The famous Calvinist Churchhill analogy shot down by Joe Dongell

[Ogram1000]

Did Adam and woman act on their own will OR was the snake actually GOD in disguise? and IF they died Just HOW did they HEAR God...cause I have be told that we can not hear GOD if we are dead.So were they a little dead or a lot dead?

[DougCameraMan]

there's no sound after the first minute. 

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 No one denied that God will be glorified in the judgment of the unrighteous; God will be seen as holy through their condemnation. However, that is not the preferred way God seeks to glorify Himself. he'd rather do such through the salvation of the sinner. Again, Ezk 18:32 confirms this (as do other texts).

[S7VIIN]

@Hello1689 Talking about the love of God isn't emotionalism either. Now I can go ahead and write something like this: " You see! This is why Arminians get so upset with people who think like you. Srawman after strawman is all we ever hear from you." I shouldn't though, because arrogance isn't a virtue. Unless it's being used against a heretic like me right?

BTW, please forgive me for being so stupid. Maybe you could teach people like me proper logic.

[S7VIIN]

@Hello1689 Why would I need to ignore those passages? Do me a favor and exegete them for me. Calvinists cite passages like that over and over, please exegete the passage and tell me what you get out of Acts 13:48. I don't need to ignore any verse in the Bible.

[S7VIIN]

@Hello1689 Actually, the Apostles never evangelized in a way in which they told their hearers that Christ died for them. I think that's what you were trying to say. I've listened to James White long enough to know what his thoughts are on this form of evangelism. And I agree with him on this. Nevertheless, I guess that makes the Apostle John an Arminian if he always talked about the love of God right? (1 John 4:8, 16; John 3:16, etc.)

[olorin3k]

@S7VIIN Actually, John was generally not talking about evangelism in his 1st-2nd Great Commandment statements and exhortations to love, since he was talking about the special intra-ecclesial love of Christians between God and one another, which Francis Schaeffer (my past mentor) called "the mark of the Christian." (My dissertation is on this 2d Great Commandment, which does not immediately relate to direct outreach but provides secondary, indirect centripetal evangelistic attraction.)

[S7VIIN]

@olorin3k I don't think you understand the whole context of my statement. I do agree with what you have stated however. Also, is there anyway in which I could access your dissertaion?

[S7VIIN]

@Hello1689 Can you please list some of these "Arminian debaters". George Bryson and Dave Hunt, likewise Norman Geisler, don't count because they, from what I understand, don't call themselves Arminian. Have you even listened to his debate with Michael Brown? White never gave a satisfying response to Steve Gregg or Brown on Ephesians 1 and their view of Corporate Election.

[1689Baptist]

@S7VIIN

That is not true White wipes the floor with them. The view of Corporate Election is laughable, I don't even need Greek to see that. Eph.1 is personal not Corporate.

[nbanuchu]

@1689Baptist "Eph.1 is personal not Corporate"?

(1) In Eph 1:1-2, the apostle directs his epistle to a group, "to the saints" and the "you" in vs.2 refers to the group, not an individual.

(2) Vs.3 refers to the same group, "blessed us".

(3) In vs.4-5 reference is made to those "chosen" and "predestined" as corporate, "us", not an individual: "he hath chosen us"; "Having predestined us; same is true for vs.6: "he hath made is accepted in the beloved".

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 I asked, if God's love to men not the Gospel? You answered by referring to 1 Cor 15:1-5. However, your citation does not answer the question specifically asked since God's love (i.e. "Christ died for our sins") is not excluded but rather assumed in the text. However, contrary to the assumption underlying the text, your position seems to posit God's love to sinners, the ungodly, as inimical to the message of the gospel. Is this your position? Is God's love to sinners not gospel?

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 Pleae note, my observations were made on the basis of maintaing the consistency within the text according to your interpretation; and, as such, problems in interpretation develop. In any case, even if it "all" was limited in meaning to believers, note that it states only respecting God's and not what actually or certainly does or will occur. Furthermore, more precisely, God's will is the destruction of the unrepentant; he does not desire the death of any sinner (Exek 18:32).

[nbanuchu]

@nbanuchu And God says, "I do so much desire to elect you for salvation but if I do elect you for salvation I will not be glorified; therefore, I will go against what I desire and damn you because it pleases me (although I desire otherwise) to damn you - that is, since I hate you so much, it makes me happy to damn you forever - in order to glorify my name."

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 Your last assertion - "So, we see that God is PATIENTLY waiting to destroy this earth, but will not do so until all of his elect have been born physically and from above" - is totally not at all what the context is about, at least, not from my reading of the text; it seems application is being made beyond the statements of the text.

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 (1) Then, to maintain the consistency for which you advance to the text, 2 Pet 3:3-7 ought also refer to whomever 3:1 refers; and so should 1 Pet 1:8-9 refer to whomever 3:1-2 refer. (2) 2 Peter 3:9-12 has obvious reference to the Last Days leading up to the final judgment. Specifically, therefore, the “perish” of verse 9 has reference to eternal damnation, which follows after the events of verse 10.

