Stop misrepresenting my view!

[Skandelon]

This is probably the number one complaint I hear on this forum. It comes from both sides of the soteriological debate and quite honestly is pretty common in any debate regardless of the subject. It's called a Straw-man fallacy and everyone is probably guilty of it on some level.

Both sides want to feel that their views are understood and correctly represented. No one wants to be mischaracterized or falsely labeled.

Some mistakenly assume that if their views were really understood then there would be perfect agreement, when in reality one may fully understand your views but simply not agree with them. That is okay, this is a debate forum after all.

As you all know, I'm not a Calvinist but was one about a decade ago. I have been railed upon as not understanding Calvinism or as misrepresenting Calvinism numerous times. To those I'd like to say this:

Which form of Calvinism have I misrepresented exactly?

As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

I'm sure there are similar feelings from the other perspective, and that is fine. But, instead of reporting posts that you feel misrepresent your view may I challenge you to engage in a debate over the views by seeking to understand and be understood before labeling and dismissing others as "heretics" or whatever other demeaning term you prefer.

Just my thoughts on the matter...

 

[agedman]

I oppose myself every time I (well, I attempt) to stand up?

The BB will always look for opposing views so the members can satisfy the aggression they can't take out on the job.

Even if one has to making labels for garments of cotton and put them on threads made of linen, there isn't any problem unless one consults the label to wash and iron.



The spell check want to make it dandelion rather than skandelon so everyone be cautious. Doesn't Skandelon translate into folly or ignorance?

As a deformed Calvinist, of course he is going to get all sorts of distractions thrown his direction.

However, I must state that I am generally impressed with the moderation and insight that Skandelon brings to the BB.

So this thread should be really quite interesting.

 

[glfredrick]

A conversation that Skandelon and I are having behind the scenes.

I post it so all can read:

About the posts... I cited what was written. I asked to discus what was written.

You cited WITHOUT credit for who said it and WITHOUT link to the context of what was being discussed. AND then you concluded they were heretical based upon those out of context quotes. I only requested that you link to the quotes in their context and not assume they are heretics when they themselves claim to reject the essential elements of Pelagianism.

I did so on purpose for the very reasons you now argue with me about. Can you say with assurance that it would have been better for me had I posted names? Also, let's keep in mind that I was responding to an issue that was already brought up in a thread, were you (as I recall) said that there was no one on the board writing things like the things I actually posted. My point was that they were (and are).

YOU and Webdog (primarily) needed to make it about PEOPLE instead of TOPIC.

But the topic was you accusing unnamed sources as being heretics based on quotes taken out of their context. That WAS the TOPIC as far as my involvement was concerned. Plus, Webdog and Winman seemed more than willing to engage you regarding the charge of Pelagianism, but instead you didn't seem to want to deal with those posts. Instead you just kept calling them pelagian while ignoring the merits of their argument. Fallacy: "guilt by association"

First, Webdog was not among the cited ones. He did not have a dog in the fight. Where does he get the privelge to come after people the way he most often does. Can you say that he contributed to the thread or that he was your watchdog, barking away at me?

Second, I've already mentioned the topic -- which was NOT what I wrote, but which I responded to.

Third, I did respond to Winman, who though disavowing himself of Pelagian belief does not do so either accurately or completely. While he diasvows himself of the TERM he continues to support the doctrine that it represents. That is about as disingenuous as can be.

As far as what you did "in jest" it was not recieved that way

And if you took my post so seriously then why wouldn't you see the seriousness of your own posts because you did the same thing. I did it in jest to show what you were doing to Win and others, you did it first and you did it seriously. Which is worse exactly?

You are claiming moral equivalence with what I did. I called you on it in the thread and will call you on it here again.

I CITED persons PRECISELY as to what they ACTUALLY WROTE. You offered a few straw man fallacial claims about my belief structure without ACTUALLY CITING ME ONCE on any of the doctrines that you used to MISREPRESENT my actual position.

