Featured Typical Calvinists’ Methods of “Debate” and Elitism

Better to rack up an elitist attitude than stupidity.

 

This pretty much sums up you and your Calvinist buddies debate tactics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

 

I have to state that I can clearly see the malcontents trying to dislodge the elite with absolutely no success.

The very drama that the non-cals have assigned to those who are calvinistic thinking is shown by this tread to be far greater emphatically laid upon the side of the non-cals than the cals.

Their own posts show the lie to their view.

For example, one posts brings up total depravity as unsupported.

Folks, there is more actual Scriptures stating the absolute depraved condition of the heathen unrighteous than those that support the Arminian view of "prevenient grace." In truth, there is not a single scripture that even hints at this totally man made view, yet the non-cals cling to such thinking and disparage the truth.

What is more disappointing to me is that although the thread is filled with non-cal remarks that frankly are inappropriate, there is not (that I have seen) one brave non-cal who would stand up to their own group and in effect call them out on the uncharitable, ungodly, and downright ugly mean posts of that camp.

As all who are regular readers of the BB know, I have no problem confronting anyone if their posting contains unwarranted attacks - no matter the view they may espouse.

Am I really all alone in seeking to keep the BB a place for edification?

 

Calvin gets the verses correct most of the time.You ,Winman and Van, constantly wrest the scriptures.Attitude has nothing to do with it.
Why you do it is the real question.

 

Benjamin,

You come across as a smart-aleck and know-it-all. I'm sure in person you probably are not. But your comments, or the way you frame them, tend to inflame rather than inspire or edify me. I must admit that I also am guilty of the same.

I try NOT to comment on these threads because I get drawn into it and it's not a good use of my time.

I appreciate people like agedman and saturnneptune who can speak much more kindly than I am wont to when I get into these debates.

Be blessed.

 

Lets count the fallacies:

a) Is it ok for Calvinists to derail discussion of biblical topics because they claim non-Calvinists also attempt to derail discussions? No, two wrongs do not make a right.

b) What sample size is adequate to address the behavior of the Calvinists on this BB? None given. Thus the assertion the observation over years that almost all Calvinists resort to obfuscation rather than addressing scripture may indeed be sufficient to draw the conclusion. Here we have the obfuscation of saying the observation must be applied in all Calvinists, rather than those posting on this board. Invalid argument.

c) Anyone who reads several threads on this bulletin board would see the same names posting the same drivel over and over, i.e. you do not know what you are talking about, you are an idiot, you do not know your poo stinks, ad nauseum. Yeshua1 constantly posts the Calvinist party line but answers questions with questions and does not support with scripture his assertions. Others misrepresent non-Cals, i.e. you do not believe God is all powerful, shifting the discussion from Calvinism to the character and qualifications of opponents. You can set you watch by this behavior.

Argumentative is not the word to describe the behavior, obfuscation with malice describes the errant behavior. If I point out a flaw in Calvinism, you respond with "not all Calvinists belief that." Thus you turn the discussion from the flawed published doctrines, to the impenetrable views of nameless imaginary Calvinists. Obfuscation rather than addressing the doctrine.

 

So of all the Baptists that existed BEFORE the Reformation, and all of those AFTER the Reformation who disagreed with Calvin, God determined that the truth of salvation would be brought forth by a man who enjoyed, promoted, and encouraged murdering "heretics", sprinkled babies for salvation, rejected Revelation, and thought that the Holy Spirit was "spritually present" in the sacraments was the person to finally bring out the truth about salvation 1500 years later? That's really logical! NOT:BangHead:

Here's a verse that Calvinists IGNORE in its entirety. Pay very close attention, and then MEMORIZE and maybe it will help you!

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;" 2 Timothy 2:14

1. "CONTINUE in the things which thou hast learned" Where is the evidence that shows that any of the followers of John, Paul, whose writings are preserved in history, ever adhered to what is commonly called Calvinism? THERE IS NO LINK whatsoever from Polycarp or ANY of the early church writers that prove Calvinism, "Doctrines of Grace", "Sovereign Grace" showed up in the church BEFORE AUGUSTINE.

