mlculwell said:
This is what Calvinists are so good at; "vacuum Isolation" which they call "exegesis" but is really "exegesis" these good folks(those attempting your argument using your own submitted isolated passages and scenarios) just fell into your isolation vacuum trap. LOL!
This is the opening statement from a somewhat lengthy comment posted to my blog earlier this week and, as one can readily see, should prove to be yet another interesting look at how folks choose to argue against Calvinism. Surely a near incoherent statement that ends with "lol" isn't promising much in way of a serious critique. In fact, the above statement reminds me of the bad joke told badly. No one laughs except the poor bloke telling it.
At any rate, just what is "vacuum isolation"? How does it relate to the blog entries it was posted to? I say entries because mlculwell posted the same comment to three or four different blog entries and none of them were directly interacted with. In fact, one of the blog entries that this was posted to was one in which I discussed John 12:32 within it's immediate context. Thus, I'm left wondering how I can be accused of "vacuum isolation" (whatever that means exactly) when I presented an argument based on the immediate context in which the verse is found.
(John 7:38-39 KJV) This passage says If A-N-Y man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He is allowed by his thirst. Oh, but the Calvinist will say what about the next verse?
Mr. mlculwell seems to think that spelling out certain words is enough to refute Calvinism. Fine. Since I'm one who believes in answering folks on their own grounds, what about Ephesians 1:5 where it states that Christians are P-R-E-D-E-S-T-I-N-E-D to adoption acording to God's will? Then there's Acts 13:48 that says the gentiles who were A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D to eternal life believed. And who can forget 2Thessolonians 2:13 where it is stated that God has C-H-O-S-E-N the elect for salvation? Will mlculwell concede the force of his own argument when it is turned around on him? Will he then present an actual argument as to why John 7:37 (not v. 38 & 39) contradicts Calvinism? Will he, for instance, elaborate on his underlying assumption that "if any man thirsts" really means that every man without exception thirsts for the gospel and only needs a little wooing on God's part for him to drink? Will he directly interact with the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse and others like it? Or, will he simply continue with his spelling-bee argumentation?
Because the believer according to Calvin is a mindless robot made to believe, made to thirst.
I would be very interested to see if Mr. mlculwell can provide the book and page number where Calvin made the claim that men are robots who are forced to believe against their will.
One will notice that the above passage does not use the term A-L-L but rather A-N-Y
Aside from the fact that this is still spelling-bee argumentation, what is the point? What difference does it make if John 7:37 has 'any' instead of 'all'? Where is Mr. mlculwell's discussion on whether or not these words are limited by contextual considerations?
There is that little nasty indefinite pronoun* any *again and it's relation to anyone hearing the word and either accepting or rejecting the word in their hearts because of different situations or cares of this life and the flesh of mankind because men love their flesh rather than the spirit of God.
As written, this statement is a bit difficult to follow. It seems that Mr. mlculwell believes that the mere appearance of the term 'any' necessarily implies libertarian free-will over and against compatiblistic free-will (i.e. the Calvinist position). If so, this would of course beg the question. Further, the above statement conflates two different sections of scripture (Matt. 5 and Matt. 13) without a clear demonstration of how they relate to each other or the point being made.
Above is a person/persons that have a stony heart because of the cares of this life (Not because of sins of their forefathers as both Catholics and Calvinists falsely claim...
This statement appears to be based on Matthew 13:20. If so, Mr. mlculwell has it all wrong. The Calvinistic interpretation of this verse does not rest on anything other than what the verse itself states. Matthew 13:20 is part of the parable of the sower. In this parable, four different types of people and how they react to hearing the gospel are presented. The first refers to people who hear the gospel but do not understand. This lack of understanding results in the gospel message not taking root. Reformed theology is consistent with this description. The second person is presented as having a stoney heart but the verse does not state that the stoney heart comes from the "cares of this life" as Mr. mlculwell stated above. The "cares of this life" phrase refers to the third person described. This person is too caught up and in love with the world to have room in his heart for the gospel. Reformed theology is likewise consistent with the two previous descriptions. The fourth and final description is in reference to someone likened to "good soil" and thus the gospel takes root and is fruitful. This final description is also consistent with Calvinism. Thus, if Calvinism is consistent with all the descriptions found in the parable of the sower, then Mr. mlculwell is mistaken to assert that Calvinism interprets this parable thru some supposed grid.
