# How Would You Answer This Gentleman's Objections?



## Marrow Man (Feb 1, 2010)

I recently made a post on my blog where I included a section from Loraine Boettner's The Reformed Faith. Today I picked up a response from someone who is, let's say, less than Calvinistic (and orthodox as well). I'm not going to approve my post (it is little more than a rant coupled with an advertising blurb), but I thought I would post it here and see how some of you might handle it. Would answering this be an instance of casting pearls before swine?



> Well, I'd like to ask any of the Calvinists out there if you've thought about how little
> comfort there is to the idea that God decided, from the get go, to torture billions of
> people for all eternity!
> 
> ...


----------



## Andres (Feb 1, 2010)

He rejects the authority of the scriptures, so you cannot argue with him from a biblical standpoint. He has most likely convinced himself there is no hell to appease his conscience which tells him that he is a sinner. I would respond to him by telling him that you are praying for him and then proceed to do so.


----------



## beej6 (Feb 1, 2010)

And he appeals to Scripture while condemning its ultimate authority. Methinks your simple approach is correct, Tim.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 1, 2010)

I thought that posting his comments might cause some to stumble if they read my blog (but that's only about a dozen people anyway  ). Seriously, I could respond to him via email, but I think the one he gave is a dummy one.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2010)

Do you really have the time to engage with someone so hard-hearted toward God's justice? It looks like a quagmire and he knows if he can rope you in he can take you away from real kingdom work. Into the 'round file' with that one!


----------



## nasa30 (Feb 1, 2010)

all above.


----------



## louis_jp (Feb 1, 2010)

I would post his response in an abbreviated form (like taking out his advertisement), and then answer his objections. This is a teaching moment -- not just for him (who probably won't listen anyway) but for the other 11 of us who do read your blog. It's also an opportunity to be gracious in your witness. If the guy comes back and wants to keep arguing (he probably will), then at some point you can cut it off.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 1, 2010)

KMK said:


> Do you really have the time to engage with someone so hard-hearted toward God's justice? It looks like a quagmire and he knows if he can rope you in he can take you away from real kingdom work. Into the 'round file' with that one!


 
Time is most assuredly something I don't have an abundance of right now, friend!


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 1, 2010)

louis_jp said:


> I would post his response in an abbreviated form (like taking out his advertisement), and then answer his objections. This is a teaching moment -- not just for him (who probably won't listen anyway) but for the other 11 of us who do read your blog. It's also an opportunity to be gracious in your witness. If the guy comes back and wants to keep arguing (he probably will), then at some point you can cut it off.


 
An interesting idea. I will think on it, and I may post his response (or, as you say, an abbreviated form of it) at a later time and as a separate post altogether. I actually did something similar to that a couple of years ago with another blog; an atheist from WorldMag followed me over and tried to post things that were quite insulting, etc. I addressed some of his comments in a separate post, which he termed as "cowardly."


----------



## py3ak (Feb 1, 2010)

I've seen this guy elsewhere on the internet. From the fact that he's posting this on your blog now, it seems obvious that he considers promotion of his absurd ideas to be something of a personal vocation. So it's likely to be a time-sink. And why should your blog provide him with a platform?


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 1, 2010)

py3ak said:


> I've seen this guy elsewhere on the internet. From the fact that he's posting this on your blog now, it seems obvious that he considers promotion of his absurd ideas to be something of a personal vocation. So it's likely to be a time-sink. And why should your blog provide him with a platform?


 
Very helpful information, Ruben. Thanks!


----------



## louis_jp (Feb 1, 2010)

py3ak said:


> I've seen this guy elsewhere on the internet. From the fact that he's posting this on your blog now, it seems obvious that he considers promotion of his absurd ideas to be something of a personal vocation. So it's likely to be a time-sink. And why should your blog provide him with a platform?


 
Ah, then I would like to revise my comments accordingly. Besides, Tim, you do have quite a lot on your plate these days.


----------



## Der Pilger (Feb 4, 2010)

I've seen his posts recently, with the same link, on some UR vs. ET threads over on *the city-data.com Christianity forum*. (If, by the way, you want to see what lengths universalists go to in order to deny Scripture, check out that place!) He doesn't respond to dialogue, in spite of my attempts to engage him in debate. I questioned him, for example, about his inconsistency regarding the authority of Scripture (appealing to one of the Gospels while also claiming that the Bible has "adulterations [that] came along many decades after his death"), but he responded with variations of what you saw on your blog. I ignore him. He just seems to want to promote his book.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 4, 2010)

Thanks, Jeremy. BTW, what is "UR" and "ET"?


----------



## Der Pilger (Feb 4, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Thanks, Jeremy. BTW, what is "UR" and "ET"?


 
Universal reconciliation vs. eternal torment.


----------



## coramdeo (Feb 4, 2010)

Would answering this be an instance of casting pearls before swine? Yes!


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 4, 2010)

Or simply "rat brains."


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 5, 2010)

I, too, have run into this fellow. Don't waste your time. Not only will you get no where with him, if you 'debate' him on a blog he will find more places to post his drivel by using the sites of those who rush to your side.


----------



## Der Pilger (Feb 5, 2010)

Interestingly enough, he has posted again to a thread about eternal punishment on city-data.com. Here is a copy of his post in full:



> Still splitting hairs, I see. Guys and gals, the problem of Hell is really not that complicated. Take the bulk of what Jesus taught and the way he acted, if he was the Word, the Expression of God, you get a very clear picture of a deity who doesn't hurt people, but loves unconditionally, and never gives up on us.
> 
> As with any ancient text for which we do not have the originals, but many generations of copies, you have to weigh each part by the textual and contextual evidence. There are only a small number of verses which place "Hades" on Jesus' lips. These verses completely contradict every thing else he is quoted as saying. So you can insist that he was quoted accurately in these Hell passages, sure, but then you have to reinterpret or reject all the rest to make them conform.
> 
> ...



It's really the same old, tired argument against eternal punishment: How can a God of love throw someone into hell forever? which is really just another way of saying, "I don't want a God that is holy and just and whom I cannot understand. Therefore, I have made up a god that suits my liking and understanding, so I reject the complete revelation of God in Scripture."


----------

