Challenge for Gary McNees
Gary,
I came to the Doctrines of Grace wholly independent of the writings of Calvin or Agustine, or anybody else for that matter. It started with Romans 8-9, just the plain reading of those chapters. From what I see you are pretty weak in the scriptures. I challenge you to go without appealing to extra-biblical writings to defend your position. I challenge you to go without quoting the works of other men to defend your anti-Calvinist position. I'll do the same in defense of the Doctrines of Grace. Are you up for it? Do you have the courage? It will be just you and me. man to man.
posted by mark pierson at 7:35 PM
18 Comments:
You ask folks to read Vance. I'll just ask them to read Romans 9 without any commentary whatsover. If they are doing so without being influenced by anti-Calvinist commentators they will come to embrace the Doctrines of Grace just Like I have. It's as simple as that, Gary.
June 13, 2009 7:56 PM
I'll ask all my friends to refrain from commenting here so Gary and I can go at it alone. Thanks
Mark Pierson
June 13, 2009 7:58 PM
Gary,
I came to the Doctrines of Grace
"gkm: This is the biggest lie ever perpetrated. You believe no "doctrines of Grace." It is like Sproul's book, "Grace Unknown," he doesn't know grace at all."
----------
Wow! Emotions run high in your baseless claims.eh? Am I to take you seriously here?
------------
"Gkm: This is hard to believe, but I am not going to call you a liar, like your friends do me."
-----
Hard to believe, but not a lier? Hmmm.
--------------
"Gkm: My position is so easy to defend it is quite amazing that you don't reject the Calvinistic doctrines as much as I do. Any single verse in the Bible proves that all of TULIP is false."
------------------
So prove it already!!!
----------------
" What the problem is, is that you just reject what God says."
--------------
So prove that statement to me,'k?
----------------
" And believe me, I've read all the "reasoning" that Calvinists use to deny the verses. They do exactly what you and your friends here do: make inane comments like, "I see you are pretty weak in the scriptures."
----------------
That IS my observation; and you've done nothing here to show me that I am wrong.
--------------
"Gkm: Have you read Gill? Hodge? Calvin's Institutes?"
-----------
No, not yet.
---------------
"I've read the institutes through twice. (studied them)"
------------
Impressive. I'll get to them eventually, I suppose. They are not high on my list right now.
--------------
"All you do is make ridiculous statements like here and before. Why should I give any of my time to people like you?"
-------------
Because I've challenged you to.
----------------
"Gkm: 1Ti 2:4 "[God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Gkm: Here is Gill on this: Ver. 4. Who will have all men to be saved, &c.] The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, …[I had to cut most of Gill because of the size limit. If you don't have him, I'll send it to you.]"
-----------
Spurgeon distanced himself from Gill. Gill was closer to hyper-Calvinism; too much so for me.
----------------
"Gkm: So it takes Gill all these words to make people like you believe that God does NOT will that all men be saved! Such doctrine is an abomination. You cannot be convinced that Calvinism is wrong no matter what I say, so why should I bother? I should not bother."
--------------
Why don't you just admit that you don't have the courage to go one on one with me...
I repeat -
I challenge you to go without quoting the works of other men to defend your anti-Calvinist position. I'll do the same in defense of the Doctrines of Grace. Are you up for it? Do you have the courage?
-------------
"Gkm: IF you actually believed God EVER, you'd repudiated Calvinism right now."
-----------
Quite a claim. Try to move me. Try to change my mind, that's all ask.
----------------
"But you wish to believe the lie rather than God. Are you going to do a better job "explaining" such passages which prove Calvinism wrong than Gill does, or any other of the multitude of expert Reformed Theologians I have read? I have listed them for you. Do you really think you can come up with better exegesis than Reformed Theology has come up with for the last 500 years? I sincerely doubt it. But a single sentence in Scripture PROVES the stinking Calvinistic system is false, so why should I bother? There is no reason at all. The ONLY way you can continue to believe such filth is by disbelieving scripture. "
--------------
Just one on one, you and me. That's all I ask, Gary
June 13, 2009 10:39 PM
This is Gary's response to me on Antonio's latest post -
Gary said...
mark pierson said:
-
A Callenge to Gary McNees
Gary,
I came to the Doctrines of Grace wholly independent of the writings of Calvin or Agustine, or anybody else for that matter. It started with Romans 8-9, just the plain reading of those chapters. From what I see you are pretty weak in the scriptures. I challenge you to go without appealing to extra-biblical writings to defend your position. I challenge you to go without quoting the works of other men to defend your anti-Calvinist position. I'll do the same in defense of the Doctrines of Grace. Are you up for it? Do you have the courage?
gkm: I answered Mark, of course not to his satisfaction, but he is a 5-point Calvinist which means that he doesn't believe much if anything that God says. A single verse destroys all of Calvinism.