...man is a free moral agent able to hear, choose and be saved by his God.
Yes, man is indeed a free moral agent who is able to hear and choose and be saved by his God. So, since Calvinism affirms this statement as written, what is Mr. mlculwell's argument?
...the gospel message is for all of mankind...
Yep.
...not all will be saved...
True.
...but any man can be saved .
And I can agree with this but with one caveat. Any man can be saved if God so wills it. Thus, the difference between Mr. mlculwell's view and my own is the assumption of libertarian free-will which has yet to be established.
Next, Mr. mlculwell quotes Romans 10:8 and says this:
(who Calvinists ? NO the 12 apostles of the lamb who were sent…
The only response I can possibly give to this devastating observation is, well, what?
(Side note:he cannot be the Lord "over all" but only "all kinds of men" and thus Calvinists remain consistent in their interpretation. Go figure….
Here, Mr. mlculwell seems to be complaining that Calvinists often point out that words like 'all' and 'any' are often limited by contextual considerations. Thus, he is complaining against cold hard fact. Go figure.
Calvinists say God makes you a believer without you being involved in the process, What? Ridiculous!
Actually, Calvinists say that God grants men the faith that is required to come to Christ. Once that faith is given, it will then be excercised thus making man involved in the process. This is in stark contrast to Mr. mlculwell's assertion that Calvinism teaches man is saved apart from faith which is truly ridiculous.
(oh but God automatically makes you believe without hearing more ridiculousness)
At this point, I feel it necessary to point out that we're dealing with someone who is swimming in ignorance. Either that, or this person is about as intellectually dishonest as they come. Reformed theology doesn't teach that "God automatically" does anything. Further, Reformed theology does not teach that God forces men to believe for the simple reason that the willing cannot be forced. That is, Calvinism teaches that God removes man's heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh that is capable of belief. And what of Mr. mlculwell's unsupported assertion that Calvinists believe that we are saved apart from the preaching of the gospel? Well, to use his own words, "more ridiculousness"!
...these false prophets refuse to preach that same message and we hear all kinds of ridiculous reasons why.
Here, Mr. mlculwell is referring to Reformed preachers when he uses the term "false prophets". The assertion here is basically that Reformed preachers (and by extension, all Calvinists) do not say the same thing as the Apostles (at least, according to mlculwell) and therefore they are all false prophets. But if this doesn't beg the question, nothing possibly can. In order to establish this notion, Mr. mlculwell will need to sit down and refute Calvinism en toto while simultaneously establishing his own viewpoints as the only Biblical option. And as I have shown above, he hasn't even come close to successfully critiquing Calvinism. Moreover, to say that Calvinists are false prophets is fundamentally no different than saying that we are not Christians. Is this indeed Mr. mlculwell's view? I would be interested in hearing him elaborate on this point.
...yes, the Calvinist is correct when they teach the term "all" is limited in certain contexts concerning believers and unbelievers...
And with this admission, Mr. mlculwell effectively torpedos his own statements above about 'any' and 'all'. That is, once it is admitted that terms like 'all' and 'world' are often times limited by context, these words can no longer be thrown out as if their mere appearance in a text of scripture automatically falsifies the Calvinist's interpretation.
There is quite a bit more that Mr. mlculwell posted but most of it re-hashes what has already been covered above and so going on would not be productive. I mean, really, how much more bad argumentation am I going to have to showcase in order to drive home the point that too many non-Calvinists are far too willing to engage in the most horrid argumentative antics in order to attack a system of theology that they do not like?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Thank you for your Insightful reply Mr.Cleary i will be responding very soon .
Manuel Culwell
mlculwell said:
This is what Calvinists are so good at; "vacuum Isolation" which they call "exegesis" but is really "exegesis" these good folks(those attempting your argument using your own submitted isolated passages and scenarios) just fell into your isolation vacuum trap. LOL!
