Featured Typical Calvinists’ Methods of “Debate” and Elitism

Did I hit a nerve?

Good.

Perhaps, now you will go back and start again.

This time, rather than posting vitriol and unfounded supposition, start a meaningful dialogue on an area of Cal thinking that you disagree upon.

See what sort of thread can result from a true discussion built upon the desire to edify.

Perhaps you will see that some of us don't mind comparing Scriptures with Scriptures, and sharing dialogue over a disagreement while remaining agreeable.

Perhaps, you just want to remain at the back of the class, shooting spit wads at those who do engage in learning, because you are too immature to consider you might actually be wrong.

Ben, for all your froth over "determinism" you haven't given the slightest convincing consistent Scriptural proof it is wrong.

So, why don't you start with that very thought in a thread. Post how that God is benign and undetermined in his dealing with the very humankind that His only begotten Son so lovingly laid down His life to redeem.

Remember, unless you can prove that God is totally undetermined in the salvation of humankind - in all facets of that salvation - then it remains that "determinism" is NOT the problem you desire make it.

 

Was it not pointed out that your OP is pure speculation?

As others have pointed out - you have violated your own standard of debate tactics.

You further show your own weakness by attempting to distort the responses of others.

I am beginning to see a pattern with your posts and threads that is quite unsettling.

I honestly had you pegged as a much brighter wit, and one who could actually contend with soundness.

But, if you do not see the beam in your own eye, how dare you attempt to remove a splinter from some others eye!

 

Again..."Busted":thumbs:

 

Not quite ready to enter a Calvinist debate, but you and your posts are qutie obnoxious.

 

Reading through some of David Cloud's articles and found this statement:

"Thus, while I have not read every book on this subject that could be recommended by my readers, I have made a considerable effort to understand Calvinism properly and not to misrepresent it (though I have learned that a non-Calvinist will ALWAYS be charged with misrepresentation")". http://www.wayoflife.org/database/calvinismdebate.html

Seems to be a major them for all who encounter Calvinists.

Here's an example of Calvinist James White's sheer arrogance against one of his opponents:

"Your citation likens my work to that of Jack Chick and Dave Hunt. I have often criticized both Dave Hunt and Jack Chick for their errors and misrepresentations not only of Roman Catholicism but of Mormonism and other issues as well (Chick is a KJV Only advocate, and my 1995 work, The King James Only Controversy is the main target of KJVO advocates to this day). Even Roman Catholics recognize the fundamental difference in my approach and the level of scholarship represented in the nearly three dozen debates I have done with leading Roman Catholic apologists across the United States. Neither Dave Hunt nor Jack Chick have taught Greek, Greek Exegesis, Hebrew, Hebrew exegesis, Systematic Theology, Christology, Christian Philosophy of Religion, Development of Patristic Theology, or Apologetics on the seminary level for the past decade, either, and none work as critical consultants on major Bible translations. "

Translation:
Jack and Dave lived in a cave and learned their doctrine from the walls,
then along came White and made all wrongs right,
and boasted, "I taught SEMINARY in my overhauls".

Sorry James, but your ridiculous book on the KJVO issue is not the "main target" of KJVOs. McCrae, Bowman, Ross, Hodges, Sumner, Custer were all publishing anti KJV books and articles LONG before James White was a pimple on purple dragon's pituitary gland. White's works are a rehash of those authors.

And notice White's slight-of-hand here. He carefully notes that Hunt and Chick haven't taught at the seminary level FOR THE PAST DECADE. So since they haven't been in SEMINARY teaching in the last 10 years, that makes White smarter. Also, note the ridiculous comment that "[neither of them]work as critical consultants on major Bible translations". Why would they? They are both KJV advocates (although Hunt wasn't as staunch). DUH!!! LOL

And listen to Whites own credentials on Roman Catholicism: "Even Roman Catholics recognize the fundamental difference in my approach and the level of scholarship represented in the nearly three dozen debates I have done with leading Roman Catholic apologists across the United States." That has got to be one of the most arrogant statements I've ever heard. James White is full of more feces than a port-o-pottie at a carnival.

CLASSIC example of Calvinist 'elitism'.

 

Benjamin,

I voted that way because I honestly think that they are convinced that this is precisely what they do. I, as I assume you know, disagree with them on theological positions, I think that they are personally convinced, and do honestly pursue those poll position.

I think some of the DoG folks have a wrong attitude, position and fear and criticism of rational, logical thought and "philosophy while wishing to "contaminate" such by coloring them with the effects of "total inablility", while simultaneously forgetting that very same principle, if true, applies to their very own understanding and explanations of theology and all things metaphysical.

 

Thanks for the reply...I suppose my main objection to this thread is that one could easily start the opposite thread about questionable debate tactics of those opposing calvinism, find a few examples to show their point, and it would be equally as valid.

It's not really about percentages...It's the fact that its all based on anecdotal evidence...Cals say non-cals never address the issues and won't give straight answers and attack people...non-cals say cals do the same...I have seen a TON of both on here, and don't think one can make a determination about which group is the greater offender.

Also, I'm sorry I did not catch that your OP was directed only at Calvinists HERE...and as such, I'm sure the percentage of those who argue for arguments sake is higher than in the real world.

Finally, I'm not denying that there are Calvinists who are puffed up in their understanding, and who can and have caused great harm and division in their hard-headed promotion of the Calvinistic system, to the neglect of preaching the gospel and teaching God's entire counsel...but since we're speaking anecdotally here...I have also seen multiple situations in which those who oppose calvinism have treated otherwise good, godly men as if they were the object of a witch-hunt, creating much hurt and life-disrupting trouble.

 

Winman

Really.....If he got EVERYTHING backwards.....and you WINMAN have got everything right...how come there are not WINMANISTS....reading your posts rather than his commentaries????
Are you just an undiscovered National treasure????:thumbs:

When I was not yet a christian I could not tell the difference from real christians and cults...they seemed quite alike in many ways.
Understanding the truth of God sorts it out really fast however:thumbs::thumbs:

 

I put "Calvinists do not value the ability to reason from one’s own mind for the truth" because of their constant dancing around the origin of evil, their constant obfuscation and redefinition of free will, and their constant ultimate fall back position of appealing to the "mystery of God" when they can't logically explain their theology.

Any belief system that says, God determines people to be predestined, so they may come most freely (Article X, Westminster Confession) is not valuing the ability to reason.

If the choice "Calvinists’ goal is not to argue logically to draw out and demonstrate the truth in the Bible" were rephrased to say, "Calvinists' do not argue logically in their attempt to draw out and demonstrate the truth in the Bible" I could have checkmarked it as well. I don't think they set it as a goal for their arguments to be illogical, it just is what it is.

 

Right. We can't reason and you're all geniuses.

That must be why we have Al Mohler, Michael Horton, RC Sproul, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and you have Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and Rob Bell.

 

Once again Benjamin's assertion is being proven! Ha ha!

 

...and once again disproving your claim that we're the ones who can't reason.

 

Another example of elitist attitude. Appealing to the fallacy of success, i.e., John Calvin is better (elite) because he had more followers.

 

And yet another example of elitist attitude. You fellas are rackin em up.

 

Icon knows more about the Bible by accident than you do by deliberate study. Although I also disagree with Benjamin, I can respect his position, because he has a good grasp of the subject. You on the other hand do not have a theological clue. One example is taking Hebrews 6:4-6 to prove one can lose their salvation, or that once saved always saved is false, or that irresistible grace is false. That is your pattern, taking verse out of context and giving them false interpretations to match your lack of Biblical knowledge.