Scour the entire cite for my threads -- it is easy to do -- then come back and post the times when I WROTE what you said I wrote. I have not.

As for my doctrine, I am rather open about being "infralapsarian" and I do not hold to a "hyper" position. I have published that on numerous occaisions. I also hold to human moral free agency -- but that is not "libertarian free will" as often expressed by yourself and others.

I hold those positions because they are found in Scripture.

You cited a false doctrine -- hyper-Calvinism -- and attributed that to me, which is indeed slander. At least, if I did hold to what you believe I held, you would have to CITE ME to demonstrate the evidence that I do indeed hold what you said in that thread. But, of course, I do not hold that as true.

You cited what you wish that I had said and made it out to be my words.

I never even implied they were your words. I was just saying something pretty typical of Calvinist and drawing a heretical intent out of it knowing full well that is NOT what Calvinists believe in order to show you how you were treating Win and webdog.

And, therein is where you made your error. I CITED ACTUAL POSTS by persons on this board where they ARGUED POSITIVELY FOR the doctrines they espoused.

You cited a supralapsarian position, and took that to the limits (the place known as an heretical doctrine called "hyper-Calvinism") WHICH IS NOT MY DOCTRINE.

Further, you did it to damage both my reputation and to attempt to win points with your followers on the board, Winman and Webdog being two (obviously by your defense of them now).

BIG DIFFERENCE, hence my accusation of slander and my reporting your posts.

There is a big difference. Mine wasn't quoting any actual person, your's was.

Mine was done in jest, your's wasn't.

Mine sarcastically drew heretical conclusions
from out of context anonymous quotes, your's seriously drew heretical conclusions from out of context anonymous quotes.

You are right there is a big difference! Yours deserved to be reported and mine didn't because you actually DID what I was joking about doing.

Your "joke" was no joke, and I espect that the board admins reminded you of that fact.

 

[DHK]

This is probably the number one complaint I hear on this forum. It comes from both sides of the soteriological debate and quite honestly is pretty common in any debate regardless of the subject. It's called a Straw-man fallacy and everyone is probably guilty of it on some level.

Both sides want to feel that their views are understood and correctly represented. No one wants to be mischaracterized or falsely labele.

Skan, Perhaps you may want to comment on whether or not Calvin's views are represented fairly. As I study Calvin's commentary on verses such as John 3:16 and other verses in Romans it is seems apparent that he did not believe in either unconditional election or in limited atonement. Is Calvin himself being represented fairly. Or is TULIP the invention of someone else? After all, Calvin didn't even write in English. So TULIP couldn't be an accurate portrayal of Calvin's beliefs. If one is going to be a "follower of the beliefs of Calvin" shouldn't he first know what the man believed?

 

[preacher4truth]

All this moderator has to do is cut and paste the quotes into search and voila! it's like magic. I'd say that's not the objective desired, but rather to call glfredricks integrity into question and continue a belligerency against him.

It's been a subjective agenda on skans part rather than being objective, and this by his own choosing.

Tell me how it's so difficult to actually paste the quotes and actually take a gander, so we can get to the next pretentious and deceitful step of claiming they were taken out of context?

And not drawing fire upon our sister Amy.G, but she as well substantiated these statements or quotes from glfredrick as being true and representative of the context he used them in. Why isn't she, a non-cal called into question here as well, and why instead do we have a "cal" brother being targeted? That's what I find interesting.

Thus, we have a moderator who knows how to search things out, but refuses to up to this point, and instead wants to go back and forth with someone over the credibility of his sources, and moreso of his person, implying that a brother used these out of context. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't think it's particularly appropriate for a moderator to start such a thread which is without question going to be nothing but mud slinging and fighting.


