferent about our moral conduct and our growth in grace to be more like Christ. What he fails to realize is that the means as well as the end are both preordained by God. If it was foretold that a farmer would have a full field of delicious corn at the end of a harvest, then would all the means necessary for that to happen also be. The ideal Christian would commit no sin at all, however we understand that in our present place it is impossible. All those whom God has designed to render perfectly happy in eternity, He has designed to make in part happy in this world; and as holiness is essential to perfection, there is is a beginning of such perfection in our present place.

I feel bad for guys like Jason who can never be certain of his eternal salvation. He may indeed have the assurance of his present salvation, but he can not be certain of his inevitable salvation with its potential to be lost. According to his teachings his salvation might be highly probable, but there is no guarantee. I am thankful to God that my salvation does not rest upon the probability of my keeping it through fallible means. Since faith in Christ, which is a gift from God, is the means of salvation, and since this faith is not given to ALL men, the person who has it can be assured of their salvation.

I like being a purchased possession.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What I do also struggle with is the way some practitioners of Reformed theology go about constructing their arguments: sometimes it seems that they are projecting onto Scripture their own logical structures and propositions, rather than doing direct exposition and making Scripture their starting point.

That's why I feel the need to nuance every one of the 5-points - particularly the one touting "limited atonement".

That particular point of T.U.L.I.P. especially seems like it requires some huge assumptions about how the atonement works in God's economy in order to hold to it. They are assumptions that no man is qualified to make IMO.

At least that's true for the way many Calvinists, and even most it seems to me, present limited atonement. It's also the absolute biggest and most offensive sticking point for non-Calvinists.

If all that was meant by limited atonement was that Christ's death only "effectively" secured salvation for the elect I could agree with it. Probably most from the other side could agree as well. Unfortunately that's not all that most Calvinists mean by the term limited atonement.
QUOTE="faroukfarouk, post: 69142197, member: 242388"]
While it's possible to 'prove' things quoting various Scriptures with different emphases, in the long term it's the balance of the revealed panorama of Scripture that gives a full and well weighed view of issues of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, taken in full.[/QUOTE]
I agree.

It is that delicate balance of sometimes seeming to contradict scriptures (paradoxes) that makes for truth in doctrine IMO.

Usually if a person will believe all of the scriptures that are used on both sides, as opposed to simply choosing one of the sides and majoring on their scriptures, he will find that it is possible to hold a view that makes these paradoxes in scripture seem perfectly logical.

I like to think that that is what I have done with my own theology. I hope so anyway.

That's what makes it difficult for me here. I don't fit really well into either side. Even though I'm generally of a Reformed view, it's not really completely Calvinist (and it's darn sure not completely Arminian).

 

[faroukfarouk]

That's why I feel the need to nuance every one of the 5-points - particularly the one touting "limited atonement".

That particular point of T.U.L.I.P. especially seems like it requires some huge assumptions about how the atonement works in God's economy in order to hold to it. They are assumptions that no man is qualified to make IMO.

At least that's true for the way many Calvinists, and even most it seems to me, present limited atonement. It's also the absolute biggest and most offensive sticking point for non-Calvinists.

If all that was meant by limited atonement was that Christ's death only "effectively" secured salvation for the elect I could agree with it. Probably most from the other side could agree as well. Unfortunately that's not all that most Calvinists mean by the term limited atonement.

While it's possible to 'prove' things quoting various Scriptures with different emphases, in the long term it's the balance of the revealed panorama of Scripture that gives a full and well weighed view of issues of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, taken in full.

I agree.

It is that delicate balance of sometimes seeming to contradict scriptures (paradoxes) that makes for truth in doctrine IMO.

Usually if a person will believe all of the scriptures that are used on both sides, as opposed to simply choosing one of the sides and majoring on their scriptures, he will find that it is possible to hold a view that makes these paradoxes in scripture seem perfectly logical.

I like to think that that is what I have done with my own theology. I hope so anyway.

That's what makes it difficult for me here. I don't fit really well into either side. Even though I'm generally of a Reformed view, it's not really completely Calvinist (and it's darn sure not completely Arminian).

Particular redemption is probably a more satisfactory term.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I like being a purchased possession.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

These 2 verses from Eph 1 refute all notions of conditional security!

 

[ToBeLoved]

It is written...

"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:20).


...

To make it seem like you are suffering persecution for Christ when everyone on this thread is also a Christian makes your plight sound quite desperate and if you are trying to present yourself to be a victim, which is preposterous.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jason0047 said: ↑
It is written...