1Ti 2:4 "[God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Gkm: John Gill uses 881 words to deny this truth. I could furnish a multitude of other Reformed Theologians on this verse besides Gill, but they all do the same thing, they just deny what God says. There are literally hundreds of such verses, all of which prove that Calvinism is false, but they will not hear of it.
Gkm: Every doctrine which is unique to Calvinism is false. Anyone who wishes an in-depth analysis of Calvinism should get Vance's book, "The Other Side of Calvinism." His book is thoroughly referenced, and is an excellent work. He is fair and thorough. He cites Calvinists to show what Calvinism teaches, and then compares what they teach with the truth, the Bible.
Gkm: by the way, I've visited Marks cite a little and am insulted at every turn, from being called a liar, not knowing the Scriptures (which I have studied for over 50 years), not knowing or understanding Calvinism, (I have literally hundreds of books by Reformed Theologians.)
Gkm: Marks challenge is stupid and ridiculous. He brags of his Astrological Sign: Pisces and Zodiac Year: Rooster. Why should I even bother speaking to such an infidel?
Gkm: Antonio, sorry that I cannot give such a person as Mark the politeness you seem to suggest. He is not polite to those who disagree with Calvinism, calling us "liars," "not knowing Scripture," etc. I do not dislike Mark or those on his blog. I HATE Calvinism! Calvinism is the worst demonic religion every invented by man.
Gkm: From Mark's blog: " are telling a fat lie," "Dude you seem to be totally ignorant," "ignorance learned from Dave Hunt is bliss," "You do know that Zane wasn't crucified and rose again for you, right?" These are a few of the insults dished out on Mark's blog. This is but a small sample. Most Calvinists I've come across are the most arrogant people I know. THEY have THE truth, and the rest of us just need to be educated!
Gkm: When there are hundreds of Scriptures which prove that Calvinism is false, why should we bother arguing with them. They WILL NOT hear scripture, so we know they will not hear us.
Gkm: Arguing with Calvinists is futile. They have been brainwashed, and can only see through their "Reformed Theology" glasses. IF they EVER take ANY verse of scripture for what it says that contradicts their demonic doctrines, then perhaps God would grant them repentance. But from what I see no one on Mark's blog is interested in truth, they already have it all.
Gary McNees
June 13, 2009 8:37 PM
June 14, 2009 10:11 AM
Yes, I am amused.
Thanks, Gary
Mark
June 14, 2009 1:34 PM
When you see Gary's comments here,
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2009/04/two-quotations-from-charlie-bing.html,
then you'll understand why I have challeged him. Witness the nasty language against Calvinists in this thread that I have provided.
June 15, 2009 7:11 AM
Gary,
Disagreeing with Calvinism is one thing; but please try to do so honestly and intelligently. What you did throughout that 640 comment thread on Antonio's blog was make Free Grace Theology look ignorant. Sure it stired the emotions of those on your anti-Calvinist side, but it made real dialogue impossible for those of us looking for an intelligent conversation. It made us wonder if the GES is actually capable of such a thing.
June 15, 2009 7:39 AM
Gary,
Remember, to do theology you must check your emotions at the door.
June 15, 2009 7:44 AM
Alvin has gone to Antonio's latest posting at his blog to stand up for Gary. I have now gone to that same posting there and invited Alvin to take Gary's place in this challenge.
June 15, 2009 10:56 AM
Mark,
I don't know that I would place all the blame on Gary M, but I agree with you that the 640 comment thread on UoG devolved into utter absurdity and confusion, not to mention repetition ad infinitum. I regret ever taking part in that thread and it has convinced me that trying to have debates on blogs is a futile waste of precious time. I can't help but wonder what an unbeliever must think of Christianity when they see so much nonsense on display in a discussion of a verse as basic and simple as Jn. 3:16. I knew there would be more than a few comments on that thread which would only end up as good bulletin board material to try and discredit the GES and, sure enough, it happened.
June 15, 2009 12:59 PM
Gary Edmonson,
The GES MUST be refuted! One must not lift John 3:16 from its suroundings and then proceed to build a system around it. The GES has done just that.
June 15, 2009 1:07 PM
Mark,
I agree with you that Jn. 3:16 does not stand alone. It stands within the context of the ONLY book in scripture that was written with an evangelistic purpose (Jn. 20:30,31). The Gospel of John itself stands within the context of the total canon of NT scripture as the ONLY book written for the express purpose of telling unbelievers how to be born again, pass from death into life, and have everlasting life. As long as Christendom fails to recognize or acknowledge this obvious fact their hermeneutics will be based on a false premise and there will accordingly continue to be the same utter chaos and confusion that has always been displayed throughout church history-- and still characterizes the church to this very day. It is to their credit that the GES has rightly recognized the unique significance of the Gospel of John, but they are certainly not the first to do so. If you wish to refute the GES, you must first refute the Gospel of John. The rest of scripture was written for the purpose of giving further instruction in discipleship and spiritual growth to born again people who had ALREADY believed the saving message contained in John's Gospel. They had already believed Jesus Christ's promise of everlasting life, HAD everlasting life, and KNEW they had everlasting life. Neither the synoptic gospels nor the epistles were written for the purpose of telling unbelievers what they must do to be born again.
I'm not going to go in endless circles debating this with you Mark. You can either accept it for your blessing or reject it to your own destruction. But if you reject it you will always be confused just as Christendom has always been confused. Once the purpose and message of John's Gospel is correctly understood and believed, the hermeneutical principle of the "analogy of faith" will then guide you in the correct interpretation and application of the rest of scripture. Until then, the scriptures will remain an incomprehensible muddle that has led to the 50,000 some odd denominations (almost all of which are Arminian) we have today-- not to mention those within EACH denomination who are not even in agreement with one another.
God bless you and may He show you the truth.
June 15, 2009 3:16 PM
Gary Edmonson,
I'm not the least bit interested in trying to refute the Gospel of John; but I am interested in refuting the GES. You see, the two are not synonymous. You see the gospel of John was written to supplement the other three. It neither alters their message nor put them into another category - that of discipleship manuals. In fact when they came into existence, which they did BEFORE the Gospel of John, they introduced a whole new genre of literature - the Gospel. No such thing existed before. The Gospel of John does not stand alone, no, it stands WITH the rest of scripture. It is not written that "He has spoken to us in these last days through John". No! He has spoken to us in these last days "in Son", as is the literal rendering of Hebrews 1:2. Jesus' call to follow Him in the synoptics is one and the same as His call to believe in Him in John. Witness John 8:30-32. As Jesus spoke these words many believed in Him. Then in verse 31 Jesus said "if you abide in my word..." Question: at what point did they begin to abide? Answer, in verse 30. Then what is the result of abiding? Answer, discipleship and knowing the truth, and being set free by the truth. Set free from what? Answer in verses 34-36 - set free from slavery to sin. First it says the truth will make us free, verse 8:32; then it says the Son makes us free, verse 8:36. So Gary, are you sure you want to state that a Christian can live apart from the knowledge of the truth, and live apart from being set free from slavery to sin? You'd have to go against Romans chapters 6-8 to say that.
June 16, 2009 7:21 AM
Mark,
I could not disagree with you more. But have it your way because I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
Until you stop forcing scripture to conform to the man-made TULIP you will never be able to correctly exegete either Jn. 8:30-32, Rom. 6-8 or most any other scripture. But if God could open my eyes, I know He can for you too. But it will have to be Him that does it, not me.
May He lead you to the truth and set you free from the "traditions of men."
June 16, 2009 8:12 AM
Gary,
You didn't interact with my comment to you. Why? I expect better from you than that. Please come back and interact with my comment to you. Yes it will turn into a very long interaction between us, one that will take work on both our parts. So get to work!
June 16, 2009 8:19 AM
For those who are interested Gary McNees has chosen to carry on conversation with me on another thread,
http://mdpmusings4.blogspot.com/2009/05/carnal-christian-wayne-and-mark.html
June 16, 2009 12:15 PM
I repeat, Please none of the folk on my side of this debate should comment here. It's just me and the so called free gracer's here.
June 16, 2009 12:32 PM
Well,
I must get ready for work now. The Lord willing I'll be back tomorrow.
Mark Pierson
June 16, 2009 12:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home