In regards to DHK's post:

Skan, Perhaps you may want to comment on whether or not Calvin's views are represented fairly. As I study Calvin's commentary on verses such as John 3:16 and other verses in Romans it is seems apparent that he did not believe in either unconditional election or in limited atonement. Is Calvin himself being represented fairly. Or is TULIP the invention of someone else? After all, Calvin didn't even write in English. So TULIP couldn't be an accurate portrayal of Calvin's beliefs. If one is going to be a "follower of the beliefs of Calvin" shouldn't he first know what the man believed?

I think this is an excellent idea. I for one would like to know what Calvin actually believed instead of the modern day TULIP. It may turn out that we're all Calvinists. .........:tongue3:

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't think it's particularly appropriate for a moderator to start such a thread which is without question going to be nothing but mud slinging and fighting.


In regards to DHK's post:


I think this is an excellent idea. I for one would like to know what Calvin actually believed instead of the modern day TULIP. It may turn out that we're all Calvinists. .........:tongue3:

I agree with what you say here.

 

[kyredneck]

I oppose myself every time I (well, I attempt) to stand up.......

Heehee, no, it's gravity that does that!

......Where does he get the privelge to come after people the way he most often does.......

It does appear that he's privileged in that manner; In the past I've wondered if DHK might or might not be his Daddy....

 

[OldRegular]

Skandelon

As I have said many times I am not a Calvinist. I have never read anything that Calvin wrote other than perhaps a paragraph being quoted. I have read various explanations of TULIP but believe the concept of Irresistible Grace creates the wrong impression that God drags His Elect kicking and screaming to Salvation. That is the impression some Arminians on this Forum purport to have.

That being said I do believe in the Biblical Doctrine of Grace. This was not a belief that I had when God saved me. I have always believed, at least since I was of the age to understand such things, that Salvation is a supernatural act of GOD, not just intellectual assent to the historical facts of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But I also believed that I had a part in that Salvation, that I had to accept what God provided. Over the years as I studied the Bible I became convinced that salvation was all by Grace.

 

[Skandelon]

glfredrick, I think it is a bit sleazy to post PM's in a public forum without asking first, but since I have nothing there to hide I will let it go... and copy private my response here as well:

I did so on purpose for the very reasons you now argue with me about. Can you say with assurance that it would have been better for me had I posted names?

Only if you insisted on calling them heretics, which was unnecessary regardless of whether you name them or not.

We can both agree that Winman might lean more that direction than me, but even he denied believing those two essential points of Pelagianism which have been deemed heretical. His choice of words may be confusing and even 'incorrect' (I don't know because I don't read his very LONG posts very often), but you have to take him on his word and seek to understand his intent. You do that by dealing with his actual quotes in their actual context, that was my point. Just pulling uncredited quotes out of context and labeling them heretical is not fair by anyone's standard. I was attempting to show you that with my jest where I quote unnamed Calvinists and draw obviously heretical conclusions.

First, Webdog was not among the cited ones.

Ok, well I would have known that if you had just quoted them in their context....

And yes he can get snarky too...we can all fall into that if we let it get to that point.

Third, I did respond to Winman, who though disavowing himself of Pelagian belief does not do so either accurately or completely. While he diasvows himself of the TERM he continues to support the doctrine that it represents. That is about as disingenuous as can be.

Really? Do you really think he believe men are born good? I don't think that is what he is saying...but again I don't want to be put in the place of defending his views because I don't agree with some of this terminology. It's kind of the same with you and Luke. You took issue with some choice of words he would use but in essence agreed with him. No one wants to defend someone various nuanced views, but I don't see anything YET that rises to the level of pelagianism...

Scour the entire cite for my threads -- it is easy to do -- then come back and post the times when I WROTE what you said I wrote. I have not.

Are you talking about my jest post where I quote unnamed Calvinists? Those weren't meant to be your quotes. Those were general made up statements taken out of context to make a point that anyone can take a quote out of context and draw false conclusions about the authors intent. That is all.

You cited a false doctrine -- hyper-Calvinism -- and attributed that to me, which is indeed slander.

