You want to talk about Denial? You are one (case in point) that constantly attempts to smokescreen the issues through proof-texting wars and also attempt to defend these fallacious debate tactics and using this agenda in debate.
Typical Calvinists’ Methods of “Debate” and Elitism
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Benjamin, Jun 24, 2013.
?
-
Calvinists’ goal is to argue logically to draw out and demonstrate the truth in the Bible
52.9% -
Calvinists value the ability to reason from one’s own mind for the truth
41.2% -
Calvinists’ goal is not to argue logically to draw out and demonstrate the truth in the Bible
17.6% -
Calvinist do not value the ability to reason from one’s own mind for the truth
35.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Page 3 of 6
-
-
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. -
You are like talking to a rock, and I don't expect to teach an old DoG like you any new tricks, but thank you for the demonstration as per the Op:
-
Quantum, you voted that:
“Calvinists’ goal is to argue logically to draw out and demonstrate the truth in the Bible”
…and also:
“Calvinist do not value the ability to reason from one’s own mind for the truth”
That’s very amicable of you:), but how do you suppose the Calvinists argue logically while not valuing the ability to reason from the their own mind??? They argue from having the perspective from God’s logic maybe? Have like some sort of special insight to understanding the interpretations of scripture through being gifted to know the Determinist’ Doctrinal system as truth???
I’m just guessing to how you see this, but am real curious in how you see the Calvinist reaching their goal to debate logically with such a mindset of not reasoning from one’s own mind to demonstrate understanding the scriptures? -
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! -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Again..."Busted":thumbs:
-
-
-
Again, here is a demonstration of a typical Calvinist’ response while attempting to go into the circular ole standby tactic of proof-texting to answer, or better said “evade” a logical conclusion.
Agedman:
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.Click to expand...
Originally posted by Benjamin:
Perhaps you don’t comprehend that I have no intention of lower my standards of debate and to begin an agenda with you of meaningless circular scriptural food-fights and argument while chasing the entire Determinist TULIP system down within this thread – I obviously can’t help you get the reasoning for this into your skull, but know this, your tantrums and whining have not changed my opinion of your misguided principles and unethical goals in debate (argument), nor will they.
All 5 points of the TULIP vitally hinge on strict Deterministic views in order to logically support them. Free will/volition and Determinism are logically mutually exclusive. If you believe there is no argument between the non-Cal view over the Determinist’ principles which support the TULIP other than over Irresistible grace you are in denial, delusional or have one heck of a lot to learn about my opposition to your position friend.
It is of no surprise to me that my typical opposition will get up in arms because they don’t want to be pinned down on a logical definition of the principles behind Calvinism/Determinism because of the logical conclusions of “Determinism” defeats the Calvinist’ view and brings it into theological fatalism. I hear you telling you’d rather just continue in never-ending poorly interpreted circular scriptural food-fights while making the typical claim that the Bible supports your Determinist views. So what, you wish to continue without using philosophically reasoned logical debate principles to back your claims up. Some, as demonstrated in this thread will simply “appeal to authorities” that their interpretations are correct. I see these methods of argument as virtually meaningless and unproductive towards the goals which I have learned to be ethical in a “philosophical debate” and see a huge difference between the two kinds of arguing.
Once again, by avoiding things such as definitions and logical conclusions you seem to think you’re onto some kind of great debate methods of never-ending proof-texting which you believe help you from ever losing an argument. Well, I emphasize with your desperation to not be pinned down on the definition of Determinism which would bring fatalistic conclusions to your treasured TULIPs and would rip out the roots from under them. But, like it or not, the philosophical methods designed to draw out a true or false conclusions pertaining to the claims and issues made have long exist and the basics of giving ethical reasons to believe a claim is true begins by defining premises, not by raising so many premises that you cloud (smokescreen) the claims beyond any comprehensible conclusions – you may consider that type of argument ethical and meaningful debate, but in good conscience and for ethical reasons I try to avoid getting into such arguments as they are unproductive on many fronts.
I’m sorry you’re so upset that I won’t bother to engage in argument as per your agenda to continually proof-text and jump topics, and that you feel I am trying to be superior somehow for wanting to maintain a standard of philosophical debate principles which I understand to draw out the truth in a debate.
That said, I will ask you to drop the focus on the personal issues you have against me and style of debate, I merely look at personal attacks as more fallacy (Ad Hominem) and if you knew my intensions better you’d find that although I’m admittedly aggressive in attacking the opposing view, and that may irritate you because it is your view, I do my best to keep out of the truly personal attacks and to stay focused on the topic at hand to try to maintain the aforementioned ethics of debate that I have come to learn to respect. It’s probably better if you don’t engage me if you can’t refrain from taking my attacks on your views as personal, because I am an aggressive debater and will continue to define premises, hold the opponent to their claims and insist on sticking to the topic in order to try to come to logical conclusions if one wants to debate my perspectives on a subject.Click to expand...
P.S. maybe the Calvinist EWF who has been demonstrating his typical techniques of debate would like to show us something more than childish trolling on this debate board and actually logically address the argument too, eh? ;) -
DrJamesAch said: ↑Even those not on this board who have written books about Calvinism say the same thing:
"To direct you away from the aspect of inability, the Calvinists imply that you are confusing inability with something they call 'absolute depravity'. This is due in part to the ploy of Calvinists when confronted with their true position. As we saw in chapter 1, the Calvinist has a peculiar habit of changing the subject or informing you what he doesn't believe when confronted with objections to his position." Laurence Vance, PhD (1999) The Other Side of Calvinism, pg 189.
When 2 or so people agree, it's a coincidence. When you have several people from different beliefs and locations that all see the same thing-it's a conspiracy! :)Click to expand...
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 said: ↑Quantum, you voted that:
“Calvinists’ goal is to argue logically to draw out and demonstrate the truth in the Bible”
…and also:
“Calvinist do not value the ability to reason from one’s own mind for the truth”
That’s very amicable of you:), but how do you suppose the Calvinists argue logically while not valuing the ability to reason from the their own mind??? They argue from having the perspective from God’s logic maybe? Have like some sort of special insight to understanding the interpretations of scripture through being gifted to know the Determinist’ Doctrinal system as truth???
I’m just guessing to how you see this, but am real curious in how you see the Calvinist reaching their goal to debate logically with such a mindset of not reasoning from one’s own mind to demonstrate understanding the scriptures?Click to expand...
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. -
Benjamin said: ↑Basically your entire argument centers on resorting to a fallacy called a “Reverse Ad Hominem” or sometimes referred to as the martyr syndrome or an “Argument from Sympathy”. I used the word typical and laid out well known very commonly recognized methods (typically) used by the Calvinist and I would disagree with you on that it is not most that resort to the very typical methods I laid out.
Try not to take it personal, that’s a fallacy, I don’t believe I have ever engaged you in a debate and you very well might not be included in these common methods but through my experiences with debating Calvinist both here, other boards and in person the vast majority resort to the aforementioned fallacious and unethical principles. We just had a thread on Hunt VS White where we see a prominent representative of the Calvinist position engaging in using unconscionable debate methods. We may disagree on the percentage and that would be rather hard to prove who is right wouldn’t it? Seems you also want to focus on rather we can prove percentages? As if I could do that in the "small sample" I presented...I’d call that a smokescreen.
That said, my main focus was on those defending the position on this board and the methods they are using “here” and I gave an example from on this board. You have attempted to turn the entire argument into a Reverse Ad Hominem and resorted to a smokescreen on that note.
BTW, you have made a rational objection, as most is not provable, but I made many valid points that are not washed away by raising the issue of rather it is most or not.
P.S.
I hope you feel better now. :smilewinkgrin:Click to expand...
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. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Winman
I can see what you see, and I see a bunch of folks deceived by false doctrine. Calvin was a smart man, but he did not understand the scriptures AT ALL. He got everything exactly backwards.Click to expand...
Are you just an undiscovered National treasure????:thumbs:
You guys are no different than Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons that have come to my door many times. Brainwashed.Click to expand...
Understanding the truth of God sorts it out really fast however:thumbs::thumbs: -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInTheLight said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJohnDeereFan said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInTheLight said: ↑Once again Benjamin's assertion is being proven! Ha ha!Click to expand...
-
Iconoclast said: ↑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:Click to expand... -
JohnDeereFan said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
DrJamesAch said: ↑Another example of elitist attitude. Appealing to the fallacy of success, i.e., John Calvin is better (elite) because he had more followers.Click to expand...
Page 3 of 6