The early church must have been disobedient because had they CONTINUED IN THE THINGS THEY HAD LEARNED, and what they learned was Calvinism, THEN THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF IT BEFORE AUGUSTINE.

2. "Knowing of WHOM thou hast learned them". Paul was concerned about WHO believers got their information from. If John Calvin were alive in Paul's day, he would have made Paul's list of heretics along with Diotrophes, Alexander and Hymaneaus.

Calvinists spit in Paul's face and blatantly ignore Paul's admonition of avoiding those who cause offense to the doctrine of Christ (Rom 16:17). Is infant baptism an offense to the doctrine of Christ? ABSOLUTELY. Is consenting to the death of heretics an offense to the doctrine of Christ? ABSOLUTELY. So how is that Calvinism can separate what John Calvin believed and practiced and IGNORE what Paul said about 'KNOWING OF WHOM THOU HAST LEARNED"?

And what's the typical circular answer "Oh but Calvin didn't INVENT 'Calvinism'". OH HOGWASH. It's just coincidence that ALL FIVE elements of TULIP and the Confessions are virtually verbatim from his Institutes.

Nobody on here wants to be a Calvinist when John Calvin's heresies are brought to light, but yet they show up on every thread to defend the doctrines of a person they claim they don't follow. All who say, "I'm a DoG, not Calvinist" or whatever you wish to call yourselves, never fail to engage when someone refutes CALVINISM, and then when John Calvin himself gets brought, you pull out the disassociation card as a convenient cop-out for avoiding the truth about the origins of Calvinism.

DoG, SoG, etc..always quote Reformers and Creeds to prove that they are not REALLY Calvinists, when every Reformer they quote including the authors of the Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms, all ADMIT that John Calvin is the basis for their belief systems. Yet in Calvinist debate tactics, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, IT'S A RHINOCEROS.

 

No....its a ZIONIST!

 

Ben, add RACISM to the debate tactics.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2001527#post2001527

 

You TRULY don't honestly understand that the doctrine of "Prevenient Grace" and "Total Depravity" are completely consistent with one another do you? You ACTUALLY don't get that. You don't understand a fig about Arminian Theology (it's obvious) because they accept "Total Depravity". "Prevenient Grace" is their counter-point to the problem of "Total Depravity"....

"Prevenient Grace" stands in contra-distinction to "Irresistible Grace" not "Total Depravity".

You are getting your terms super confused.



You have NO IDEA what you are talking about......NONE.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ckoCBtXvU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWCv_BdZu8o

 

This is Calvinist debate tactic used to gain followers. The Calvinist argues for Total Depravity, and uses terms that most Christians agree with, then they make the leap from Depravity to Inability. Once they connect the 2, they accuse the opponent of disagreeing with depravity by attempting to bootstrap inability. The Calvinist conceals what they really mean by depravity until they find agreement with the issue of depravity that the opponent AGREES with, and then attempts to force them to choose their version of depravity by default.

The problem is not Total Depravity, the problem is with what Calvinism REALLY means by Total Depravity by bootstrapping "Absolute Depravity" and "Total Inability" to the definition.

Most of those who accuse Non Cals of being Arminian have never even read James Arminius. I have yet to meet an honest Calvinist that claims to have actually read Arminius, and not what Calvinists have said about him. Most Calvinists haven't even read JOHN CALVIN.

 

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!:thumbs::thumbs:
WE HAAAAAAAAAAAVE a WINNER FOLKS!

"Total Depravity" is obvious and accepted. Calvinists boot-strap them together. You are DEAD-ON :wavey::wavey:

 

After re-reading and considering the OP, my replies, and the replies of others, I am convinced that I should not have replied to this thread at all. I apologize for prolonging it.

 

Ooops there is that "P" word again.

 

Oh my!!!!

I suppose I should forgive your lack of reading comprehension skills.

