Replies

From the article:

"We plead with our Reformed brothers and sisters..."

[One must assume that the writer is writing to people in the "Reformed" denominations.]

This, now, is their position:

[One must assume that he means the above described persons.]

Only the first three bullets could possibly be considered legitimate doctrinal positions of the persons set forth above. The final three bullets are conclusions which the writer has chosen to make, but which he attributes to the people he is castigating. The last two are particularly egregious:

On the other hand, the reason why the others are saved is not that God loved them, desired their salvation, and gave His Son to die for them (for He also loved those who perish, desired their salvation, and gave His Son for them), but that they, by their free will, chose to believe.

But, he saved the worst for last:

In conclusion, the damnation of the wicked is the defeat and disappointment of God, whereas the salvation of the believers is their own work.

Clearly, these "doctrinal position(s)" were made up, by the writer, and are not the actual doctrinal positions of any "Reformed" Christians.

If only the writer had read the article you posted yesterday, he would have known that this kind of attack was not appropriate. The following is a direct quote, from that article, with a minor modification: "[NON]-."

1) GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT:

You cannot expect [NON]-Calvinists to take you seriously if they can hardly identify themselves in what you write.

2) GIVE COMPLETE REFERENCES FOR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING:

[NON]-Calvinists are not stupid people. We expect references and we do look them up. If you fail to supply them or get them wrong when you do…we are left with the choice of wondering are you a fool or a knave? Neither really helps what you are trying to achieve.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1152724/posts

Maybe you should send him a copy of the first article, and ask him to provide a source for the above "doctrinal positions," so we can see that someone actually believes them.

p.s. The above is obviously (I hope) intended to be a sort of verbal irony. Although my point is serious, I hope that you, (and other defenders of Calvinism) will be able to see that the admonitions of yesterday's article apply not only to your opponents, but also to the defenders of Calvinism.

p.p.s. It is instructive that I, personally, tried to avoid this quagmire. If GeRPiLs had not used these tactics (and worse) against me, we could now be getting along, and building each other up, instead of trying to tear each other down.