Mr Cleary:
This is the opening statement from a somewhat lengthy comment posted to my blog earlier this week and, as one can readily see, should prove to be yet another interesting look at how folks choose to argue against Calvinism. Surely a near incoherent statement that ends with "lol" isn't promising much in way of a serious critique. In fact, the above statement reminds me of the bad joke told badly. No one laughs except the poor bloke telling it.
mlculwell:
I think you know exactly what was being said Mr. Cleary in the way of “vacuum isolation” This is the consistent way Calvinists interpret the scriptures, they take one sometimes two passages to showcase a ceratin hard passage in isolation and then psychoanalyze words and phrases of said passages excluding many others that deal with the same doctrine, allow me to give an example of another Calvinist.
Edward Dalcour writes “Jesus sets the condition of coming to Him:
“unless the Father . . draws him.” The verb translated “draws” is from
elkw.(1670 strongs *my own addition for clarification) The drawing is more than a wooing or mere encouragement.
Lexicographically, this word means, “to compel by an inward power, irresistible
superiority.”
Draw(1670 strongs Greek) nigh to God and he
will draw(1670 ) nigh to you. Cleanse your hands ye sinners, purify your
hearts ye double minded.(James 4:8)
Notice how Mr. Dalcour tried to pull the wool over my eyes with what he submitted . Just like you by not dealing with all of my post no matter how silly you thought it was, I posted my response to you for a reason and that was to get you to deal with certain arguments so I could deal with your own arguments. The same Greek word is used of both passages. It is an “inward compelling” as a response to the gospel being preached that is how God draws not as the Calvinist claims.
Mr. Cleary:
At any rate, just what is "vacuum isolation"? How does it relate to the blog entries it was posted to? I say entries because mlculwell posted the same comment to three or four different blog entries and none of them were directly interacted with. In fact, one of the blog entries that this was posted to was one in which I discussed John 12:32 within it's immediate context. Thus, I'm left wondering how I can be accused of "vacuum isolation" (whatever that means exactly) when I presented an argument based on the immediate context in which the verse is found.
Mlculwell:
Mr. Cleary I already explained that these good folks on this your blog responded to your “vacuum trap”(I did not.) It could be seen from a mile away. You only submitted two passages to isolate your “sugar stick” that being John 6:44 you set up your trap to the exclusion of other passages yes you submitted (John 12:32) But I saw what you were trying to do, all I needed was one or more passages that you not so much even eluded to that being (James 4:8, and John 6:45)
(John 7:38-39 KJV) This passage says If A-N-Y man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He is allowed by his thirst. Oh, but the Calvinist will say what about the next verse?
Mr. Cleary writes in response to what I had written:
Mr. mlculwell seems to think that spelling out certain words is enough to refute Calvinism. Fine. Since I'm one who believes in answering folks on their own grounds, what about Ephesians 1:5 where it states that Christians are P-R-E-D-E-S-T-I-N-E-D to adoption acording to God's will?
Mlculwell: Yep! No problem…God predestined the salvation of an elect group (the church) to which all may
be added conditioned upon their faith in obedience to the Gospel. Mr. Cleary thinks individuals are p-r-e-d-e-s-t-I-n-e-d. Find me the passage please that says so?
Mr. cleary:
Then there's Acts 13:48 that says the gentiles who were A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D to eternal life believed.
mlculwell:
(Romans 9:18) Romans chapters 9-11 defends God's rejection of national Israel and
acceptance of believers in Christ whether Jew or Gentile (9:1-5, 22-24; 10:1-3). God has revealed to whom He will show mercy, all those with obedient
faith in Christ (9:30-33; 1:5; 16:25-27; 10:8-17; 2:5; 6:3-4; 12:1-2). He hardens those
who, as Pharaoh, harden their own hearts and refuse to believe (Exodus 8:15; 9:12).
Those who were not of the elect at the time Paul wrote might become God's elect by
believing (11:5,7,23),
Mr.Cleary writes:
And who can forget 2Thessolonians 2:13 where it is stated that God has C-H-O-S-E-N the elect for salvation? Will mlculwell concede the force of his own argument when it is turned around on him?
mlculwell Absolutely not! the elect are not simply individuals chosen by God while other are simply rejected but the elect refers to those individuals colectively that make the Body of Christ while we are in him which took place through the preaching of the gospel, the drawing of God. We are chosen in him from the foundation of the world as the elect body, the church .
Mr. Cleary:
Will he then present an actual argument as to why John 7:37 (not v. 38 & 39) contradicts Calvinism? Will he, for instance, elaborate on his underlying assumption that "if any man thirsts" really means that every man without exception thirsts for the gospel and only needs a little wooing on God's part for him to drink?
Mlculwell: First Mr. Cleary, you will have to find where I ever said such a thing as “Every man without exception thirsts for the gospel and only needs a little wooing on God's part for him to drink.” Not every man will thirst for the gospel, some men don’t care and don’t believe there is a God. “The wooing” as you call it is called the preaching of the gospel.(John 6 :45, Romans 10:14-15)
Mr. Cleary:
Will he directly interact with the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse and others like it? Or, will he simply continue with his spelling-bee argumentation?
mlculwell: The question is, will you? You completely ignored my post and simply added your snide comments and remarks while ignoring the passages I submitted.
Because the believer according to Calvin is a mindless robot made to believe, made to thirst.
Mr. Cleary:
I would be very interested to see if Mr. mlculwell can provide the book and page number where Calvin made the claim that men are robots who are forced to believe against their will.
mlculwell: Here in is the problem. You care to much what Calvin had to say, I am not talking to Calvin, I am talking to you, I neither care what Calvin, Arminus, Tertullian, the pope, Arius, or anyone else had to say in so called church history or otherwise unless it was the Lord Jesus Christ or the Apostles and brethren from scripture. Do you , or do you not believe you are made a believer beyond your will? Please be a little more forth coming with what you believe so that everyone can distinguish the two doctrines?
One will notice that the above passage does not use the term A-L-L but rather A-N-Y
Mr. Cleary:
Aside from the fact that this is still spelling-bee argumentation, what is the point? What difference does it make if John 7:37 has 'any' instead of 'all'? Where is Mr. mlculwell's discussion on whether or not these words are limited by contextual considerations?
Mlculwell: The difference is any man hearing the gospel( John 6:45, Romans 10:7-15) then being drawn by what was preached. As I have already stated not all men will thirst or even care but it does not mean God makes you this way or that as the Calvinist teaches God unconditionally gives them the ability to believe and obey, and then
saves them conditioned upon their faith and obedience. John 6:45 reveals How men are drawn
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
You hear and are taught through the preaching of the word.
There is that little nasty indefinite pronoun* any *again and it's relation to anyone hearing the word and either accepting or rejecting the word in their hearts because of different situations or cares of this life and the flesh of mankind because men love their flesh rather than the spirit of God.
Mr. Cleary responds:
As written, this statement is a bit difficult to follow. It seems that Mr. mlculwell believes that the mere appearance of the term 'any' necessarily implies libertarian free-will over and against compatiblistic free-will (i.e. the Calvinist position).
Mlculwell: “compatibilistic free will.” One Calvinist writes:” Our will is free to the extent that we are given some choice, but not total choice.” What this means is like we hear so often in the religious world, he made a decision for Christ. In other words there are many limiting factors, the main one being did God draw you as an individual, we don’t really know do we? Did he make a decision for the Right Christ? When a decision is really just the beginning and not the Gospel. God has predestined the church, the body of Christ to glory, if we are in that Body we are glory bound, if we are not, then we are not, that simple. This is the real difference between Calvin freewill which is no will at all and the free will of the Bible. (Rev.22:17) whosoever will let him take the water of life freely. I really don’t care what Arminius or Calvin had to say about anything, they have no hold or claim on scripture what so ever.
Mr. Cleary:
If so, this would of course beg the question. Further, the above statement conflates two different sections of scripture (Matt. 5 and Matt. 13) without a clear demonstration of how they relate to each other or the point being made.