"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:20).

To make it seem like you are suffering persecution for Christ when everyone on this thread is also a Christian makes your plight sound quite desperate and if you are trying to present yourself to be a victim, which is preposterous.

Desperate conditions, desperate measures.

 

[Job8]

By the way - the original concept in the OP that was meant to show exactly why Calvinism isn't logical has long since been shown to be bankrupt.

What if its bankruptcy was clearly shown and adamantly ignored? If Calvinism was not bankrupt, Spurgeon would preach like a true Calvinist. Instead he claims to be one but preaches like a non-Calvinist (which can't be helped, but which proves the bankruptcy of Calvinism). We could take numerous examples from his sermons -- IN CONTEXT -- and prove the bankruptcy of Calvinism.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What if its bankruptcy was clearly shown and adamantly ignored? If Calvinism was not bankrupt, Spurgeon would preach like a true Calvinist. Instead he claims to be one but preaches like a non-Calvinist (which can't be helped, but which proves the bankruptcy of Calvinism). We could take numerous examples from his sermons -- IN CONTEXT -- and prove the bankruptcy of Calvinism.

I was talking about the particular line of supposed logic that the OP laid out for us. Notice that the yokel who started the thread has long since left the building.

I was not talking about whether either Calvinism or it's opponents were "bankrupt" in their theology.

You don't seem to be following what I said. You seem to just be sniping away at Calvinism.

Which is fine I suppose - just don't link it to something that has nothing to do with whether Calvinism is true or not Per se.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I like being a purchased possession.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

What are the conditions of having the seal or in being sealed according to God's Word?

"Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness." (2 Timothy 2:19). (New American Standard Bible).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To make it seem like you are suffering persecution for Christ when everyone on this thread is also a Christian makes your plight sound quite desperate and if you are trying to present yourself to be a victim, which is preposterous.

I strive to attack the belief and not the person. Yet, a lot of folks here like to try to make it about me and they insult me here. When we should just stick to Scripture to discuss the topics at hand. So no. I do not agree with you that people here are being kind to me. Jesus said there will be those who will speak all manner of evil against you falsely for my name sake. I say this not so that anyone will have pity on me. I actually take great joy and rejoice when others persecute me for standing up for the truth.

As for what others believe: Well, I am more than happy to talk about what a person actually says they believe. But there is a point where a person's belief (that I confirm with them) has something wrong with it (Whereby I can disagree with it by pointing out it's flaws).

Others here think that everything I say is a blanket statement upon all Calvinism or all OSAS. As I said before, I believe there are different versions for both types of beliefs.

When folks start getting into the finger pointing (beyond something I never specifically said) or if they say words that are just cruel and insulting (like I believe some here are doing even now), I just skip past their posts sometimes.


....

 

[nobdysfool]

I strive to attack the belief and not the person. Yet, a lot of folks here like to try to make it about me and they insult me here. When we should just stick to Scripture to discuss the topics at hand. So no. I do not agree with you that people here are being kind to me. Jesus said there will be those who will speak all manner of evil against you falsely for my name sake. I say this not so that anyone will have pity on me. I actually take great joy and rejoice when others persecute me for standing up for the truth.

As for what others believe: Well, I am more than happy to talk about what a person actually says they believe. But there is a point where a person's belief (that I confirm with them) has something wrong with it (Whereby I can disagree with it by pointing out it's flaws).

Others here think that everything I say is a blanket statement upon all Calvinism or all OSAS. As I said before, I believe there are different versions for both types of beliefs.

When folks start getting into the finger pointing (beyond something I never specifically said) or if they say words that are just cruel and insulting (like I believe some here are doing even now), I just skip past their posts sometimes. ....

Apparently it has never occurred to you that to attack someone's closely held belief is personal, and will be taken personally. You have given evidence that when we attack your false doctrine, you take it personally, but you then try to justify your personal offense, and then turn around and try to say that we shouldn't take what you say personally. False weights and measures in play when you do that. False weights and measures are an abomination to God.
.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Apparently it has never occurred to you that to attack someone's closely held belief is personal, and will be taken personally. You have given evidence that when we attack your false doctrine, you take it personally, but you then try to justify your personal offense, and then turn around and try to say that we shouldn't take what you say personally. False weights and measures in play when you do that. False weights and measures are an abomination to God.
.

