The Theology in Calvinism

[civic]

You beat me to it.

I thought it was common knowledge it was promoted as unsinkable

 

[civic]

nt

 

[atpollard]

"No one can come to me"........ fallacy in Calvinism.

I will let YOU tell Jesus that HE (God) misspoke in John 6:44, however, until GOD issues a retraction, I think that I will stick with what John wrote that Jesus said ... TWICE:

John 6:44, 65 [NASB]

• 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ...
• 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

 

[atpollard]

Since there is talk about proper methods and "no ignoring"... I'll wait for your response to the Scriptures mentioned above proving your claim wrong.

1. I do not play "Scripture Pong"
2. I did not make a CLAIM, you are refuting a direct quote of John 6:44.
3. If you REALLY want a pointless "counterargument" ... [2 Timothy 3:16-17 CSB] "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." ... "All Scripture" includes John 6:44 and the words "No one can come to me" from that verse; thus the Word of God (both senses) needs no defense from me. You have "proven" nothing except disdain for John 6:44 (and Romans 3:11).

 

[praise_yeshua]

I will let YOU tell Jesus that HE (God) misspoke in John 6:44, however, until GOD issues a retraction, I think that I will stick with what John wrote that Jesus said ... TWICE:

John 6:44, 65 [NASB]

• 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ...
• 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

False narrative on your part. I'm not questioning what Jesus said. I am questioning your application of what He said.

It is clear from the Scriptures that people came to Jesus and left empty. Your narrative/application does not allow for this.

Contrary to Calvinism, God has chosen the Gospel (The message of Jesus Christ) to draw mankind to Himself. This is the work of the Father that we believe the Gospel.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

1. I do not play "Scripture Pong"
2. I did not make a CLAIM, you are refuting a direct quote of John 6:44.
3. If you REALLY want a pointless "counterargument" ... [2 Timothy 3:16-17 CSB] "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." ... "All Scripture" includes John 6:44 and the words "No one can come to me" from that verse; thus the Word of God (both senses) needs no defense from me. You have "proven" nothing except disdain for John 6:44 (and Romans 3:11).

1. Unethical implication that I do "play" Scripture Pong. Poisoning the well fallacy noted.
2. Yes you did.
3. I agree. Quoting a Scripture claiming it supports your perspective without an explanation of what that perspective is, is "pointless".

 

[atpollard]

Actually, NOBODY ever said that the Titanic was unsinkable. ​

(Go ahead, identify the source of a quote stating the Titanic is unsinkable from before it sank.)
Something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace.

I believe a retraction is in order.....

Yet, when the New York office of the White Star Line was informed that Titanic was in trouble, White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin announced ” We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.” By the time Franklin spoke those words Titanic was at the bottom of the ocean.

Read it again.
No retraction.

The claim came AFTER by people that lacked the proper knowledge to make such a claim.
Since you opened the door ...

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. ​

 

[praise_yeshua]

Read it again.
No retraction.

The claim came AFTER by people that lacked the proper knowledge to make such a claim.
Since you opened the door ...

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. ​

He restated what was already understood. The fact it came after the Titanic was already at the bottom of the ocean doesn't mean anything relative to the "understood" claim.

 

[atpollard]

2. Yes you did.

Quote my claim, verbatim.

 

[atpollard]

He restated what was already understood. The fact it came after the Titanic was already at the bottom of the ocean doesn't mean anything relative to the "understood" claim.

"We" excluded those that designed the ship (engineers) and contradicts the prior official statements of the head of the company that was ON the ship. Those statements of "general knowledge" were not quoted, I noted. They did not fit the predetermined narrative, I noted.

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. ​

 

[praise_yeshua]

"We" excluded those that designed the ship (engineers) and contradicts the prior official statements of the head of the company that was ON the ship. Those statements of "general knowledge" were not quoted, I noted. They did not fit the predetermined narrative, I noted.