I did not such thing. Show me where I attributed those quotes to you.

You misunderstood the point of that post and have taken it way too personally.

At least, if I did hold to what you believe I held, you would have to CITE ME to demonstrate the evidence that I do indeed hold what you said in that thread. But, of course, I do not hold that as true.

Of course you don't. I know you are not a hyperist. THAT WAS THE POINT.

I was showing you what Winman must be feeling by being accused of something he doesn't believe.

You cited a supralapsarian position, and took that to the limits (the place known as an heretical doctrine called "hyper-Calvinism") WHICH IS NOT MY DOCTRINE.

Again, not the point. The point is that you can make any statement mean something not intended. Not all supras are hyper, are they? See my point now?

Further, you did it to damage both my reputation and to attempt to win points

No more so than you did to those you quoted and labeled heretics. At least I didn't really quote any actual person so there is no offended party in my post, there is in yours. The only reason you are offended is because you presumed I was quoting you or putting words in your mouth when I never even mentioned you in that post. I was making a point as explained above. If it offended you then maybe you shouldn't do those things to others.

Your "joke" was no joke, and I espect that the board admins reminded you of that fact.

No one has contacted me about that post except you. I think they will see the irony of you reporting a post meant to point out your original error.

As Nathan said to David, "You are that man..." That was the intent of that post, to show what YOU were doing to Winman and others by taking a quote out of context and drawing unintended heretical conclusions.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, Perhaps you may want to comment on whether or not Calvin's views are represented fairly.

I think some do so pretty fairly, yes, but most don't which I have pointed out a few times.

I think Calvin (and Spurgeon) took a more biblical approach to doctrine. Meaning that what ever verse they were handling they attempted to remain true to the original intent of that text, not to some system of thought. This leads to quotes that seem to contradict each other. This is why Arminians quote Spurgeon almost as much as Calvinists do, and why many can make a strong case for Calvin's denial of Limited atonement. Some seem to out Calvin John Calvin in favor of a logical/philosophical system that I think would make Calvin cringe if he were alive today.

 

[Skandelon]

The spell check want to make it dandelion rather than skandelon so everyone be cautious. Doesn't Skandelon translate into folly or ignorance?

It means "stumbling stone" and it was what Jesus was called because he spoke truth and the Pharisees of his day didn't want to hear it and they stumbled over him and his words...

However, I must state that I am generally impressed with the moderation and insight that Skandelon brings to the BB.

So this thread should be really quite interesting.

:love2: Awww, thanks.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think it's particularly appropriate for a moderator to start such a thread which is without question going to be nothing but mud slinging and fighting.

Did I sling mud in the OP? Can I be held responsible for the response of an otherwise cordial and well meaning thread meant to address a common accusation from BOTH camps?

I'm simply replying to an accusation in another thread which got too long and was closed. I did so in a cordial fashion and didn't break any rules, so I'm not sure what that has to do with my being a moderator or being in anyway inappropriate?

 

[Amy.G]

Did I sling mud in the OP? Can I be held responsible for the response of an otherwise cordial and well meaning thread meant to address a common accusation from BOTH camps?

I'm simply replying to an accusation in another thread which got too long and was closed. I did so in a cordial fashion and didn't break any rules, so I'm not sure what that has to do with my being a moderator or being in anyway inappropriate?

The OP is argumentative from the get go. Everyone's views get misrepresented at some point, but we shouldn't all start a thread on it.

Edit: And you've even got a mad face on the thread title. (Doesn't look very friendly does it?)

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon

As I have said many times I am not a Calvinist. I have never read anything that Calvin wrote other than perhaps a paragraph being quoted. I have read various explanations of TULIP but believe the concept of Irresistible Grace creates the wrong impression that God drags His Elect kicking and screaming to Salvation. That is the impression some Arminians on this Forum purport to have.