But Jesus said we shall know false prophets by their fruit. Jesus said there will be those who will speak all manner of evil against you falsely. In my experience, insults (like calling me wolf, Jason666, etc. on another forum), being banned (without a good cause), speak falsely against me in what I actually said, not willing to make peace (in some cases), and having hateful behavior are usually the norm when I have talked with OSAS proponents over the many years even though I have not attacked them on a personal level. Also, God and His Word are each both a truth. Just as the laws of physics are a truth. If somebody comes up with a false idea concerning the laws of physics and they believe it, my attacking such a false belief concerning the laws of physics is not a personal matter because it is an idea that everyone can either accept or reject. Something personal would be like a person's name, their weight, their background, their love life, their personal walk with God, their hair color, their preference for certain foods, their hobbies, etc. It would be something personal that would identify them as a unique individual. God's truth is true no matter if people accept it or not. The laws of physics are true no matter if someone accepts such a truth or not. The length of the highest mountain is true whether a person accepts that truth or not. People arguing over the length of the highest mountain does not actually change the true length and it has nothing to do with their peronal life that makes them a unique individual.

But surely you cannot think it is wrong to attack a belief. For Peter, James, and Paul alll had attacked false beliefs. However, they did not teach to attack or insult people as a way of God. On the contrary, Jesus said pray for your enemies. Do good unto them that despitefully use you. Paul says be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Paul says our conversation should always be full of grace seasoned with salt. Jesus says a man brings forth whatever is in his heart.


...

 

[nobdysfool]

But Jesus said we shall know false prophets by their fruit. Jesus said there will be those who will speak all manner of evil against you falsely. In my experience, insults (like calling me wolf, Jason666, etc. on another forum), being banned (without a good cause), and hateful behavior are usually the norm when I have talked with OSAS proponents over the many years even though I have not attacked them on a personal level. Also, God and His Word are each both a truth. Just as the laws of physics are a truth. If somebody comes up with a false idea concerning the laws of physics and they believe it, my attacking such a false belief concerning the laws of physics is not a personal matter because it is an idea that everyone can either accept or reject. Something personal would be like a person's name, their weight, their background, their love life, their personal walk with God, their hair color, their preference for certain foods, their hobbies, etc. It would be something personal that would identify them as a unique individual. God's truth is true no matter if people accept it or not. The laws of physics are true no matter if someone accepts such a truth or not. The length of the highest mountain is true whether a person accepts that truth or not. People arguing over the length of the highest mountain does not actually change the true length and it has nothing to do with their peronal life that makes them a unique individual.

But surely you cannot think it is wrong to attack a belief. For Peter, James, and Paul alll had attacked false beliefs. However, they did not teach to attack or insult people as a way of God. On the contrary, Jesus said pray for your enemies. Do good unto them that despitefully use you. Paul says be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Paul says our conversation should always be full of grace seasoned with salt. Jesus says a man brings forth whatever is in his heart.

One of the things you mentioned was their personal walk with God. Trying to portray people who disagree with you as "living in a constant state of sin", or "continual sin" is a personal attack. You have made that exact claim many times against those of us who disagree. Therefore, you have sabotaged your entire defense.

Seems you have a little further way to go than you thought, when it comes to "sinless perfection".
.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One of the things you mentioned was their personal walk with God. Trying to portray people who disagree with you as "living in a constant state of sin", or "continual sin" is a personal attack. You have made that exact claim many times against those of us who disagree. Therefore, you have sabotaged your entire defense.

Seems you have a little further way to go than you thought, when it comes to "sinless perfection".
.

Nowhere did I come out and say that nobody has a relationship with God to their face. Nowhere did I say that they are not personally saved. I strive to speak from a third person perspective that just talks about the belief and not them as an individual. There is a difference. Surely you should be able to see that, my friend. For example: If somebody measured the highest mountain, it would be a personal attack if I called them a liar for measuring it in the wrong way. But my discussion of the actual length of what I beleive to be for that mountain in no way is an attack upon them as an individual. For example: I can say it is wrong if people do not believe in gravity whereby they might think they can jump off a cliff and survive. My pointing out that wrong belief does not makes me the bad guy if someone is unwilling to see it. I would only be the bad guy if I started to call him names or if I started to put him down on a personal level. For if they happen to hold to the belief that I am talking about, then they are free to change their beliefs. Nowhere do I speak about how they are evil or bad, a wolf, or false prophet, or anything like that to their face. There is the difference.

The problem arises is when people say things like.... "See Jason, the problem with you is that...."

Or when they say things like: "You are blind" or when they say for me to: "Repent." or that they just rebuked me, etc.

Surely people can have respect for a person and merely talk about the belief only (without trying to drag their personal life into it).



...