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. ​

Make the case for confining a relative quote to the ship engineers? You're placing an undue constraint on the information available.

This is common in Calvinism. If you don't like the information available, you will do most anything to discard relative information.

 

[atpollard]

You beat me to it.

Read more on the subject. The Company issued an official statement that is misinterpreted to claim the ship is "unsinkable" prior to its sailing, but that is NOT what the statement actually says. "Man's Folly" just sells more newspapers and generates more "clicks" so the false narrative gets more "press" than the truth.

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. ​

 

[praise_yeshua]

Quote my claim, verbatim.

Ah, you're skipping? Are we going to go line by line or not?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Read more on the subject. The Company issued an official statement that is misinterpreted to claim the ship is "unsinkable" prior to its sailing, but that is NOT what the statement actually says. "man's Folly" just sells more newspapers and generates more "clicks" so the false narrative gets more "press" than the truth.

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace. ​

Why don't you provide evidence instead?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Quote my claim, verbatim.

"I will let YOU tell Jesus that HE (God) misspoke in John 6:44"

Quote provided above.

 

[atpollard]

Make the case for confining a relative quote to the ship engineers? You're placing an undue constraint on the information available.

This is common in Calvinism. If you don't like the information available, you will do most anything to discard relative information.

My only constraint was BEFORE IT SUNK. (You offered a quote from AFTER it sunk).

Not following what is actually said ... is that common in Arminianism where you are from, because my old Wesleyan Pastors would not accept such tactics? If you want my respect, then address John 6 directly and explain why Jesus really means the opposite of what he said.
(or don't refute it by calling John 6:44 a "fallacy in Calvinism" and demanding that I prove Scripture TRUE.)

 

[atpollard]

Quote provided above.

I stand corrected ... I am GUILTY of believing the word of God is true ... I hang my head in shame for daring to believe such a thing on a Christian Forum.

[You scare me.]

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[praise_yeshua]

My only constraint was BEFORE IT SUNK. (You offered a quote from AFTER it sunk).

No. You referenced engineers. You set the standard by which you would judge comments.

The quote is from someone who did not know the ship had sank. It doesn't matter if had already sank.

Not following what is actually said ..

Another tactic common with some Calvinists. Claiming you don't understand a very simple comment.

. is that common in Arminianism where you are from, because my old Wesleyan Pastors would not accept such tactics? If you want my respect, then address John 6 directly and explain why Jesus really means the opposite of what he said.
(or don't refute it by calling John 6:44 a "fallacy in Calvinism" and demanding that I prove Scripture TRUE.)

I'm not an "Arminian". I deal with issues line by line. Precept by precept. You're not the judge of any person. Arguments are arguments. I'm not looking to please you. All I care about its the truth. False demands on your part.

I never said Jesus means the opposite of what He said. I shared Scripture that establishes how the Father draws people to Christ. You haven't provided Scripture for how you believe God calls others than to claim John 6:44 speaks for you. It doesn't. This is nothing more than circular logic.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I stand corrected ... I am GUILTY of believing the word of God is true ... I hang my head in shame for daring to believe such a thing on a Christian Forum.

[You scare me.]

Yet another something to think about if one wanted to compare the analogy ... to this discussion on the Doctrines of Grace.

Deflecting nonsense. I believe John 6:44. I don't believe what you say about it. Huge difference. That shouldn't scare you.

Why are you being so dishonest as to claim I don't believe John 6:44?

 

[atpollard]

Why are you being so dishonest as to claim I don't believe John 6:44?

because of this … (color coded for easy reference)

John 6:44

• "No one can come to me" = [Total Inability]
  
  • no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God [Romans 3:11]

"No one can come to me"........ fallacy in Calvinism.

(Scripture in RED)
(My words in BLUE)
(Your accusation in GREEN)

So was your ACCUSATION against MY WORDS or SCRIPTURE in the provided quotes from the start of our conversation? [answer = Scripture]. That is why I “claim you don’t believe John 6:44”.