Thursday, June 18, 2009

David Ponter: The bad fruit of Neo-Amyraldism

In a manifestation of his irrationality, Neo-Amyraldian David Ponter has decided to falsely accuse me of dishonesty in changing my position "from a strong to a weak claim" in his comment against me on his blog post which I have critiqued. When a person claims to know what your position is which you have categorically denied, it is time to call it quits, seriously! Instead of addressing the issue, Ponter is starting to behave like a spoiled brat who whines when people do not play his game his way. The ad-hominem have already started on his post, and it is indeed sickening to see how they attack the person of those they disagree with. I am harsh with heretics who attack the Gospel, but even such is linked to their heresy and not them as person. It is simply disgusting to see these hyper-Amyraldians attack Calvinists as "hyper-Calvinists" simply because we refuse to take part in their misology and embrace the unbiblical nonsense of the well-meant offer.

I was informed through Mark Farnon of David Ponter's antics over at the Unchained Radio Forums some time back. What can be found there is simply appalling. The language reminds me of the malicious attacks by the Neo-Orthodox heretic Antithesis and other unbelievers; language which serve only to insult the opponents' person, character, mental state etc, which are absolutely unbecoming of any true believer. It is said that a good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bad fruit (Mt. 7:15-20). The production of such bad fruit by Ponter does not give a good indication for his spiritual state (using Modus Tollens)

Here is a sampling of Ponter's "loving" attack on Mark Farnon (tartanarmy):

The mindless musings of an irrational man:

From his corrected and updated profile at the 5solas site, Tarta baby answers unequivocably

[quote] ...


What lies. You will never find him [Mark] saying otherwise??? I cant believe he thinks he can get away with just plain lies like this.


He [Mark] is sick. He is obsessed.


Tarta baby is just plain kooky. He just flat out lies about his position. I suspect he does not want them to know over there that he is in fact a hypercalvinist. So what does Tarta baby thinks is offered to all men? Hate? Hell? One can only wonder.

"Sick"? "Obsessed"? These are blatant character attacks unbecoming of anyone naming the name of Christ.

The Neo-Amyraldism promoted by Ponter and Byrne is absolutely disgusting, and knows no restraint it seems. Ponter has called traditional Calvinism a "blight upon reformed theological thought". The truth of the matter is that it is Neo-Amyraldism that is a "serious blight upon Reformed theological thought". Such people promote irrationality, mislead people through the selective misquotation of historical sources, and practically speaking they DO NOT seem to be proclaiming the Gospel. What have these people done to reach out to those caught in the bondage of the Word-Faith movement? What have they done in any form of evangelism and outreach?

With their irrationality, I would rather be an Arminian than an Amyraldian; at least it is more consistent. If Jesus had indeed died for ALL men without exception, and He desires even reprobates to repent, yet God failed to save them and therefore the determining factor must be something found in Man, namely his free will. Substitutionary Atonement must be denied, for God did not actually died for anyone but only made salvation possible. Election and reprobation therefore must be conditional (upon faith), since God does not desire anyone including the reprobates to perish therefore he cannot reprobate anyone at all, but men reprobate themselves by rejecting Christ.

The other Amyraldian alternative of course is a schizophrenic deity who struggles with conflicting desires and whether he actually reprobates anyone depends on his "current mood"; perhaps when he feels particular loving at a certain point in time such that his "desire for the reprobates to be saved" becomes preeminent then he may go and change his decree for particular individuals to be reprobated.

I think I will go with traditional Reformed thought on this subject, and will pass the Pandora's box of Neo-Amyraldian nonsense.


PuritanReformed said...

It seems that David cannot stomach the truth.

Here is my latest comment to David's attack on me on his blog (which has now entered moderation mode). Let's see whether it will get published...



LOL. You sure are good at historical revisionism.

Fact #1: I have never “slandered” you. That is a bold-faced lie.
Fact #2: I have NEVER conceded Byrne’s spin of Bunyan’s quote taken out of context. Unlike you, I have a life out there; friends to catch up and people to reach. I do not spend as much time on the Internet as you apparently do. I will answer Byrne’s revisionism in due time.
Fact #3: You have NOT answered any charges. What you have done is to evade the charge by transferring the burden of proof on me instead of where it rightfully belongs - you!
Fact #4: Appeal to context is for you an unclear standard without any “public and testable rules”. You are living in a dream world indeed.
Fact #5: Your obfuscation of the charges (at least while Byrne is spinning his quotes, he attempted to answer the issue) is irritating. You answered nothing. Repeating your assertions does not an argument made.
Fact #6: Your self-righteousness stink! Stop pontificating and start arguing. This is a grown-up world; stop behaving like the local street bully.

PuritanReformed said...

Oh yes, let's see if David can answer why he thinks such behavior (as what he did to Mark) is proper for a Christian.