I agree that is an incorrect perception held by some. I don't think you will find that I have ever promoted that view. I understand that the effectual work of regeneration changes men's desire so as to make them willing to come. My question would be why you suppose it doesn't make us all willing to accept correct doctrine?

 

[Skandelon]

The OP is argumentative from the get go.

Argumentative!?! On a debate forum! GASP!

Just kidding with you.

Everyone's views get misrepresented at some point, but we shouldn't all start a thread on it.

Huh, that was kind of my point too...with one small change:

"Everyone's views get misrepresented at some point, but we shouldn't all report them."

I'm glad we agree on that! :thumbsup:

EDIT: the mad face was to represent how people feel when being misrepresented, not me. I'm very happy today.

 

[Skandelon]

Amy, maybe you misread a "tone" that wasn't intended due to my "mad" face. Here, see if this is better, as I pull out the five major points of the OP:

1) This is probably the number one complaint I hear on this forum. It comes from both sides of the soteriological debate and quite honestly is pretty common in any debate regardless of the subject. It's called a Straw-man fallacy and everyone is probably guilty of it on some level.

Notice the underlined portions as they are attempting to point our that WE all are in this together.

2) Both sides want to feel that their views are understood and correctly represented. No one wants to be mischaracterized or falsely labeled.

Again, we are all together...

3) Some mistakenly assume that if their views were really understood then there would be perfect agreement, when in reality one may fully understand your views but simply not agree with them. That is okay, this is a debate forum after all.

See, we are all still happy.

4) As you all know, I'm not a Calvinist but was one about a decade ago. I have been railed upon as not understanding Calvinism or as misrepresenting Calvinism numerous times.

Here I take a side by showing how I'm often accused of this but I then explain WHY it may appear that way...but still happy.

5) I'm sure there are similar feelings from the other perspective, and that is fine. But, instead of reporting posts that you feel misrepresent your view may I challenge you to engage in a debate over the views by seeking to understand and be understood before labeling and dismissing others as "heretics" or whatever other demeaning term you prefer.

See, back together now as I acknowledge they may have similar feelings. And then, I (like you) show that we all feel misrepresented at times but shouldn't report it, but instead seek to understand.

Now, what is so very inappropriate about that. See all the smilies? I'm happy...

 

[agedman]

Skan, Perhaps you may want to comment on whether or not Calvin's views are represented fairly. As I study Calvin's commentary on verses such as John 3:16 and other verses in Romans it is seems apparent that he did not believe in either unconditional election or in limited atonement. Is Calvin himself being represented fairly. Or is TULIP the invention of someone else? After all, Calvin didn't even write in English. So TULIP couldn't be an accurate portrayal of Calvin's beliefs. If one is going to be a "follower of the beliefs of Calvin" shouldn't he first know what the man believed?

Skandelon

As I have said many times I am not a Calvinist. I have never read anything that Calvin wrote other than perhaps a paragraph being quoted. I have read various explanations of TULIP but believe the concept of Irresistible Grace creates the wrong impression that God drags His Elect kicking and screaming to Salvation. That is the impression some Arminians on this Forum purport to have.

That being said I do believe in the Biblical Doctrine of Grace. This was not a belief that I had when God saved me. I have always believed, at least since I was of the age to understand such things, that Salvation is a supernatural act of GOD, not just intellectual assent to the historical facts of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But I also believed that I had a part in that Salvation, that I had to accept what God provided. Over the years as I studied the Bible I became convinced that salvation was all by Grace.

I think some do so pretty fairly, yes, but most don't which I have pointed out a few times.

I think Calvin (and Spurgeon) took a more biblical approach to doctrine. Meaning that what ever verse they were handling they attempted to remain true to the original intent of that text, not to some system of thought. This leads to quotes that seem to contradict each other. This is why Arminians quote Spurgeon almost as much as Calvinists do, and why many can make a strong case for Calvin's denial of Limited atonement. Some seem to out Calvin John Calvin in favor of a logical/philosophical system that I think would make Calvin cringe if he were alive today.

