tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post4011673106625570713..comments2023-11-02T07:48:48.715-04:00Comments on Arminian Perspectives: Clarifications and Rebuttal: Responding to Paul Manatakangaroodorthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-2143684663772405352008-03-03T15:22:00.000-05:002008-03-03T15:22:00.000-05:00Jason A,At first I did, but after seeing what you ...Jason A,<BR/><BR/><BR/>At first I did, but after seeing what you told me about what Ben said and after rereading Ben's first two posts and going back and rereading Paul's post again I changed my mind.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I later saw his "point" as a "technicality".<BR/><BR/>On the surface it would seem as if Paul proved his point but if he holds to the idea that God unconditionaly pre-ordains both the end as well as the means then beneath the surface Ben's point still stands.<BR/><BR/>Thus Paul's point was "superficial"<BR/><BR/>He didn't like it when I called all the personal benefits an "illusion"<BR/><BR/><BR/>So yeah, I later only saw his point as a technicality.<BR/><BR/>Ben saw the Calvinistic view as being pointless<BR/><BR/>And I think in Paul's mind all he needed to do was to show "a reason"(any reason) for the calvinistic view.<BR/><BR/>It didn't matter if his "reasons" didn't have anything to do with what Ben was getting at. To him in order to "win" the argument all he had to do was "show a reason".<BR/><BR/><BR/>So it was only on that bases that I saw him as "proving" his point.<BR/><BR/>But only as a "technicality".<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I may be wrong but I don't think Paul cared about the "meat" of Ben's argument. He didn't care about what Ben was trying to show.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So yes, Paul proved his point but it was surface level only. It was "superficial"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I don't know if that makes sense, but that's how I see it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-40527180214321924142008-03-03T11:03:00.000-05:002008-03-03T11:03:00.000-05:00Ken said: I'd like Jason A to actually show how Ma...Ken said: I'd like Jason A to actually show how Manata lost. By my lights, the inconsistency was removed. Manata gave a detailed argument to that effect. Jason A's remarks would need to offer detailed interaction in order to show how, precisely, Manata didn't utterly remove the inconsistency as far as the east is from the west. :-)<BR/><BR/>My response: I don't know why I would have to offer detailed interaction. Ben has already been doing that quite effectively, and I was just addressing a specific point or two in the debate that arose in discussion of the exchange between Paul and Ben. One in particular is a fundamental point of Paul's presentation that, if false, would unravel is overall case. And that is his claim that prayer is a means to the end of accomplishing what is asked for. I believe I have shown that this claim is false in a monergistic system such as Paul is representing. Now I am not saying that if his claim were true, then his case would be established necessarily. But it is true that if his claim is false, then his case falls apart. And it is false. As I pinted out to JNORM, prayer cannot properly be called a means to the end of accomplishment of what the prayer asks for in a monergistic system, in which God purposes to irresistibly cause the end, and then therefore purposes to irresistibly cause someone to ask him to accomplish the end.<BR/><BR/>Rather than remove the inconsistnecy as far as the east is from the west, Paul has helped show that it is tightly bound up within Calvinism, an inconsistency that Ben has helpfully exposed in his posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-27934886401886553342008-03-03T10:49:00.000-05:002008-03-03T10:49:00.000-05:00JNORM said: "I agree, but if it can't properly be ...JNORM said: "I agree, but if it can't properly be called a means then what can it be called?"<BR/><BR/>My response: I don't think it matters what one calls it. If it is not a means, then Paul's argument unravels. And I think it is pretty certain it cannot be properly called a means. I don't know if there is a one word label one could call such things. But one could describe it by saying that it is something that the agent wants to do (or have done) before he accomplishes the end, but is not necessary for the accomplishment of that end. To illustrate again, If someone purposes to stop and get a cup of coffee on his way to work because he wants one, going to get a cup of coffee is not a means to him getting to work. It is just something he wants to do before he goes to work or on his way to work. The car however is a means of him getting to work. In the case of intercessory prayer, which is basically a person asking God to do something, if God determines the end (saving soemone or healing someone), and then determines that someone is going to ask him to do this thing, their request is not a means helping accomplish the end. God irresitibly caused it all in that circumstance, and the request did not influence him whatsoever. It's just something he wants to make happen before he accomplishes the end, but not something he has to make happen to accomplish the end or is in any way integrally involved in him accomplishing the end (it's about as much so as stopping to get a cup of coffee is for the end of gooing to work; granted, some people find coffee necessary to get their day going!, but even that exalted status of coffee in our culture doesn't really raise it to the level of a means for people getting to work!). <BR/><BR/>JNORM said: This is the tricky part for some Calvinists believe that the process of Sanctification is synergistic.<BR/><BR/>If so is "prayer" in the "category" of Sanctification?<BR/><BR/>How can it be synergistic if it's been unconditionaly preordained before the World began?<BR/><BR/>How can some of them only see monergism as only dealing with Justification and not sanctification."<BR/><BR/>My Response: I think you have asked some good questions prompted by inconsistencies in Calvinistic/monergistic logic. But they're not really for me to answer. They are a problem for the Calvinists. I can imagine various responses by various Calvinists. <BR/><BR/>BTW, I think I saw you still granting the "prayer as a means to the end" point in Paul's argument at his blog. Was that a mistake? You have agreed with me that in a monergistic understanding such as Paul is arguing for, prayer is not really a means to the end of accomplishment of the action.<BR/><BR/>"Jason"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-84463152001735532952008-03-02T03:38:00.000-05:002008-03-02T03:38:00.000-05:00I'd like Jason A to actually show how Manata lost....I'd like Jason A to actually show how Manata lost. By my lights, the inconsistency was removed. Manata gave a detailed argument to that effect. Jason A's remarks would need to offer detailed interaction in order to show how, precisely, Manata didn't utterly remove the inconsistency as far as the east is from the west. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-50797648099626384252008-03-01T12:29:00.000-05:002008-03-01T12:29:00.000-05:00Jason A,You said:"But Ben addressed the argument t...Jason A,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><BR/>"But Ben addressed the argument that God ordains the means, and I think he did so effectively. His basic point seems to be that this argument is a mere charade in the case of intercessory prayer if all has been predetermined since intercessory prayer has influencing God as its focus."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>True, so on the surface it would seem as if Paul made his point but if one looks beneath the surface one will see that "intercessory prayer" in a calvinistic scheme doesn't influence God at all. So Ben's argument still stands.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><BR/>"So to iilustrate: if someone decides that he will irresitibly cause someone to accept his offer to accept a free check from him (suppose he administers a drug that makes him willing to do whatever he is told), but that he will only do this upon irresitibly causing someone else to ask him to irresistibly cause the other person to accept his offer, that person asking him cannot properly be called a means used to bring that person to accept the check. It does not genuinely influence the check giver except that he wants to cause the intercessor to ask him to do something he was already set on doing. It does not actually affect the check giver who is determining everything everyone is doing in the situation." <BR/><BR/><BR/>True,<BR/><BR/>Most of Paul's examples ignored this fact.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You also said:<BR/><BR/><BR/>""It would be different if the check giver irresitibly caused another to go and ask the person to receive the check and then irresistibly caused ther person to receive the check. In that case, the check offerer would really be a means used to give the person the check. But the situation that relates to intercessory prayer is more like someone who decides he is going to brush his teeth, but he will only brush his teeth after he first says "bonzo". Saying "bonzo" is not a means to brushing his teeth. It is simply something he has determined he wants to be a prerequisite, though it is arbitrarily chosen as a prerequisite. It is not necessary for it to be so.""<BR/><BR/>True,<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><BR/>""So I think that Ben has showed that in the case of intercessory prayer in a monergistic system, prayer cannot be properly considered a means to the accomplishment of what is prayed for, since God has already decided to certainly cause such and such to happen and to certainly cause someone to ask him to make it happen.""<BR/><BR/>I agree, but if it can't properly be called a means then what can it be called?<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><BR/>"But Scripture portrays God as actually influneced by prayer. This only seems to be possible in a synergistic system. So I don't think that Paul proved even that point about God ordaining the means."<BR/><BR/>This is the tricky part for some Calvinists believe that the process of Sanctification is synergistic.<BR/><BR/>If so is "prayer" in the "category" of Sanctification?<BR/><BR/>How can it be synergistic if it's been unconditionaly preordained before the World began?<BR/><BR/>How can some of them only see monergism as only dealing with Justification and not sanctification.<BR/><BR/>But I agree with what you said.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-26705159502207772472008-03-01T01:44:00.000-05:002008-03-01T01:44:00.000-05:00Tom M.,Ah, thank you for your comments. I had the ...Tom M.,<BR/><BR/>Ah, thank you for your comments. I had the impression that you had indicated that you were an Arminian or were in basic overall agreement with Ben and Josh against Calvinism, but thought they had lost their debates with Manata on technical grounds. I thisnk I especially had that impression from comments you made back when Josh and Paul were debating. I remember thikning it strange back then that you thought Paul won the debate against Josh, when I thought Josh came out on top. But that puts things into perspective a bit that you are closer to Calvinism than Arminianism. I don't think that one cannot correctly judge a debate just because he is committed to one position or another. I have seen many Arminians argue poorly against Calvinists and lose specific debates against them even though I was basically on their side. There are good and poor arguments for Arminianism, and there are good and poor arguments for Calvinism. But in the debates between Josh, Ben, and Paul, I have found Josh and Ben to have made their case and to have successfully refuted Paul. And I think most people coming at it somewhat objectively would agree. And as I said before, I think that is probably reflected in that most Christisans have not and do not agree with Calvinism (though numbers is certainly not the determiner of truth).<BR/><BR/>It has been nice to have a civil discussion about these things. I don't know how much you have looked at Triablogue, but they seem to be quite rude and nasty in their interactions. Is that the kind of fruit Calvinism produces? I don't think it has to. But in these debates, it does give that much more appeal to Ben and Josh's arguments that they are far more civil and respectful (even if they have not been perfect; Paul seems qucik to try and point out small offenses they have made when he acts outrageously, like calling people stupid and accusing them of lying; it's sad; hopefully the World is not watching; whether it is or not, God is. May he have mercy on us all and help us all to be filled with his love and grace).<BR/><BR/>God bless you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-25561150651363531862008-03-01T01:22:00.000-05:002008-03-01T01:22:00.000-05:00Jason A,Thank you for the discussion. Of course I ...Jason A,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the discussion. Of course I think that you are wrong and that the claim of inconsistency is refuted:) <BR/><BR/>When it comes to the exegetical that was a side issue that was not relevant to the initial claim that is why it is irrelevant to who won. The reason I brought it up was because you said that Ben proved his point exegetically, again the charge was about prayer and monergism being inconsistent, not salvation or faith. <BR/><BR/>While I am on it though, if you agree with the point that the gift is “all of salvation” including faith, I think that in itself refutes Arminianism. Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees when we agree on things.<BR/><BR/>As for your last point, no I do not think that Calvinism is unbiblical. In fact I hold more in common with Calvinism then I do Arminianism. I do appreciate Arminianism and have read some of its great theologians, in fact I have read more of the works of Arminius than I have of Calvin. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, I have to go it is getting very late. Good luck to you and all of you here in all your endeavors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-81505007169402524002008-03-01T00:56:00.000-05:002008-03-01T00:56:00.000-05:00Tom M.,Thanks for pointing out that I had your las...Tom M.,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for pointing out that I had your last initial wrong.<BR/><BR/>I am not particularly singling you out. It's just that you replied to me, and I am replying to you.<BR/><BR/>JNORM might see your point. But I have pointed out to him why I think your point is not correct, or at least why even the point he thinks Manata might have proved actually went unproved. I look forward to seeing what he thinks about what I said.<BR/><BR/>As for the exegesis point, it seems strange that you jump to what most Calvinists will say when one of your big point has been that the issue is the specific arguments of Paul and Ben. Paul claimed that salvation is not by faith. Ben proved that wrong. As far as this debate goes, that leaves Ben's point proven and Paul's disproven on a an issue of dispute. That most Calvinists would agree with Ben on the matter only shows how thoroughly Ben refuted Paul on that point.<BR/><BR/>But in any case, I think we both agree that Calvinism is unbiblical and Arminianism biblical in general, no matter who we think won this particular debate, correct?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-86056659209503493652008-03-01T00:23:00.000-05:002008-03-01T00:23:00.000-05:00Jason ANo idea why you are all worked up about thi...Jason A<BR/><BR/>No idea why you are all worked up about this and why you seem to keep coming to me, but like I said that is <B>my opinion</B>. BTW, it seems that JNORM sees my point as well. I doubt that he would side with Manata if it were not obvious that he refuted the claim.<BR/><BR/>As for the exegetical comment, most Calvinist will agree that salvation is by faith, but they will also tell you that faith is a gift. What Ben did with his Ephesians "exegesis" does nothing to show the Calvinist wrong. In fact, if you look at standard Calvinist work on these verses they will tell you that the gift is salvation, <B>but</B> that it is "all" of salvation and that the "all" includes faith. In fact if you look at one of Ben’s old post, I forget which one, but in the replies section he and someone address this and Ben agrees with it. Now that is not an issue with me on this because Ben was not arguing for that, nor was he doing an exegetical analysis of Ephesians (at least I hope he wasn't). <BR/><BR/>Anyways, like I said some will say Ben won and others will say Paul won. I will just leave it at that.<BR/><BR/>BTW, my last initial is M not W. No worries though man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-6145315867936575492008-03-01T00:21:00.000-05:002008-03-01T00:21:00.000-05:00JNORM,But Ben addressed the argument that God orda...JNORM,<BR/><BR/>But Ben addressed the argument that God ordains the means, and I think he did so effectively. His basic point seems to be that this argument is a mere charade in the case of intercessory prayer if all has been predetermined since intercessory prayer has influencing God as its focus. So to iilustrate: if someone decides that he will irresitibly cause someone to accept his offer to accept a free check from him (suppose he administers a drug that makes him willing to do whatever he is told), but that he will only do this upon irresitibly causing someone else to ask him to irresistibly cause the other person to accept his offer, that person asking him cannot properly be called a means used to bring that person to accept the check. It does not genuinely influence the check giver except that he wants to cause the intercessor to ask him to do something he was already set on doing. It does not actually affect the check giver who is determining everything everyone is doing in the situation. And it does not affect the check receiver. It would be different if the check giver irresitibly caused another to go and ask the person to receive the check and then irresistibly caused ther person to receive the check. In that case, the check offerer would really be a means used to give the person the check. But the situation that relates to intercessory prayer is more like someone who decides he is going to brush his teeth, but he will only brush his teeth after he first says "bonzo". Saying "bonzo" is not a means to brushing his teeth. It is simply something he has determined he wants to be a prerequisite, though it is arbitrarily chosen as a prerequisite. It is not necessary for it to be so.<BR/><BR/>So I think that Ben has showed that in the case of intercessory prayer in a monergistic system, prayer cannot be properly considered a means to the accomplishment of what is prayed for, since God has already decided to certainly cause such and such to happen and to certainly cause someone to ask him to make it happen.<BR/><BR/>But Scripture portrays God as actually influneced by prayer. This only seems to be possible in a synergistic system. So I don't think that Paul proved even that point about God ordaining the means.<BR/><BR/>"Jason A."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-59788973341553289722008-02-29T23:49:00.000-05:002008-02-29T23:49:00.000-05:00Tom W. said: "That is why it is just my opinion. W...Tom W. said: "That is why it is just my opinion. What I think happened here is that Ben's initial premise was too big and Manata showed that there is no inconsistency where Ben claimed there was one."<BR/><BR/>My response: I think Manata failed in his attempt to refute Ben, and that Ben had showed his claim originally and then effectively refuted Manata's response.<BR/><BR/>Tom W. said: "No worries though, it’s not like the end of the world or anything like that. In debates you win some and you loose some. I am sure that you are not the only one that believes that Ben won, but I would wager that most would say on this point he failed."<BR/><BR/>My response: Interesting. I think that most people approaching it with some objectivity would think Ben proved his point. In fact, Ben's criticism is a vey=ry common argument against Calvinism. It seems to be a very common natural thought when people hear Calvinist theology. It is probably one among many reasons that most Christians have not been and are not Calvinists. The system is just logically incoherent when considered against Scripture (because it has to hold various scriptural principles in which they agree with Arminianism, but then its own theology is not consistent with these). <BR/><BR/>Tom W. said: "BTW, I did not see much exegesis from either side on this so it is odd to me that you would think that Ben proved his point exegetically." <BR/><BR/>My response: Well there were some exegetical points considered, such as whether salvation is by faith or not, and whether salvation is conditional on faith or not. Ben addressed this exegetically, and I think proved his point definitively.<BR/><BR/>"Jason A."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-32614415988438526652008-02-29T22:54:00.000-05:002008-02-29T22:54:00.000-05:00I think I know what Tom is saying.I think he is so...I think I know what Tom is saying.<BR/><BR/>I think he is soley talking about "Prayer" and "consistency".<BR/><BR/>Paul did prove his point by saying that God ordains the means(prayer) as well as the end(saving a lost soul).<BR/><BR/><BR/>I think a different set of arguments have to be used in order to combat that view.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul could easily say that he prays for the lost because his prayers are part of the process for them to get saved.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So in this regard I could see why Tom would say that.<BR/><BR/>But Paul is so mean and his posts are so long .....that he makes it too easy not to read his whole post.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But a different set of arguments will have to be used against that view.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-41969247464827501162008-02-29T18:49:00.000-05:002008-02-29T18:49:00.000-05:00I didn't really notice any actual refutation of my...I didn't really notice any actual refutation of my assertions by Manata. As was indicated in the original challenge, there is still lacking a decent Calvinist explanation as to why the apostle Paul can warn us against being cut off as a means to perseverance, but it is sinful for us to believe or teach the same thing. Add to that things like his attempts at proving universals by examples, and about all you have left from him is some goofy names he called me.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-90074905994126111862008-02-29T18:09:00.000-05:002008-02-29T18:09:00.000-05:00I don't see how anyone could say Paul won. He seem...I don't see how anyone could say Paul won. He seemed way too angry to me. Paul did alot of blaming and finger pointing. Ben was calm and he made his points......but hey, to each his own.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-85121151229440756422008-02-29T17:29:00.000-05:002008-02-29T17:29:00.000-05:00Jason A.That is why it is just my opinion. What I ...Jason A.<BR/><BR/>That is why it is just my opinion. What I think happened here is that Ben's initial premise was too big and Manata showed that there is no inconsistency where Ben claimed there was one. <BR/><BR/>No worries though, it’s not like the end of the world or anything like that. In debates you win some and you loose some. I am sure that you are not the only one that believes that Ben won, but I would wager that most would say on this point he failed. <BR/><BR/>BTW, I did not see much exegesis from either side on this so it is odd to me that you would think that Ben proved his point exegetically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-61048425415655863222008-02-29T16:26:00.000-05:002008-02-29T16:26:00.000-05:00Not ArminianorCalvinist & Tom W.,I find your comme...Not ArminianorCalvinist & Tom W.,<BR/><BR/>I find your comments really surprising. I read through the exchange and truly believe that Ben completely won the debate. From exegesis to logic Ben consistently established his own position and refuted Manata.<BR/><BR/>"Jason A."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-60943697864024830092008-02-29T13:54:00.000-05:002008-02-29T13:54:00.000-05:00not arminianorcalvinist,That is a ver intersting c...not arminianorcalvinist,<BR/><BR/>That is a ver intersting choice for a name. If you are not a sock puppet then I appreciate your very objective opinion :)<BR/><BR/>Tom M.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the input.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-35504182522127441932008-02-29T13:08:00.000-05:002008-02-29T13:08:00.000-05:00I have to respectfully agree that in this case Man...I have to respectfully agree that in this case Manata won just because you failed to prove your point. It is the same as when J.C. was debating them. They successfully refuted his assertion which in a debate format is key. It seems that both of you in these individual instances were stating things that you could not substantially back-up or in other words you bit off more than you can chew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-10015886071191080002008-02-29T12:48:00.000-05:002008-02-29T12:48:00.000-05:00I dunno Ben, looks to be a landslide victory for M...I dunno Ben, looks to be a landslide victory for Manata...though I hate to admit that. I think "Out of your league" is the term that applies here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-63836710483890138472008-02-29T09:27:00.000-05:002008-02-29T09:27:00.000-05:00Paul, Thanks for letting me know that you responde...Paul, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for letting me know that you responded. I appreciate that. I will check it out when I get the chance and also address the 1 John 2:19 passage that you a BB seem to think makes your case regarding the meaning of "apostasy".<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-2020499275701476372008-02-29T02:14:00.000-05:002008-02-29T02:14:00.000-05:00Kangaroo said:Kinda like how Calvinists redefine w...Kangaroo said:<BR/>Kinda like how Calvinists redefine words like..."apostasy" (leaving something you were never really a part of).."<BR/><BR/>*********<BR/><BR/>Hi Ben!<BR/><BR/>I should add that this isn't my conception. Indeed, why would I think that they *left* something they were not part of? If you're going to say that we don;t think they were 'part of' it, then why imply that we think they were part of it (since that's the only way you can *leave* a place is if you are there!). <BR/><BR/>Ben's posts are like a 50's B-rated horror movie: Attack of the 50 Foot Straw Man!<BR/><BR/>And, I should add that I am a paedobaptist and so I have a detailed and refined view of apostacy.<BR/><BR/>~PMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-16639613028826019772008-02-29T00:17:00.000-05:002008-02-29T00:17:00.000-05:00Kangaroo said:Kinda like how Calvinists redefine w...Kangaroo said:<BR/><I>Kinda like how Calvinists redefine words like..."apostasy" (leaving something you were never really a part of)</I><BR/><BR/>I'm curious as to how you would interpret 1 John 2:19. Would you deny that these "defectors" are, in fact, apostates? You appear to be insinuating that it's not possible to leave something you're not really a part of in the first place. But notice John's nuanced conception of apostasy as defecting from outward participation rather than defecting from inward identity.<BR/><BR/>"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."<BR/><BR/>1) The apostates "went out" from the true believers. The phrase "they would have remained with us" indicates that they were <I>with</I> the true believers in one way or another.<BR/><BR/>2) And yet they "didn't really belong to" the group of true believers. Their apostasy demonstrates they never belonged to that group to begin with.<BR/><BR/>Please address John's concept of apostasy displayed above in light of your charge.dogfreidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751614375780546890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-77674367796127252062008-02-28T23:30:00.000-05:002008-02-28T23:30:00.000-05:00Hi Ben!http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/roo-...Hi Ben!<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/roo-stew.html<BR/><BR/>Came it at roughly 3 pages shorter than yours too. So, no complaining about how long it is. Enjoy.<BR/><BR/>~PMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-74886781469205693082008-02-28T11:22:00.000-05:002008-02-28T11:22:00.000-05:00JNORM,I was not ignoring "prevenient grace" I was ...JNORM,<BR/><BR/>I was not ignoring "prevenient grace" I was just trying to flesh out the use of "synergism" and "monergism" that is all. I understand that your side has "prevenient grace" I call it "common grace":)Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07822172330383243446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433320860790514779.post-15746427163963231062008-02-28T11:18:00.000-05:002008-02-28T11:18:00.000-05:00Paul,You are totaly ignoring "Prevenient grace".Pr...Paul,<BR/><BR/><BR/>You are totaly ignoring "Prevenient grace".<BR/><BR/><BR/>Prevenient grace = monergy<BR/><BR/>It is only after Prevenient grace that one can talk about Synergy in Arminianism.<BR/><BR/>So<BR/><BR/>Prevenient grace = monergy<BR/><BR/>And this monergy turns into synergy when the person believes.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.com