The No-Straw-Man Calvinism challenge.

[-V-]

You'll have to explain how it's not true obedience? If God changes our heart and we are now free from sin, how is obedience not free?

How is it true, free obedience if there's simply no other option?

There's a hallway. At the end, you can turn either right or left. Now, you tell someone that going left is wrong, and it's sinful to go left. Then you block off the left turn, so that the only place they can go is right. Did they freely choose to go right? Are they really showing obedience and devotion by going right? No, of course not, you simply removed their option to go left, you gave them no other choice but to go right.

As I've shown according to the Canons of Dordt, we aren't free to reject or accept faith, it is instilled in us without our consent or choice. God simply doesn't give us any option. That makes our expressions of love, obedience, and devotion completely meaningless, as they are compelled from us rather than chosen by us.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

God doesn't ask nor require our permission as to when we are born, or born again.

 

[-V-]

God doesn't ask nor require our permission as to when we are born, or born again.

If that's the best response you have, it seems safe to presume that you accept that the Calvinistic God is a monstrous, spiritually-raping, tyrannical despot.

 

[Hammster]

How is it true, free obedience if there's simply no other option?

There's a hallway. At the end, you can turn either right or left. Now, you tell someone that going left is wrong, and it's sinful to go left. Then you block off the left turn, so that the only place they can go is right. Did they freely choose to go right? Are they really showing obedience and devotion by going right? No, of course not, you simply removed their option to go left, you gave them no other choice but to go right.

As I've shown according to the Canons of Dordt, we aren't free to reject or accept faith, it is instilled in us without our consent or choice. God simply doesn't give us any option. That makes our expressions of love, obedience, and devotion completely meaningless, as they are compelled from us rather than chosen by us.

Faith isn't some object that you can decide to put in your pocket or not. It's belief. So if God frees you of an unbelieving nature, you can't just decide to not believe. In other words, you don't choose what you believe in.

 

[-V-]

Faith isn't some object that you can decide to put in your pocket or not. It's belief. So if God frees you of an unbelieving nature, you can't just decide to not believe. In other words, you don't choose what you believe in.

Ok, so you seem to concede that you believe we have no choice whatsoever in our salvation/condemnation, completely supporting what I said the Calvinistic God is made out to be.

 

[Hammster]

Ok, so you seem to concede that you believe we have no choice whatsoever in our salvation/condemnation, completely supporting what I said the Calvinistic God is made out to be.

I never said we didn't have a choice. Those are your words.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If that's the best response you have, it seems safe to presume that you accept that the Calvinistic God is a monstrous, spiritually-raping, tyrannical despot.

Did you give consent to being born? How about to whom, when, where. . .?

He's the Potter. I know that you can't stand the idea of His sovereignty, and you are not alone in that. Countless millions feel the same way, and I once did too.

 

[-V-]

I never said we didn't have a choice. Those are your words.

You just said, "In other words, you don't choose what you believe in."

Yes, you're totally right. How foolish of me to think "you don't choose" means "we didn't have a choice".

 

[-V-]

Did you give consent to being born? How about to whom, when, where. . .?

Irrelevant. Those things don't decide my salvation/damnation.

I know that you can't stand the idea of His sovereignty,

Straw man fallacy (if not an outright lie).

Disagreeing with YOUR UNDERSTANDING of God's sovereignty is *NOT* rejecting the idea of God's sovereignty.

 

[Hammster]

You just said, "In other words, you don't choose what you believe in."

Yes, you're totally right. How foolish of me to think "you don't choose" means "we didn't have a choice".

I thought it was a normal conversation where with each post I didn't have to make sure every previous point was reiterated to avoid one sentence being be taken out of context.

 

[-V-]

I thought it was a normal conversation where with each post I didn't have to make sure every previous point was reiterated to avoid one sentence being be taken out of context.

It's normal conversation where you shouldn't contradict yourself. But, by all means, please explain how I'm just taking it out of context.

 

[Hammster]

It's normal conversation where you shouldn't contradict yourself. But, by all means, please explain how I'm just taking it out of context.

I didn't contradict myself.

 

[-V-]

I didn't contradict myself.

So you say. But, once again, please feel free to actually EXPLAIN it. ("Explain", by the way, means you should do more than just say so.)

 

[Hammster]

So you say. But, once again, please feel free to actually EXPLAIN it. ("Explain", by the way, means you should do more than just say so.)

God chooses us freely (God's chosen people). We choose Him freely.

 

[-V-]

God chooses us freely (God's chosen people). We choose Him freely.

You forgot to include the part of how you're not contradicting yourself. Isn't choosing God believing in God? How can we choose God when we (according to you) don't choose what we believe?

 

[Hammster]

You forgot to include the part of how you're not contradicting yourself. Isn't choosing God believing in God? How can we choose God when we (according to you) don't choose what we believe?

You'll need to point out the contradiction.

 

[Hammster]

Law of non-contradiction

One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.

 

[-V-]

You'll need to point out the contradiction.

I just did.

Law of non-contradiction
One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.

Wrong. The law of non contradiction states that two contradictory statements can't both be true. You certainly can, and did, say two contradictory statements. The law of non contradiction simply tells us that at least one of those things you said must be false.

Either you don't understand what "EXPLAIN it" means, or you're simply refusing to explain it.

Is doing anything you can to avoid actually answering questions a typical tactic of Calvinists? Jimmyjimmy does the same thing all the time. Trying to get actual answers out of either of you is like pulling teeth.

 

[Hammster]

I just did.


Wrong. The law of non contradiction states that two contradictory statements can't both be true. You certainly can, and did, say two contradictory statements. The law of non contradiction simply tells us that at least one of those things you said must be false.

Either you don't understand what "EXPLAIN it" means, or you're simply refusing to explain it.

Is doing anything you can to avoid actually answering questions a typical tactic of Calvinists? Jimmyjimmy does the same thing all the time. Trying to get actual answers out of either of you is like pulling teeth.

Just because you deny the law of non-contradiction doesn't make it not true. So nothing I posted was contradictory.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Just because you deny the law of non-contradiction doesn't make it not true. So nothing I posted was contradictory.

With all of the anti-Calvin sentiment, and your providing of a welcome mat for all questions, discussions, and disagreements with Reformed Theology, this thread should be on fire with posts which comply with the OP.

I think this demonstrates that most people just have emotional reactions to straw men, not intellectual disagreements with the actual doctrines.