Cheryl Schatz

Hi Peter, You wrote: I am not sure if I hit a nerve with you, but the conversation is becoming slightly less than irenic, and I think it is best to leave it before it becomes personal. Thanks for the chat! I am not sure what you are talking about. It isn’t coming from my side. I am asking questions to understand your view and you are choosing not to respond. From our last discussion it seems that we have differences about the term “believe” and without understanding what you mean by the term “believe”. It is key to the understanding of John 6:36-40 and also within the entire chapter. I chose not to go into your entire claims (and I am very willing to continue the dialog and cover all of them) but when I see a “talking past” each other because we appear to have different meanings for words, it is wise to work hard to understand and clarify word meaning so that we can continue without “talking past” each other. I consider this a part of my strong desire for truth. You wrote: I would assume that you don’t hold to unconditional election – its just that it seems to me to be the natural outcome of your view. If the Father is still giving people today – and it is NOT everyone who is being given, it would seem that there is some sort of selection that determines who is being given. You haven’t explained how that occurs. It is NOT a natural outcome of my view. I recommended that you read two articles on my blog as that should help you understand if you really want to understand so that you do not “talk past” me. Did you read the articles? If you did, then please ask questions about where I missed addressing your question as I believe I was quite clear. Calvinists don’t see it as a natural outcome, so it mystifies me how a non-Calvinist could think that. You wrote: You seem to be hard pressed to prove me wrong on the unbeliever/believer/Judas thing – when it isn’t the main part of my argument. The issue of who is a believer is part of both of our arguments and understanding what that means is vital. Are you trying to prove me wrong in my view without understanding what I believe? I am not trying to prove you wrong. I was hoping we could come to a general understanding of our views and as much of an ability to agree as possible. That isn’t possible if we cannot understand what each means by the term “believe”. I asked questions of you about Judas as a believer as demons as believing was brought up by you. You may not think it is the main part of your argument however defining terms and understanding your beliefs about believers and unbelievers is important in understanding and evaluating your main arguments. The fact that you chose not to answer me but to withdraw from the conversation is quite puzzling. It makes me wonder why you are not willing to allow your view to be clearly outlined and understood by defining your terms. You wrote: You focus on that and ignore what I have to say about the basic reading of the text – which I maintain defeats your view. You are determined to defeat my view, yet you don’t seem to understand my view. It seems to me that your effort to defeat me may cloud your ability to understand me first. I still think that we can have a productive conversation, but it should deal with our understanding of terms as a foundation to really understand the views so that in the end if we end up agreeing or if we agree to disagree, we at least will understand what each of us believes. Right now I am not sure what you mean by believer and unbeliever. Are you willing to define your terms including how believing relates to demons? Let’s have a rousing good conversation! You wrote: I tried to distinguish between different types of believing but it feels like you didn’t catch what I said there. You say I misunderstand your view. A good thing to do is define the terms. Work hard to present your definition so that I can reflect it back and you can say, yes I agree. In the same way you can reflect back my view and I can agree that you understand or not. The fact is that I have written so much about this matter that a little effort on your part to read the articles would be very helpful if you really are interested in comparing viewpoints. You wrote: All I can go by is what you have told me – which is that the Father is still giving people to Jesus today. I am not saying that the Father is giving people unconditionally to Jesus. Not back then, not after Jesus spoke the words and not now. Salvation is conditional on faith. Would you like me to document the condition of faith from the Scriptures? You wrote: I merely maintain that the careful reading of the text denies that. We can get to that. Let’s define the terms, get an understanding of what we mean, and then go on to the “careful reading” of the text. You wrote: I am not sure if I hit a nerve with you, but the conversation is becoming slightly less than irenic, and I think it is best to leave it before it becomes personal. Thanks for the chat! No nerve hit. You have said that Calvinists leave your conversations. I see the same thing happening to me with Calvinists. I usually don’t expect the leaving of the conversation from a non-Calvinist especially when I am asking to understand what they mean. Is it possible that you are too sensitive and think that asking questions and trying to understand is an attack on you? It isn’t an attack. I am an apologist and asking questions and seeking to understand first is what I do. I have to admit that I took for granted that you believed more like I do when we first started to dialog, but I think that may have been a misunderstanding on my part. Now I see that going through all of what you wrote at one time would not be productive because there seems to be a divide in our meaning of terms. I have chosen to stick to small portions of what you said before moving on so that I could gain an understanding of what you mean by key terms. The more complicated passages require much more detail and if we have a disconnect and no basic understanding of what it means to be a believer or an unbeliever, how on earth can you “defeat my view” or me understand yours if we don’t have any agreement about our understanding of these important terms from John 6? I am willing to go through all that you have written. Are you willing to define your terms to make your view understandable and willing to work to understand and reflect back my view so I know you understand? That would make a very valuable conversation and one that would be helpful to both of us. Sometimes patience is required instead of running past and “talking over” the other person because neither understands the argument. If you decide you have had enough dialog then I would hope you would be far easier on a Calvinist who chooses to leave a conversation with you . With all respect intended, you have my permission to point a Calvinist to this blog who will not continue talking to you. They may be interested in our discussion here and I would be happy to answer their questions and to dialog with them. Warmly, Cheryl