I would think this sort of thread would not only be enjoyable, but could actually work to bringing a tremendous amount of both agreement and understanding to everyone on the BB.

May I suggest this thread be closed and a new thread be opened to explore what DHK, Skandelon, Old Regular, and me have already seen as could be very helpful?

 

[DaChaser1]

Skan, Perhaps you may want to comment on whether or not Calvin's views are represented fairly. As I study Calvin's commentary on verses such as John 3:16 and other verses in Romans it is seems apparent that he did not believe in either unconditional election or in limited atonement. Is Calvin himself being represented fairly. Or is TULIP the invention of someone else? After all, Calvin didn't even write in English. So TULIP couldn't be an accurate portrayal of Calvin's beliefs. If one is going to be a "follower of the beliefs of Calvin" shouldn't he first know what the man believed?

isn't it more accurate to say that calvin believed that the atonement of Christ upon the Cross was Sufficient/enough to save ALL who would come to God to be saved, but that those who came to him were JUST the ones elecyed out beforehand by Him?

NOT limited in the sense unable to be the propiation for all , as sacrifice of Christ has infinite value, God himself died in our stead, its just that ONLY the elect come to Christ in order to avail themselves of it and get saved!

 

[DaChaser1]

A conversation that Skandelon and I are having behind the scenes.

I post it so all can read:



I did so on purpose for the very reasons you now argue with me about. Can you say with assurance that it would have been better for me had I posted names? Also, let's keep in mind that I was responding to an issue that was already brought up in a thread, were you (as I recall) said that there was no one on the board writing things like the things I actually posted. My point was that they were (and are).

First, Webdog was not among the cited ones. He did not have a dog in the fight. Where does he get the privelge to come after people the way he most often does. Can you say that he contributed to the thread or that he was your watchdog, barking away at me?

Second, I've already mentioned the topic -- which was NOT what I wrote, but which I responded to.

Third, I did respond to Winman, who though disavowing himself of Pelagian belief does not do so either accurately or completely. While he diasvows himself of the TERM he continues to support the doctrine that it represents. That is about as disingenuous as can be.



You are claiming moral equivalence with what I did. I called you on it in the thread and will call you on it here again.

I CITED persons PRECISELY as to what they ACTUALLY WROTE. You offered a few straw man fallacial claims about my belief structure without ACTUALLY CITING ME ONCE on any of the doctrines that you used to MISREPRESENT my actual position.

Scour the entire cite for my threads -- it is easy to do -- then come back and post the times when I WROTE what you said I wrote. I have not.

As for my doctrine, I am rather open about being "infralapsarian" and I do not hold to a "hyper" position. I have published that on numerous occaisions. I also hold to human moral free agency -- but that is not "libertarian free will" as often expressed by yourself and others.

I hold those positions because they are found in Scripture.

You cited a false doctrine -- hyper-Calvinism -- and attributed that to me, which is indeed slander. At least, if I did hold to what you believe I held, you would have to CITE ME to demonstrate the evidence that I do indeed hold what you said in that thread. But, of course, I do not hold that as true.



And, therein is where you made your error. I CITED ACTUAL POSTS by persons on this board where they ARGUED POSITIVELY FOR the doctrines they espoused.

You cited a supralapsarian position, and took that to the limits (the place known as an heretical doctrine called "hyper-Calvinism") WHICH IS NOT MY DOCTRINE.

Further, you did it to damage both my reputation and to attempt to win points with your followers on the board, Winman and Webdog being two (obviously by your defense of them now).



Your "joke" was no joke, and I espect that the board admins reminded you of that fact.

isn't all that stuff Skan brings up in order to divide the Cal bethren here, split us up into seperate camps really a "smoke screen/dodge?"

As despite our differences. pretty much agree that we are sinners whose fallen natures cannot come even to Christ to get saved unless/until Elects us unto life in His Son first?