Mlculwell: There is nothing stated in scripture anywhere of “compatibilistic free will.” Not even one example, it is based on bad interpretation of scripture as can be seen through the Calvinist vacuum isolation of (John 6:44) I gave other passages that harmonize and demonstrate my point that go along with the Matth. passages that Being (Romans 10:7-15, John 6:45 ) I do not need to demonstrate the two when I submitted more that you refused to deal with, my point would be lost without all the passages.
Above is a person/persons that have a stony heart because of the cares of this life (Not because of sins of their forefathers as both Catholics and Calvinists falsely claim...
Mr. Cleary:
This statement appears to be based on Matthew 13:20. If so, Mr. mlculwell has it all wrong.
Mlculwell: No,” I don’t have it wrong.” you do believe in “inherited sin.” all five points rest upon each other, you seem to be hiding what it is you believe. You believe mankind is born dead from Adam onward and so some are chosen to salvation while others are doomed to hell not because of being drawn of God by the gospel being preached .
Mr. Cleary:
The Calvinistic interpretation of this verse does not rest on anything other than what the verse itself states. Matthew 13:20 is part of the parable of the sower. In this parable, four different types of people and how they react to hearing the gospel are presented. The first refers to people who hear the gospel but do not understand. This lack of understanding results in the gospel message not taking root. Reformed theology is consistent with this description. The second person is presented as having a stoney heart but the verse does not state that the stoney heart comes from the "cares of this life" as Mr. mlculwell stated above. The "cares of this life" phrase refers to the third person described. This person is too caught up and in love with the world to have room in his heart for the gospel.
Mlculwell:
It can be seen from Mr. Cleary’s response that he is trying very hard to hide what it is he actually believes and I don’t mind taking a little correction from Mr. Cleary when he is correct but Calvinism is nowhere near correct. Is it,or is it not your belief God supernaturally
turns “individuals” He has predestined to salvation?
Mr. Cleary:
Reformed theology is likewise consistent with the two previous descriptions.
Mlculwell: Only because Mr. Cleary is hiding what it is he actually believes, he is trying to make it as simplistic as possible without revealing his true colors which will be exposed soon enough. Why not, if in fact you believe these things, come out and just tell us what they are?
Mr. Cleary:
The fourth and final description is in reference to someone likened to "good soil" and thus the gospel takes root and is fruitful. This final description is also consistent with Calvinism. Thus, if Calvinism is consistent with all the descriptions found in the parable of the sower, then Mr. mlculwell is mistaken to assert that Calvinism interprets this parable thru some supposed grid.
Mlculwell: all you have to do is just tell us
...man is a free moral agent able to hear, choose and be saved by his God.
Mr. Cleary
Yes, man is indeed a free moral agent who is able to hear and choose and be saved by his God. So, since Calvinism affirms this statement as written, what is Mr. mlculwell's argument?
Mlculwell: The elect were once sinners (Ephesians 2:3), but God regenerates them
In response to the gospel being preached(1 Peter 1:18-25), which is for all people everywhere. It is not how the Calvinist at all explains.
...the gospel message is for all of mankind...
Mr. Cleary:
Yep.
mlculwell: Not much said here by Mr. Cleary because he is not being very forth coming with what he really believes.
...not all will be saved...
Mr.Cleary:
True.
mlculwell:
Is it because God predestinates individuals to be saved? That is what he really believes. God to the Calvinist is a partial unloving God dooming some to hell and some to eternal life when it is because it is of men’s choices that doom them, salvation however is available to all men, it is not God’s will that any should perish(2nd. Peter 3:8) but that all (Who hear and obey) should repent. Yes, the “all” is limited not because God somehow wills some to life and others he does not, but because of response to the gospel message preached. (The drawing of God) The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him(Romans 10:12) Do you believe he is the Lord over all without exception?
...but any man can be saved .
Mr. Cleary:
And I can agree with this but with one caveat. Any man can be saved if God so wills it. Thus, the difference between Mr. mlculwell's view and my own is the assumption of libertarian free-will which has yet to be established.
mlculwell: Mr. Cleary also assumes there is such thing as the “compatible will” of Calvinism.
