Well, Spencer has already responded to my previous post. He says in essence that he doesn’t want to get involved in a discussion with me on the topic.
Hey, if you don’t want to get in a discussion, don’t accuse me of hubris and condescension in the first place, Michael.
In any case, he quotes someone from Australia named Lynn. It begins thus:
Sorry, but I just had to comment on this .. it’s in a whole class of its own! Is Peter Pike seriously suggesting that Arminians don’t believe in the sovereignty of God? Well, I suppose if you turn over every rock you’ll find one somewhere that fits his criteria, but, at least round here, it’s gonna take a LOT of digging!
I cannot figure out what blog post Lynn read. It obviously wasn’t the one that I penned, as anyone who understands context and syntax could easily see. Allow me to re-quote the relevant portion of my first post.
Thankfully, most Arminians have a faith that is inconsistent with their stated beliefs. They know that God is sovereign, even though their beliefs logically must lead them to a non-sovereign Lord.
I added the emphasis above. The second sentence begins with the word “They.” This pronoun refers back to the latest people group mentioned, which just so happens to be “Arminians.” I fail to see how it is so difficult to understand that I specifically said that Arminians “know that God is sovereign.”
Hello. How much clearer do I need to be?
And yes, the Arminian belief in sovereignty is inconsistent with Arminianism as a whole, something that Lynn admits: “God has a different motivation — love! He actually constrains His sovereignty for a higher purpose when it comes to dealing with the human soul” (emphasis added). Tell me again where my post missed the mark on Arminianism and God’s sovereignty?
No one has yet responded to the reasons and the rationale given by my argument. Instead, I am simply accused of hubris. I can only conclude that if you had any arguments you would have presented them by now. No arguments have been presented. Therefore, you don’t have any arguments.
Instead I have pointed out a truthful statement and, because you wish to deny the charge, you have to put up a smokescreen and pretended that somehow I was slighting the victims of New Life Church. This is a pathetic dodge on your part, and as I pointed out earlier it is you, not me, who is using the tragedy for argumentative gain. You use the dead bodies as a shield to keep you from having to defend your weak position. It is you, Michael Spencer and Lynn from Australia, who are behaving despicably here.