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689 (1) olorin3k's comment above posits a valid argument against your position. (2) An argument from silence does not validate your position, or else one could argue that the apostles never taught "irresistable grace" as it is nowhere mentioned by them in the Bible. (3) It should be obvious that when Christ is preached as dying for the sinner, he is preaching God's love to the unsaved (John 3:16; Romans 5:6-10; 2 Peter 3:9).

[ThePristineFaith]

@Hello1689 here it is: pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10a.h­tml



[ThePristineFaith]

Check out the following article which dismantles White's reliance on John 6 as proof of Calvinistic Soteriology: White is just another Calvinist...he may be a bit better thinker than most, but at the end of the day he's just a Calvinist with the impossible goal of supporting a view without biblical warrant.

[olorin3k]

Some say apostles never evangelized with love message. But the Creator, Paul & Barnabas evangelize with the message of divine love for all everywhere, even though they don't come out and use the word "agape." It is the contextual definition of loving acts by God toward all that is determinative, not a simplistic vocabulary word count.

Consider Acts 14:15-17, where God does good, giving satisfaction and gladness universally, as well as the Loving Father of all humanity analogy in Acts 17:24-28.

[nbanuchu]

@Hello1689. So, are you saying God's love to men is not the Gospel?

[1689Baptist]

@nbanuchu God does not love all men Psa 5:5... thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Notice God is not said to hate the iniquity (although He does) but the WORKERS of iniquity.

[nbanuchu]

@1689Baptist (1) Are not workers of iniquity sinners? Are not all men sinners? If so, then you are forced to sdmit that God hates all men as sinners, that is, "workers of iniquity." (2) Nevertheless, God in Christ died for all sinners, that is, all "workers of iniquity, cf. Romans 5:6,8,10.

[1689Baptist]

@nbanuchu

Yes, All men are sinners, But God has chosen to love His elect even those deserving of His hate.

Where is the phrase "died for all sinners"? I see "Christ died for us".

[nbanuchu]

@1689Baptist The phrase "all" is not necessary but assumed and a logical understanding of the text if all are sinners. The point made is Christ died for them, not as the "elect" but as sinners and against God. The reference to "us" shows to whom the benefits of the atonement had been applied, however, there is not intention to restrict the atonement itself to a "particular elect". Note, Rom5:12: "all have sinned" and v.18: ""upon all men unto justification".

[RoyIngle]

Joe Dongell and Jerry Walls do a good job of showing the weakness of Calvinist omnicausilty arguments.

[1689Baptist]

@RoyIngle

No, they stir up emotions against Calvinism.

I see nothing compelling in their arguments.

[nbanuchu]

However, I would argue the analogy's ineffectiveness on the grounds that (1) God is not under a necessity to damn in order to glorify himself, (2) Calvinist declare that God hates the sinner, and (3) love is not demonstrated by such purposefully and unconditionally damning the sinner. That's like (another analogy) a father bringing up his daughter for the purpose of having others rape her for monetary gain. Would you say that kind of father loves his daughter?

[nbanuchu]

Is the Calvinist attempting to show by the analogy that God loves even those whom he has chosen to damn? I wouldn't argue the point that Churchill is not God. Analogies, like parable, I don't think are meant to be perfect representations of reality but to bring out a specific truth.

[nbanuchu]

The problem with the analogy is that (1) it goes against God as He is revealed in the Scripture. God has no concern for his reputation with respect to saving the lost and he'd rather lose that than eternally damn someone. He already showed the extent he would go to save the sinner in Phil 2:6-8; and (2) there is no necessity for God to glorify himself by selectively damning a sinner; on the contrary, he seeks to glorify himself through their salvation, not their damnation.

[nbanuchu]

@1689Baptist God is under necessity to do something (which means it is impossible for him to do otherwise)? Something (it must be outside of God) like justice forces God to act a certain way?

[S7VIIN]

Ware still used this analogy and published it later in 2008.

[1689Baptist]

@S7VIIN

I disagree with Wares on this.

[S7VIIN]

@1689Baptist Well, I'm glad to hear that.

[audiophilica]

Plopping down as many verses as you can out of context does little to bolster the Scriptural basis for your beliefs. Arminians could easily play that game and put forth hundreds of verses on the universal intention of God's saving grace. And sound moral arguments against Calvinism are not to be confused with emotionalism.

[1689Baptist]

@audiophilica

There is no moral argument against Calvinism. Read Gordon H. Clark "God and Evil Problem Solved"

[1689Baptist]

Yes, the Calvinist lost this debate b/c of Bruce Wares, and emotionalism from the other side. The Calvinist did not stand united on the 5 points, Bruce denies limited atonement, all 5 points must stand together or not stand at all. Bruce is to worried about making God look good than real truth. The debate was not lost due to a lack of Scripture, The Calvinist were far superior on Scripture they gave I guess 10 to 1 to the Arminians.