Now, he finally reveals his Calvinism , God does” will it,” it is not his will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Yes the all is limited, again, but not at all how the Calvinist explains. Any man can be saved and God does so will it. We just read it in the 2nd peter passage. Again the same lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Is God the Lord over all? Let’s be clear, the* all *is limited to all that respond and obey the gospel message preached, not all will hear the gospel.
Next, Mr. mlculwell quotes Romans 10:8 and says this:
(who Calvinists ? NO the 12 apostles of the lamb who were sent…
Mr. Cleary:
The only response I can possibly give to this devastating observation is, well, what?
Mlculwell: Romans 10: 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; Who is the word near ? To all those that hear it preached from those preaching that are sent of God. All here certainly does not mean all mean will hear the Gospel but those who have chosen to hear it. I certainly do not have any idea what he means by “this devastating observation,” but it most certainly is not devastating to my position
(Side note:he cannot be the Lord "over all" but only "all kinds of men" and thus Calvinists remain consistent in their interpretation. Go figure….
Mr. Cleary:
Here, Mr. mlculwell seems to be complaining that Calvinists often point out that words like 'all' and 'any' are often limited by contextual considerations. Thus, he is complaining against cold hard fact. Go figure.
Mlculwell: That is exactly what I am pointing out, is God the Lord over all without exception? There is no fact that all or any refers to the Calvinist idea that all kinds of men are individuals somehow dragged against their wills supernaturally when others are not, this is the real issue I feel Mr. Cleary is not being so forthcoming.
Calvinists say God makes you a believer without you being involved in the process, What? Ridiculous!
Mr. Cleary:
Actually, Calvinists say that God grants men the faith that is required to come to Christ. Once that faith is given, it will then be excercised thus making man involved in the process. This is in stark contrast to Mr. mlculwell's assertion that Calvinism teaches man is saved apart from faith which is truly ridiculous.
Mlculwell: “God grants men the faith to come to Christ” (and others he does not. My paraphrase, but it is what the Calvinist believes) This is not at all the teaching of scriptures. As has been seen and the reason I submitted (Matthew13:1-23) it is because the differences in men’s hearts in hearing and responding to the Gospel preached and is consistent in the NT without contradiction. Nothing is said in Romans 10 that man is given supernatural faith against his will from God but that it comes from the heart in response to the Gospel being preached, yes, God gives faith by sending the Gospel (Titus 2:11-12; Romans 10:17) not by being a dictating partial puppet master.
(oh but God automatically makes you believe without hearing more ridiculousness)
Mr. Cleary:
At this point, I feel it necessary to point out that we're dealing with someone who is swimming in ignorance. Either that, or this person is about as intellectually dishonest as they come. Reformed theology doesn't teach that "God automatically" does anything. Further, Reformed theology does not teach that God forces men to believe for the simple reason that the willing cannot be forced.
Mlculwell: What Mr. Cleary means by:” the willing cannot be forced.” Is that God supernaturally makes you willing and others he does not. This is completely diametric to the teaching of the NT. Again, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Where does this passage say what the Calvinist is saying? He is purposely avoiding these areas of his doctrine.
Mr. Cleary:
That is, Calvinism teaches that God removes man's heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh that is capable of belief.
Mlculwell: The question should be; when does God remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh? (Col. 2:11-12) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in Baptism, you are dead, you are buried with him in baptism having the name Jesus called over you in baptism which is new testament circumcision and just like John the Baptist being a male Jewish child circumcised you are also named at your circumcision.(Luke 1:59-60) The name in baptism is what remits the sin not the baptism alone, it takes the name for the authority because name(Onoma) means authority, that being the name Jesus only and not the titles: fathers, son, and Holy Ghost.
wherein ye are raised through the faith of the operation of God. And you being dead in your sins and the un -circumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him.
