Featured Exeedingly Sad

Actually, I thought he had it exactly right.

But I don't like the Calvinist debate threads because even though I disavow Calvinism, I have many Calvinist friends and I don't disavow them.

 

That isn't what is happening....One CAN "argue" with such a person...you simply can't confuse your terms when you do so. The post has NOTHING to do with "Hyper-Calvinism" nor it's logically inconsistent form regularly taught today.....That isn't the issue. It isn't a "foolish" controversy. It's a real one. If you refuse to understand the objection as posed...then you should either listen more open-mindedly about what specific objection is being raised (it's a valid one) and then inform yourself about positive rejoinders to the objection:

EVERY debate (real debates) involve two things:
Negative objections (this is one)
which is an attempt to submit that a point of view is untenable due to the negative consequences logically necessary in its formation....this is called in a "defeater".

Utilizing a "defeater" in a debate forum isn't "unfortunate" it's fortunate...it's a good thing. Either what you believe is capable of withstanding a "defeater" or it isn't. Here's how you get away from Skandelon's (that's who it was, and he wasn't running away from it) "defeater"...

You either falsify the defeater by explaining how his argument or "defeater" is in fact invalid, or you pose a "counter-defeater" (philosophers call it a "defeater-defeater", and yes, it's an ungainly word). which is designed to "defeat" his "defeating objection"....

The second thing involved in debate is a "Positive" argument.
The "Positive" arguments are designed to support your propositions, and the "defeaters" are designed to "defeat" them.

Skan's argument is a proposed "defeater" to Calvinism and his proposition is designed to suggest that Calvinism is inherently incoherent in that it contradicts itself.

It is a valid argument form...I'm sorry you don't like it. But it has absoluely ZERO NOTHING and NADDA to do with the distinction between "hyper" Calvinism and whatever form you claim.....it is what it is.

"Hyper-Calvinism" simply has NOTHING to do with it. It is immaterial whether one is "Supra-lapsarian" or "Infra-lapsarian" or claims to be "double-predestinarian" or not...the objection remains regardless.

 

This is a debate board. The Op's rebutal amounts to offering nothing more here than whinning while throwing out a fallacious "argument" which resorts to ad hominem and begging the question for a rebutal to the argument from his opposition. The argument the Op presents merely serves as an exercise in pointing at and spelling out all the ignorant rhetorical tactics used by many on this board that falsely believe they are engaging in some kind of logically structured "debate".

 

It sickens me when on this board (as a non-Calvinist) it becomes abundantly clear to me that I understand Calvinism better sometimes than adherents of the system who think themselves capable of debating the topic... I die a little inside, and I decry the lack of Soteriological knowledge about Calvinism from Calvinists themselves *sigh*....

 

:laugh: OR, I think you'd be better off just asking for us to leave reasoning out of addressing the "Doctrines of Pre-selected Grace". :smilewinkgrin:

 

That's your response? to publically attempt to "high-five" your fellow Calvinist.........about how you believe in the "Word of God" vs. "logic"....by all means...please publically continue this line of reasoning.

Do you then admit that your position denies the applicability of "logic"? Do tell, please.

 

Tom.... That commentary on the previous thread had one purpose & it was not to solicit an educated & scholarly debate.

Wesley & Whitefield often debated but kept it civil without being obviously insulting to ones beliefs. It would be more constructive to deal with core issues rather than ad hominem arguments. But alas....this is the mentality. And yes it is offensive & yes it is saddening.

 

High Five HoS! ...down low, to the side...:laugh:

 

No Christian denies the "Doctrines of Sovereign Grace"...we just don't buy into all of the ancillary and self-defeating stupidity your particular form of Soteriology imports into it.

We believe God is Sovereign
We believe God saves by, and only by his Grace....
Therefore, since we believe God saves by and only by his "Sovereign Grace"...we also understand that your Calvinist pre-suppositions are stupid and ill-informed bull-waste.

Now...please pose a real and intelligent argument against Skandelon's legitimate and informed defeating argument, or walk away.

Your positing this thread was a mistake. It was an error, but, it was one which God himself Sovereignly pre-destined you to make..so don't decry that.

Then again, even if you DO decry it....it would only be because "God" in his Sovereignty wanted you to make.........and that's Skan's argument.

 

Skan's purpose in positing his thread "The conflicted Calvinist"...was ABSOLUTELY intended to be a constructive one. It's a good one. It was worthy of discussion.

 

Yes, but Wesley and Whitefield were estranged for years because of their differences in this area. So, it is an emotional and often divisive issue, unfortunately. However, because I have several Calvinist friends such as you, I am determined not to let it come between me and my friends.

 

Is it your place to speak for him?

 

Whats right is right, what is genteel & respectful is not this....."Calvinist pre-suppositions are stupid and ill-informed bull-waste".....or do you disagree?!? This is tad amount to what my Grandfather called "FIGHTING WORDS"

 

I think that language is certainly inflammatory.