Replies

and to my chagrin it looked like the all Catholic channel.

This is not due to the Catholic posts but to the relative lack of non-Catholic posts.

Admittedly, this Forum has been linked by a number of conservative Catholic websites, and lately professional Catholic apologists including Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating have signed on here, if only to post on rare occasions.

It might also be a matter of simple math...I think there are simply more orthodox Catholics in the USA than orthodox Calvinists.

Therefore, instead of lamenting the Catholic presence, how about you likewise cultivate your Calvinist presence.

Actually, though I was making a lament in the sense that I put my thought to paper, so to speak, for this is the connotation of lament, my choice of the word "chagrin" should have carried with it a personal guilt. So, I meant no accusation at the Catholics.

As far as cultivating the Calvinist presense, I would suppose that the professing Calvinists here would need to take the reins. And, from my own personal observation, there seems to be 2 or 3 non-Calvinist Protestants who have publically stated that they think the organization that Calvinists have done here should be disbanded.

I do really wish that some of the Calvinists here would come out from their hiding spots and take this topic. I do have some serious questions about a few key things.

However, I do have some strong reservations about the thoughtfullness of the piece I linked at the head of this article. For instance, under Part 3, Section 4, the following citation can be found:

I claim it does not, for it is reasonably and Scripturally true that he who tempts--in the sense now under consideration--to sin, he who induces a sinful volition is a party to the transaction, and hence, is so far criminally guilty. He who tempts to evil has previously determined to seek the harm of the tempted, and consequently must bear his share of the blame. Balaam seduced the Israelites into sin: they were guilty for yielding to his solicitations and were punished. Was the prophet innocent? The Scriptures convey the opposite opinion; his doctrine is condemned in Rev. ii. 14; he is said to have loved the wages of unrighteousness (II. Pet. ii. 15); was slain as an enemy of the people of God (Num. xxxi. 8).

Yet, do we not read that God specifically asked the "angels" who would go and entice Ahab for the expressed purpose that Ahab would fall at Ramoth Gilead. The LORD specifically gave an "angel" to be a false spirit to his prophets so that they would cause him to go and fall. It does seem to me as in, in this case, the LORD has gone far beyond temptation, into actual ordination that sin should happen. It does seem as if this would fit perfectly the author's analogy of the criminal merely dropping a knife over a sleeping victim, which was a complaint against Toplady's argument.

Anyway, you probably have no dog in this fight, though, it might be interesting to know the Catholic perspective.

Your brother,
Christian.