The gospel is the supernatural power of God(Romans 1:16) to save through our own faith from the heart(for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness Romans 10:10)
Mr. Cleary:
And what of Mr. mlculwell's unsupported assertion that Calvinists believe that we are saved apart from the preaching of the gospel? Well, to use his own words, "more ridiculousness"!
mlculwell: what I failed to do is break down all the intricacies and nuances of your doctrine that you are so trying to hide for the sake of being exposed for what you really believe which is that men come to god already supernaturally predisposed to excepting or rejecting the gospel(why I use the phrases and term I do in explaining your doctrine which you have not been at all forthcoming in explaining.)
...these false prophets refuse to preach that same message and we hear all kinds of ridiculous reasons why.
Mr. Cleary:
Here, Mr. mlculwell is referring to Reformed preachers when he uses the term "false prophets". The assertion here is basically that Reformed preachers (and by extension, all Calvinists) do not say the same thing as the Apostles (at least, according to mlculwell) and therefore they are all false prophets. But if this doesn't beg the question, nothing possibly can. In order to establish this notion, Mr. mlculwell will need to sit down and refute Calvinism en toto while simultaneously establishing his own viewpoints as the only Biblical option. And as I have shown above, he hasn't even come close to successfully critiquing Calvinism. Moreover, to say that Calvinists are false prophets is fundamentally no different than saying that we are not Christians. Is this indeed Mr. mlculwell's view? I would be interested in hearing him elaborate on this point.
mlculwell: I do indeed believe the Calvinist preacher is a “false prophet” and has been led astray by a false tradition doctrine of the Reformed passed down through the years by philosophical ideas based on difficulties from the scriptures but there are warnings of wrestling the scriptures to our own destruction by teaching contrary to the teachings of the Apostles by misunderstood and misapplied passages, the regular church going members also being led astray by the same teachings of their ministry but there is Hope from false teaching by recognizing the true gospel men are to be fruit inspectors and the Reformed do not preach the same fruit of the Apostles and the first message to the question men and brethren what must I do?( Acts 2:37-39) And Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost . For this promise is unto you , and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call .
...yes, theCalvinist is correct when they teach the term "all" is limited in certain contexts concerning believers and unbelievers...
And with this admission, Mr. mlculwell effectively torpedos his own statements above about 'any' and 'all'. That is, once it is admitted that terms like 'all' and 'world' are oftentimes limited by context, these words can no longer be thrown out as if their mere appearance in a text of scripture automatically falsifies the Calvinist's interpretation.
mlculwell: My admition does no such thing as “torpedo my own statements” you will again notice Mr. Cleary said nothing as to whether or not God is Lord of “all.” God "now commands all men everywhere to repent."(Acts 17:30) again not all men will repent but the command still remains that God commands all men everywhere to repent. It is the Calvinist that is not consistent, they will back up and say All means all when God is Lord over all but the scripture cannot mean all men but only the elect or all kinds of men, is God the Lord of only all kinds of men, Which would causes the scriptures to contradict itself? The limitation I admitted was not because of only the elect being the “all kinds of men” but because the all kinds of men being those who respond or are drawn to the Gospel the preaching of the gospel and not by a supernatural power that drags or pulls us against our wills , I do not dent the supernatural power of God or the sovereignty.
Mr. Cleary:
There is quite a bit more that Mr. mlculwell posted but most of it re-hashes what has already been covered above and so going on would not be productive. I mean, really, how much more bad argumentation am I going to have to showcase in order to drive home the point that too many non-Calvinists are far too willing to engage in the most horrid argumentative antics.
Mlculwell:” The bad argumentation “was your own argumentation and you have showcased quite a bit of it.
Manuel,
Since your response is lengthy, I'll respond in full on a seperate blog entry. I would like to briefly state here and now however that your constant assertions that I'm hiding my doctrines is completely baseless and will be shown as such when I reply. You seem to think that I'm obligated to present and define the five points of Calvinism in every blog entry I write. But this is obviously erroneous. I could just as easily say that since you have not laid out your entire belief system for all to see, then you are being equally deceptive.
Dear Mr. Cleary,
Mr. Culwell's clarification is apparently as follows: "This is the consistent way Calvinists interpret the scriptures, they take one sometimes two passages to showcase a ceratin hard passage in isolation and then psychoanalyze words and phrases of said passages excluding many others that deal with the same doctrine, allow me to give an example of another Calvinist."
Aside from the obvious misstatement regarding psychoanalysis (obviously we do not submit the verses to ink-blotch tests), the primary gist of the accusation is true and a great compliment:
We (Reformed apologists) make analysis of the Scriptures carefully, and subject verses to incredible scrutiny to be sure that we properly understand them.
There is another aspect, however, to the charge. This secondary aspect is that we look very closely at one verse but ignore other verses in other places. This is a false charge, and anyone who makes such a charge is either uninformed or a liar.
For an example of a Reformed writer who clearly has addressed all the verses, see Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Entire Bible.
If one must comment on every verse out there, at least that one Reformed author has done so.
Furthermore, if that is the real standard, how could any single post by any Reformed or anti-reformed person measure up to that standard?
Of course, the answer is that they could not. It is an unreasonable standard.
The question: "what is the relationship between verse X and verse Y" is a legitimate question. And it is a question that Reformed apologists such as yourself do address.
If Mr. Culwell says you don't, he's either misinformed or lying.
Keep up the good work, and don't let misleading, misspoken, and misdirected criticism distract from your defense of the Truth!
Finally, and briefly, to Mr. Culwell:
Sir, you claimed that Calvins says people mindless robots. It's a laughable charge since robots hadn't been invented in Calvin's day. It's also a laughable charge to anyone who has read Calvin on the relationship of the mind and the will. When confronted with the fact that your charge was a false charge, you said you don't care what Calvin said. Don't you think that the Biblical response is to admit your mistake?
May God's blessing rest on you (both),
-Turretinfan
Tf,
I appreciate the kind words of encouragement. And I believe your observations concerining Manuel's posts are spot on. I'll be responding along similiar lines soon. In point of fact, I've decided to respond to Manuel in two seperate posts since his latest was so lengthy.
Oh, and I'll be adding your blog to my "Reformed Blogs of Interest" section as well in appreciation for you taking time to post here.
Cheers!
JMattC
Thanks, JMattC!
I look forward to reading your response!
-TF
I know I might be ridiculed by saying this...but mlculwell's comments are too long for me to respond too...and it's not "my fight" as I have had to do in the past and on my blog...
but, I just wanted to encourage J. Matthew to continue to fight for the faith and also to make sure that if nothing else...the wrong assumption that we Calvinists are not saved, excuse me, false prophets, is interesting to say the least...
Looking forward to your response to culwell's comments though
Hi Seth,
Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts and for the kind words of encouragement. I've linked to your blog to show my apppreciation.
And as for that response, it's coming. I had actually gotten a little over half way thru responding to Manuel's post when I realized that responding to the entire thing would be far too long for one blog entry. Instead, I'm gonna break it up into two parts. Hopefully, this will serve to hold the interest of folks who read them. Cheers!
I can tell you that you should be thankful that mlculwell is willing to openly discuss. Which I am sure that you are, even if we don't adhere to his views.
I recently did a refutation of a major baptist publication on my website and couldn't even get the author to write back an email, even though I emailed him numerous times and knew that he opened the email and even visited my site!
Yet he stayed silent, no interaction...so at least mlculwell will continue talking to you...
here is that refutation if interested:
http://contendearnestly.blogspot.com/2007/02/refutation-of-dr-john-goetsch-against.html
http://www.freewebs.com/onenessresource/downloads.htm
Until my post is answered here is a debate Between a Baptist preacher Oscar Hill Jr. And Apostolic Preacher
Marvin Hicks. from 1973, Maybe you can glean some arguments from this debate to help with your own arguments But untill then enjoy the discussion (In case Nobody has figured it out, Yes, I am Oneness Apostolic,) if anyone wants to debate Oneness Versus Trinity I would be More than Happy to accomodate you in this area also.
You can come to the Following yahoo group to debate your cause.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Trinity_vs_Oneness_Debate/
Manuel L Culwell
Post a Comment