When the Bible describes wolves, it’s not describing what they do. It's describing who they ARE. Wolves are not other Christians with whom we disagree. Wolves are not "brothers" or "sisters" who got caught up in sin either. Wolves ARE what they ARE. They are WOLVES. They are DIABOLIC. They CRAVE the flesh of innocent lambs. And they will do ANYTHING to kill and destroy the souls of people.
I know about people who have spoken to dozens of churches in recent months and I can assure you that the vast majority of them are sympathetic to the wolves who are child rapists
EMOTIONS
The problem is you are conflating completely different ideas.
This is a common logical error when people get too carried away with their emotions.
Conflation #1:
You argue against "God's grace toward some rapists" by introducing the concept of "wolves".
The two propositions:
1. There are indeed "wolves"... people who are false Christians.
2. There are also sinners who get saved from every type of sin, such as rape.
The problem with your argument:
1. These two propositions are not mutually exclusive.
2. The existence of one does not negate the existence of the other.
3. Therefore, if the existence of one does not negate the existence of the other, then you cannot use the existence of one to argue against the existence of the other.
4. Both of these propositions coincide together in the the bible, and they also coincide together perfectly well according to rules of logic.
5. There ARE rapists who receive grace, and there are also "wolves" who are false Christians... both of these concepts coexist independently. Neither is contingent upon the other in any way: neither is causing or negating the other.
6. Therefore, bringing up "wolves" to disprove "grace toward some rapists" is not an argument.
7. This entire argument is not an argument, it is pure emotion: it is NOT a logical argument, and it is NOT a biblical argument. It is just an emotional person venting her emotions.
Conflation #2
You argue that because your detractors believe rapists "may find grace", your detractors must ALSO believe, intrinsically, that rapists should have no punishment or scrutiny.
The two propositions:
1. Rapists may find grace and salvation.
2. Rapists should face judgement... but those who believe rapists "may find grace" must also believe rapists should face no judgement.
The problem with your argument:
1. Again, you are conflating two separate propositions.
2. The potential grace offered by God in the spiritual realm, has nothing to do with the potential judgement offered by mankind in the physical realm.
3. Grace in the spiritual realm, and judgement in the physical realm, are two entirely different and independent propositions.
4 A rapist could find grace before God (for his soul), and also find judgement before men in a court (for his body).
5. Furthermore, this is all very clear in scripture: that a man may receive grace in heaven, but still have earthly consequences for his sin.
6. This is exactly why people on "death row" are sometimes saved... but we don't let them out.
Conflation #3:
You argue against "God's grace toward some rapists" by introducing the concept that "wolves" are "child rapists".
1. You make so many logical errors here I don't even know where to start.
2. First you equate wolves to child rapists, which is not logical... as all wolves are not child rapists.
3. Then you contradict your own argument, by saying you KNOW that not all wolves are child rapists... which undermines your entire argument, making it void. (If wolves are NOT child rapists, there is no reason to say they are.)
4. Then we have you engaging in some logical "slight of hand": the OP's own premise of the thread is to discuss "rapists", and now you suddenly equivocate this to only mean "child rapists." You have just equivocated on terms, and changed the entire premise of the thread. We never started off by talking specifically about child rapists... so you're just changing the whole argument to get "emotional points."
5. Finally, there is simply no difference in "potential grace" between one type of sin and another; a "child rapist" has the same potential for grace as an "adult rapist"... sin is sin. So even when you try to equivocate and change the argument from "rapists" to "child rapists", it's still utterly pointless. Sin is sin. Any sin condemns you to hell, and any sin may be forgiven through the blood of Christ.
6. All you do here is talk in circles, contradict yourself, try to change the argument, and again ignore basic tenets of scripture.
Conflation #4:
There are many more logical errors... but I don't have all day.
Conclusion:
1. You make logical error atop logical error, and doctrinal error atop doctrinal error.
2. You have no argument, either doctrinal or logical... you have only an emotional rant.
..