I did NOT state that Total Depravity was the counter point of prevenient grace - I didn't even imply there as a connection!!!!!!

But you jump to conclusions, and other join in not realizing that the statement of your post is based upon false understanding.

If I was supposedly part of the grand non-cal group that seeks every turn to disparage another view, I would say such things as: This is so typical..., This is not a aberration but is a device used continually by...., This tactic is part and parcel of the whole ....," They have no debate skills and must rely upon ...."

And on and on the merry-goes round with the non-cal stink of this thread.

Prevenient grace is one of the pegs of Arminian theology. It is basically a human attempt to present man as capable of receiving salvation because God kindly instills this supposed grace that man just might believe. It is supposedly used by God to open the heart, prepare and enable one to accept salvation.

Perhaps that was missed by such grand schooling of the non-cal.

That YOU have attempted to refute my post with your statements of total depravity and prevenient grace as being "completely consistent" is unfortunate and a complete attempt to cover up the truth. In reality, the non-cals DO NOT agree with the total depravity of humankind which includes total incapacity.

Oh, they would suppose support in some quarters, but by the very evidence of threads on the BB, there is not one of the non-cal group that holds to total depravity as including total incapability.

In fact - a casual search of the archives would reveal overwhelming posts by the non-cal view holders which attempt not only refutation of total depravity but actually call such a point of "not believing the Bible" and heretical.

Of course, non- cal folks who boast of using no personal attacks still do not deal with the real issue - which is that there is absolutely NO Scriptural support for "prevenient grace" JUST as there is no Scriptural proof for considering God has multiple levels of sovereignty - will continue to use all manner demeaning and degrading remarks. The above quoted post is self evidential.

This thread continues to demonstrate that the very elements, in which the non-cal would seek to lay at the feet of the cal, has in effect completely covered the non-cal over with their own stink.

Not one has been brave to rebuke the temperament of the OP nor of the various continual supporting posts.

Hypocrites.

You dare to stand in judgment of others and care not for the stink of rotten character that emanates from your own camp.

 

James, I am extremely disappointed in you.

I really thought you had more character than you have shown on this thread.

That is truly sad.

 

I find myself in a place were continuing is incompatible with a dearly held principle.

I will no longer attend to this thread that has spent time in scorn and ridicule in some vain attempt to disparage and demean a view and offering nothing of serious Scriptural support.

I have implored for those who are supposedly Godly to step up and rebuke the excess of the non-cal posters, but apparently there are none.

So, I (like 12 strings) regret even attempting to point out the obvious sinfulness of this thread.

If there were actual discussion on issues, then it would not be reasonable for me to remove.

However, because no actual discussion is taking place, and no edification is to be seen, I will spend time on other threads.

I am just so very disappointed and saddened by those of the non-cal side.

I honestly thought better of you as individuals and as a group.

 

And yet you did EXACTLY what I said Calvinists do. RIGHT ON CUE.

This is what I said:

"The Calvinist argues for Total Depravity, and uses terms that most Christians agree with, then they make the leap from Depravity to Inability. Once they connect the 2, they accuse the opponent of disagreeing with depravity by attempting to bootstrap inability. The Calvinist conceals what they really mean by depravity until they find agreement with the issue of depravity that the opponent AGREES with, and then attempts to force them to choose their version of depravity by default. The problem is not Total Depravity, the problem is with what Calvinism REALLY means by Total Depravity by bootstrapping "Absolute Depravity" and "Total Inability" to the definition."

And here's what you said to Javert:

You Cals are so easy to predict, and the sad thing is you said it just a few paragraphs after I called it.

And what's laughable about your statements on prevenient grace is that Calvin and is idol, Augustine BOTH believed in prevenient grace, they just believed that it was irresistible. Perhaps you should learn your definitions, and who actually taught what first before you try debating those issues, maybe take a vacation and go to a libraryand rent a table, because you continue to make yourself look foolish every time you type.:tonofbricks: