For Those Who Care

I am aware that Mr. Paul Manata of Triablogue has critiqued one of my posts and I will probably have a response up by next Monday.

Advertisements

22 Responses

  1. I knew you couldn’t resist! 😉

  2. Wow. I’d hate to be him at the Bema Judgment. Though, reading stuff like that helps me to really strive to be civil and loving to my brothers and sisters in Christ, especially when we disagree.

    At first, I thought his Captain Kangaroo was pretty funny, but now it’s fallen flat. I had thought it was all in a spirit of good natured fun, but I see it was full of arrogance and disdain. 😦

  3. It is unfortunate for the state of Calvinist apologetics that such brethren lack the grace and humility needed to engage theological issues with loving discourse. As usual, I look forward to your setting the record straight if you find the time to do so.

    Blessings in Christ

    Trav

  4. He seemed to have a mean spirit.

  5. Lol. Better Captain Kangaroo than Private Peanut Gallery. Looks like Piñata hasn’t had enough punishment from just one of us, but if he thinks you’ll make an easier target to gorge his childish insecurities on, I’d say he’s in for a rude awakening.

  6. They are probably just tired of all the gross misrepresentations that you guys continually put forth in distorting the Calvinistic theology. I always think how strange it is when it is painfully clear that you guys get your a** handed to you and yet still claim that you somehow won. What a delusional fantasy land you guys must dwell in. Even when you are shown to be in error you just pat each other on the back and talk about how you guys really gave it to them. Lol

    The only thing that you have proven is that you have not read Reformed theologians. You just keep battling these windmills that you seem to slay in your mind, not once do you actually engage the Reformed view and the reason is because you do not know it and/or understand it enough to counter it.

  7. Anonymous,
    If Triablogue has serious gripes about the portrayal of their beliefs then they would still be best in dealing with it in a way that is befitting of Christian brothers. Continual use of insults and name calling is not the way to go about it neither in theological circles nor in the world of intellectual discourse and adult behavior. I truly worry about the states of the members of Triablogue when using these tactics. Christ said that we, His disciples, should be known foremost by our love for each other. Disagreements and a little fun between Christians are one thing, but Triablogue stepped over that line a long time ago. Furthermore I worry about you, anonymous, for the way you look up to these men as sources of good teaching, because good teachers also display Godly conduct.

  8. yeah, i took a look at the comments log on triablogue and looks like his own fans arent even chiming in this time. poor thing. hopefully its a sign that the fans are getting beyond their dogmatic allegiance and recognizing the type of emotional fuel that is driving Manata’s tone.

  9. So calling me “Pinata” is an example of how to be charitable and kind? Got it.

    Anyway, no one can point out actual examples of this “mean” and “unkind” and “hostile” post I supposedly offered.

    “I’d hate to be him at the judgment.” LOL. How sweet and loving, my brethren!

    Ben, your own guys made all your talk, and their sanctimonious comments, to be made nothing. Nothing worse than people who can’t live up to their own accusations. Seems double minded.

    ~PM

  10. Hi there,

    I have been active with this debate for about… 4 years now.

    About Calvinism being misrepresented, i believe we should first find out what “Calvinist” are we talking to, infra, supra, high, moderate, so that we can lessen the misrepresentation we potentially may do.

    Anyway, What does Calvinism “officially” Teach anyway?

    etc.

    *rex*

  11. It “officially” teaches the Bible.

  12. So calling me “Pinata” is an example of how to be charitable and kind? Got it.

    Only as a descriptor of your success thus far. In light of your cheap personal attacks I’ve been rather patient. Such smears against my brothers would indeed make me afraid of judgment day.

  13. If you’ll also notice Paul, I didn’t criticize you for making fun of my name (I thought some of them were rather funny); but if your standard of charity includes never making a play on someone else’s moniker, then why are you doing it in the very titles of your posts?

  14. Thibs,

    I pointed out all the personal attacks you have made *before* I ever engaged you. I was playing by your own rules…just better.

    So, according to your own lights, you guys should be fearful.

    My standard of charity isn’t want I’m invoking here. It’s calling people out for hypocrisy. Unfortunately you can’t reason much better here than you did when I decimated your weak argument based on perserverence of the saints. I was simply pointing out that your buddies weren’t calling you on the carpet for what they called me out on the carpet for. I was pointing out the double standard here. I was pointing out that the comments in this combox shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    Anyway, I’m not here to get into a petty war with you on this matter. The objective war is far more important, and I’m still waiting for you to muster up the argumentative force to actually meet my argument head on…. as some non-reformed guys have said in our comboxes: “I see you handled Thibodaux.” Of course Arminians and Calvinists will usually side with their own side, but when I get admitted non-reformed guys to admit your case got “handled,” I take that as a good indication of what unbiased people thought of the two arguments.

  15. Paul,

    Not sure what you’re getting at about personal attacks. In case you or anyone else missed it, I already met you and Hays head-on, showing how your counter-challenge which assumes a completely deterministic model collides firmly with Jeremiah 32:35 and Luke 13:34 (and hence has a bad starting premise), as well as a reductio ad absurdum of the position concerning the purpose of scriptural warnings that you and Hays espouse, i.e. that it’s okay for the writers of scripture to give warnings against falling away and the consequences thereof, but somehow heretical for us to believe and teach them.

  16. Hello Rachael,

    I greatly appreciated the words that you shared.

    You wrote:

    “If Triablogue has serious gripes about the portrayal of their beliefs then they would still be best in dealing with it in a way that is befitting of Christian brothers.”

    Key words here “is befitting of Christian brothers”. The bible speaks clearly about how we are to interact with one another. I (and others) have shared these scriptures with the Triablogue guys repeatedly and yet they continue in their inappropriate insults of both believers and unbelievers (with unbelievers they fail to live out and practice 2 Tim. 2:23-26; with believers they fail to live out and practice passages such as Eph. 2:20-32). Their sinful speech continues unabated with no signs of repentance.

    “Continual use of insults and name calling is not the way to go about it neither in theological circles nor in the world of intellectual discourse and adult behavior.”

    Again, intellectual discourse if done properly between Christians will not engage in the insults and name calling but will go about presenting alternative views in a respectful and loving manner.

    “I truly worry about the states of the members of Triablogue when using these tactics. Christ said that we, His disciples, should be known foremost by our love for each other.”

    This is something that further demonstrates to me the falsity of the calvinist system. They claim to believe in the “doctrines of grace”. If you really believed that it was all grace and that predetermined and elected you for salvation before you were ever born, that you deserved hell for your sins and yet God has mercy on you and saved you. Then you oughtta be a humble person. So why such a disconnect? Doctrines that supposedly should produce humble Christian saints (since they claim to believe in the grace of God) instead produce argumentative, hostile, proud, condescending folks who enjoy belittling and insulting everyone else who does not think exactly as they do?

    Since I believe pride is a sinful choice that God does not cause people to engage in, as a choice it is a person’s choice to be arrogant. It is a person’s choice to belittle and attack other Christians with insults. The reality of choices explains the disconnect very well: why do people including professing Christians commit sins such as pride, they choose to do so, they are not caused or predetermined to do so by God.

    “Disagreements and a little fun between Christians are one thing, but Triablogue stepped over that line a long time ago.”

    Right again, Christians ought to have a sense of humor be able to joke around with each other and they ought to be able to disagree in an agreeable manner (without engaging in insults and belittling behavior).

    “Furthermore I worry about you, anonymous, for the way you look up to these men as sources of good teaching, because good teachers also display Godly conduct.”

    Another strong point: my mentors who were godly men always emphasized godly conduct. That a man (or woman) who truly loves the Lord will love his people and will display godly conduct. One of my mentors used to say to me: “watch the actions first (as they show what a person really believes) then consider the words (the godly reveal themselves in their words the ungodly give themselves away by their words)”. Anonymous if you consider the behavior of the Triablogue guys to be godly behavior, you need better role models. **Godly conduct** is not belittling and insulting and attacking fellow Christians because they do not hold the same theology as you do (cf. James 3:13-18 godly wisdom is pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits . . .)

    Robert

  17. “It “officially” teaches the Bible.”

    — ?

    How?

    A. Infralapsarian”ly”,
    B. Supralapsarian”ly”?
    C. Etc.

    Every calvinist i talk to answers differently etc. I even talked with someone who says “God really does love ALL, because He says that we should love our enemies, sinners are God’s enemies so He loves them too”.

    ^_^

    I think that “teaching” one came from John McArthur or Piper, can’t remember where that Calvinist quoted that.

  18. Thibs,

    Right, I know you “refuted” us. I’m fine letting the exchange stand.

    I conclusively proved that every example of an apostate was an example of someone who was never a true believer. This argument, in and of itself, totally undermines your case. I also defended the hypothetical means position. Not liking it isn’t a cogent criticism. I did to you what I did to Ben. Not because I’m smarter or better than you, because the position I defend is biblically and philosophically superior to yours. That’s it.

    Cheers!

  19. Paul,

    It’s logically impossible to prove a universal assertion by example as you have attempted. It was a rather dubious example at that, since the passage you cited from Hebrews 6 doesn’t indicate that they never bore any fruit, that was an insertion on your part.

    I also defended the hypothetical means position. Not liking it isn’t a cogent criticism.

    My like or dislike is irrelevant, as is yours. The fact that the doctrine you teach condemns as heretics those who teach and believe the “means” that the apostles taught produces a contradiction that you’ve proven unable to reconcile either in our debate or on this thread.

    I did to you what I did to Ben.

    That being argue irrelevancies, and fail at making a case of any substance. Yes, I caught that much.

  20. Thibs,

    Hebrews does show they never bore any frutit. But, I also argued from more than just Hebrews. And, btw, it’s not logically impossible to prove a universal assertion. For starters, God could prove on since he knows everything. We’re picking up where we left off. lol

    I have shown there is no contradiction. That’s just the bottom line, your garbled and incoherent statement above notwithsatanding.

    Yes, my posts to both you and Ben were unsubstantive. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    ~PM

  21. Paul,

    Hebrews does show they never bore any frutit.

    Really, exactly which part of the text specifies this?

    And, btw, it’s not logically impossible to prove a universal assertion.

    It is logically impossible to do so by examples (at least where human beings are concerned, since we cannot know every example), which is what you claim to have done.

    I have shown there is no contradiction.

    Really? Then how exactly are the apostles teaching gospel truth when they sincerely warn the redeemed against falling away, yet we’re suddenly false teachers for proclaiming the same thing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: