Tuesday, August 04, 2009

The Calvinazis

“The problem I have with Triablogue is that not only anti-Calvinists like myself, but defenders of Orthodoxy, and Catholicism, and people who differ with them politically are treated in the same way.”

Actually, there’s no one way that we treat people. It depends on how the opponent acts. If he uses reasonable arguments to defend his position, he’s treated as a reasonable opponent. If he uses unreasonable arguments to defend his position, he’s treated as an unreasonable opponent.

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-noticed-agnostic-in-combox-who-said.html

“Even if Calvinism is true, isn't it at least possible that people who differ with them theological or politically are merely erring believers who still love Christ, as opposed to enemies of the Gospel.”

i) One of the problems with that ecumenical outlook is that it isn’t shared by Catholics and Orthodox. Trent classifies Protestants as enemies of the Gospel. Likewise, the Orthodox church takes a very dim view of Protestant theology, and frequently discriminates against Protestant missionaries.

Reppert is superimposing his broad churchmanship on churches which oppose his broad churchmanship.

ii) In addition, some political positions are hostile to the Gospel.

iii) One of the problems, not only with Reppert, but other critics, is a myopic focus on a subset of opponents. At one level, that’s understandable since Reppert himself has been in the crosshairs. Indeed, he’s frequently put himself in the crosshairs.

However, there are some rather obvious examples in which Triablogue is a good deal more tolerant that he and other critics suggest. Take four examples:

i) You don’t have to be a Calvinist to be a team member of Triablogue.

ii) Our blogroll includes many sites which are not run by Calvinists.

iii) I conducted and edited (with James Anderson) a series of interviews with various Evangelical scholars. A number of these scholars are not Calvinists.

iv) I recently responded to Craig Blomberg’s “Calminian” post. Yet I didn’t treat Blomberg as an enemy of the faith. And I often plug his books.

“I don't always maintain a proper tone myself, but my blog is known as a place where we try to provide open and fair discussion. People taking numerous positions will tell me they disagree with me but they enjoy the dialogue.”

On this very thread, here’s a sample of the tone of “open dialogue”:

At August 03, 2009 5:17 PM , Walter said...
“I must say that this ‘blustering Dawkinsian’ would much rather dialog with a Christian like Victor or Uncle e, than to try to hold a polite conversation with a Calvinazi that pours vitriol on anyone who does not accept his precious Augustinian theology…Maybe their bitterness is a reflection of their belief in a mafia boss God who only saves a few selct people through some divine lottery that we despicable humans are not privy to.”

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-noticed-agnostic-in-combox-who-said.html#c6463929689117319308

Now, perhaps Reppert would excuse this on the grounds that he’s trying to provide an open forum for dialogue. But in that case he’s prepared to lower the tone for freedom of expression, even if that degenerates into the sort of invective (“Calvinazi,” “mafia boss”) which he allegedly deplores. If so, he can’t have it both ways.

BTW, “Calvinazi” seems to be a popular epithet among some anti-Calvinists:

“Out of this theological camp have come ‘Calvinazis,’ (not a term original with me, but I'm not sure of the original source, so I dont' know who to credit. Whoever coined the term had a great sense of humor!) who make it their life's mission to transform any and every potential disciple into a TULIP-lover. Their legacy is seen in lethargic or non-existent evangelism, theological ‘hair-splitting,’ and churches torn asunder by needless doctrinal controversy.”

http://joelrainey.blogspot.com/2006/03/extremists-how-to-identify-them-and.html

“Dr. Vines' message screams for a response from denominational leaders who never hesitate to issue warnings to Southern Baptist Calvinists whom they label ‘Calvinazis’ and charge with being more willing to fly across the country to debate Calvinism than to cross the street to witness to a lost person.”

http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/10/vines-on-calvinism.html

I think we should keep “Calvinazi” in mind when some anti-Calvinists profess to deplore the tone of Reformed discourse.

In the same vein, let’s move on to a new post by an Arminian epologist:

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-arminian-fruit-tree.html

“Rebutting a person's statements is one thing; misrepresenting that person is quite another. My post was a meager and amateur attempt at exploring the reasons behind why many Calvinists, especially on the Internet, are mean-spirited individuals.”

In the first sentence he accuses me of misrepresenting his post. But in the second sentence he admits that his post was a “meager and “amateur” attempt to express himself.

It’s not entirely clear to me how I could misrepresent a meager and amateur attempt by my opponent to express himself. Isn’t Birch admitting that he expressed himself poorly? In that event, he can’t very well blame me for misrepresenting him if he failed to properly express himself.

“This fact is no secret. Even Calvinists have noted that what I am suggesting is true; so much so that John Piper himself was asked to comment on why he thinks this is the case. I also have Calvinist friends on campus at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary which agree with me: many Calvinists are, simply put, unChristlike in their demeanor.”

Even if we concede that allegation for the sake of argument, Arminian epologists are no exception. Indeed, Birch is no exception.

Dan, over at Arminian Chronicles, is the only Arminian epologist I’ve encountered who makes a good faith effort to be different. Other Arminian epologists employ all the same tactics that they are quick to fault in their opponents.

“I was merely quoting Piper.”

No, he wasn’t merely quoting Piper. Rather, he was building on Piper’s statement. Birch made that a presupposition of his own allegation. Yet, at the very same time, Birch took issue with Piper’s statement. So Birch is trying to have it both ways.

“Did I write that Piper stated as a universal truth that all Calvinists produce negative and mean-spirited attitudes? No, that is what Hays read into my words. Theologically, we call that eisegesis.”

To the contrary, when Birch talks about “types of people,” that’s a categorical statement. A set of individuals who belong to the same reference class.

“Having read Piper's own words, what, then, do we make of Steve Hays' allegations towards me? Have I, as he insisted, misrepresented Piper's position?”

Yet, Birch has misrepresented Piper’s statement–on two grounds. He disagrees with Piper’s characterization of Calvinists as intellectual types, yet continues to build on Piper’s statement as if he agrees with it. And he also uses it in a way that Piper would reject.

“However, he did allude earlier to something which, again, I did not explicitly state.”

Needless to say, you don’t have to explicitly state something to imply something. Drawing out the logical implications of a statement is a perfectly valid procedure.

It forces the opponent to either owe up to the implications of his statement or withdraw his statement.

“Even after admitting that mean-spirited Arminians exist, somehow I have alluded that all Calvinists are not saved.”

Let’s go back to Birch’s opening paragraph:

“At times, one must wonder why so many Calvinists are so very angry. The psychological affects of Calvinism are not so easily ascertained. According to John Piper, typically, certain types of people are prone to accepting Calvinism. ‘What types of people are these?’ you ask. These, according to Piper, are the intellectual types (quite a misnomer, given that there are many intellectual non-Calvinists); and these types of people produce negative and mean-spirited attitudes, some of whom, he admits, may not be born again (which I have stated previously as well). It is interesting: the gospel of Jesus Christ does not attract such types of people. I digress.”

Follow the logic. According to Birch, the types of people who are attracted to Calvinism stand in contrast to the types of people who are attracted to the Gospel.

“Let me be crystal clear, so that no one will be able to misunderstand my position. Any individual who has placed his or her faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and continues to trust in him has thus been born again and is saved. This includes Calvinists, Arminians, Pentecostals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Wesleyans, Church of Christ, non-denominational, the homeless, the churchless, the clotheless, etc.”

So why did he single out Calvinists in the first place? Either he’s speaking hypothetically (and counterfactually), in which case his inclusive language is deceptive–or else he isn’t differentiating between Calvinists and other Christians–in which case his opening paragraph is a gross overstatement. So which is it?

BTW, didn’t he previously say that Calvinism potentially attributes the work of Satan to God? Does this mean that Calvinists potentially commit the unpardonable sin?

“Does Calvinism preach the gospel? Yes, it most certainly does.”

Well, it’s nice to hear him say that. And how does that square with earlier statements like “I believe that Calvinists are in serious theological error. Their view of God is, in my opinion, deficient and dangerous. Not only does Calvinism retain the potential to fallaciously attribute the work of Satan to the divine, determinative will of God, making him the author of sin and evil…” and “Most versions of Calvinism where God's character is concerned are so reprehensible that it is likely to incite the baser parts of one's humanity”?

Moving along:

“Do not be fooled, friends. When I suggest that some (not all) Calvinists behave in an unbecoming manner, many of them (e.g. Triabloguers) take that as a compliment, because they are convinced that God acts in that manner as well. So, when I suggested, 'Like Father, like son. Ungodly Calvinists are merely imitating the concept of God that they have embraced,' Hays' response was, 'That's actually quite flattering, although it exaggerates our state of sanctification. Would that we were that far along!' That is a sad commentary.”

This is very choice coming from someone who accused me of misrepresenting his position. Did I agree with his pejorative characterization of Calvinism? No. I explicitly rejected his characterization.

What I agreed to rather, is that it’s a good thing if Calvinists emulate the character of the God they worship.

“I cannot and will not excuse either John or Charles Wesley for their invective against Calvinists. How could I?”

Notice that Birch is evading the issue. The question at issue is whether, by Birch’s standards, John and Charles Wesley were born-again Christians.

“I do wish, however, that Hays would have made the effort to quote from Arminius himself, since I am not a Wesleyan, nor do I often quote from the Wesley's. His search would have proven unfruitful, however. This blog was designed to offer readers primary writings of James Arminius.”

That’s another dodge. John and Charles Wesley are major representatives of Arminian theology. Indeed, I daresay they are far more influential in the propagation of Arminian theology than Arminius ever was.

So the question, once again, is whether Birch is prepare to measure John and Charles Wesley by the same yardstick he uses on Calvinists. Right now he’s ducking the issue.

Is he an Arminian chauvinist? Does he have one standard for his own kind and another standard for his Reformed opponents? Don’t Arminians believe in equal treatment for all? Surely Arminians like Birch aren’t respecters of persons, are they?

“If my grasp of Calvinism is so ‘woefully deficient,’ then one must chalk that up to the inadequate teachings of Calvin himself, not to mention A. W. Pink, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and John Murray, since it was from these men that I learned Calvinism.”

i) To begin with, that’s a non sequitur. It’s quite possible to incompetently read competent exponents of a given position. You can be a deficient reader of a proficient author.

ii) In addition, it’s striking to see how many popularizers are on his list. Notice whom he didn’t study: Bavinck, Beale, Carson, Cunningham, Frame, Helm, Nicole, Owen, Schreiner, Turretin, Vos, and Warfield–to name a few.

“And since God has allegedly decreed to unconditionally save some and unconditionally reprobate the rest, since ‘few’ will find the narrow way to heaven, and ‘many’ will follow the broad path to hell, according to Jesus, then my statement concerning Calvinism's teachings are correct.”

Ironically, this is a perfect example of Birch’s woefully deficient grasp of Reformed theology. A number of Reformed theologians take the position that the majority of mankind will be saved. They arrive at that position by combining a postmillennial eschatology with a belief in the salvation of those who die in infancy (which in times of high infant morality adds up).

Consider Warfield’s classic essay on the subject: “Are they few that be saved?”

As a man who plans to be a church historian, specializing in the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, Birch ought to know that.

“This is a blatant contradiction. Or perhaps an outright lie. Everything has been decreed. Everything. In what manner, then, can my assessment of Calvinism be inadequate? If everything has been strictly decreed, then that includes the salvation of a few and the damnation of the majority (few and many are percentages). Hays appears to be intentionally dishonest here. Perhaps he does not appreciate the implications of the system which he has embraced. If that is the case, we will gladly receive him into the Classical Arminian fold, as long as he leaves his jeremiad (angry harangue) at the door.”

This is a good example of why Birch is temperamentally unsuited to be a church historian. He lacks critical detachment.

i) To begin with, his allegation about the chosen few is demonstrable false. (See above.)

ii) In addition, did I take issue with the notion that, according to Calvinism, everything is decreed? No. My objection was far more specific.

You can’t be a decent church historian if, like Birch, you’re temperamentally unable to accurately represent positions you personally disagree with. A church historian must be able to present a variety of opposing viewpoints in the course of church history. That requires a faculty for critical detachment and even critical sympathy which is conspicuously absent in Birch’s case.

In fact, in the next paragraph, after accusing me of outright lying and intentional dishonesty, Birch then admits that “more than likely” my objection was more specific.

“While Hays reserves every right to dissect any one of my posts with the most careful scrutiny, including pointing out my errors and inconsistencies, what he does not have the right to do is misrepresent my intent, or place aberrant ideas into my words, as if what he has concluded is what I intended to convey.”

Of course, my only access point to Birch’s intent is through the meager and amateurish way in which, by his own admission or subsequent disclaimer, he chose to convey his intent.

“Moreover, if I objectively state something concerning Calvinism but it happens to be a negative aspect of the system, I am called a hypocrite using ‘uncharitable discourse’.”

Of course, what he does is to cloak his intemperate language under the tendentious guise of an “objective” description–as if there’s anything objective about his characterization.

And if he wants to use that out, then a Calvinist could use the very same out. I wasn’t uncharitable. No, I was objectively stating something that just so happens to be a negative aspect of the Arminian system.

“They take the invective they find from New Testament authors used against heretics and find license to use invective against other believers, completely ignoring the audience of the invective in Scripture.”

To the contrary, I’ve discussed the original audience on several different occasions.

“They then suggest that just because one calls him- or herself a Christian does not make it so…”

And Birch takes the identical position–repeatedly.

“When it is suggested that just because the Triabloguers call themselves Christians does not make it so, the person is called uncharitable.”

Really? Compare this depiction with the actual response:

“[Birch] It is curious whether or not they understand that calling themselves Christian should not immunize them from judgmental language where appropriate as well.”

[Hays] What evidence is there that we don’t understand that? He can quote anything we said to the contrary?

“[Birch] As a matter of fact, it should not at all be assumed that any of the five Calvinists who contribute to blogging on Triablogue are born again Christians ipso facto.”

[Hays] Once again, I never said otherwise.


Did I accuse Birch of being uncharitable in response to his statement? No. I accused him of failing to document his accusations. And notice that he has yet to do so.

“Hays, offering absolutely no commentary on my quoting Ephesians 4:29-30, quotes Acts 13:10 and 23:3 as proof-text for using invective against believers, completely ignoring context and audience. He then concludes: ‘So much for Birch's non-invective theory.’ I suppose that Acts 13:10 and 23:3 somehow trump Ephesians 4:29-30. Or is it that the audience and context are entirely different in Acts and Ephesians? The latter is the truth of the matter.”

i) To begin with, I didn’t comment on his prooftext because I don’t need to reinvent the wheel every time I address an opponent who raises stock objections that I’ve already dealt with in the past.

ii) In addition, Birch simply uses buzzwords like “audience” and “context” as a substitute for actually exegeting the passages in context, according to the original audience.

“I pointed out that not only does Calvinism retain the potential to fallaciously attribute the work of Satan to the divine, determinative will of God, but most versions of Calvinism where God's character is concerned are so reprehensible that it is likely to incite the baser parts of one's humanity, thus giving rise to ungodly attitudes among many Calvinists. Hays, playing the martyr, responds: ‘No doubt that's another example of charitable discourse, right?’”

Was I “playing the martyr?” No. I was holding Birch to his own standards. It betrays a lack of maturity on his part when he gets all bent out of shape just because I expect him to be morally consistent.

“And yet, such expressed opinions are also meant to protect undecided Christians. For there are many persons who are "on the fence," so to speak, concerning Calvinism. These undecided individuals deserve to know the truth about the implications of Calvinsitic theology, for they will certainly not be told of these things by Calvinists.”

Of course, that’s how John and Charles Wesley would defend their invective regarding the blasphemous and diabolical character of Reformed theology.

Since Birch, along with some other Arminian epologists, likes to frame his attack on Calvinism in terms of how we lack the fruits of the Spirit, it’s worth pointing out that their constant resort to double standards is, itself, spiritually symptomatic. One mark of sanctification is a capacity for self-criticism and spiritual self-examination. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. Their moral blindness.

Yes, except for Dan, the Arminian critics whom I’ve encountered are chronically hypocritical. Total chauvinism when it comes to one of their own.

Doesn't that reflect rather poorly on their state of sanctification? Their own spiritual harvest? Fruit inspection is a two-way street. Their produce dept. is pretty wormy and rotten, if you ask me.

33 comments:

  1. Indeed, the Arminian claim to avoid going personal would be a lot easier to swallow if they didn't consistently go personal every chance they get. Just look at how often Reppert references Triablogue, or how often (say) BSman personally attacks Steve, Paul, and me, and it's laughable that they suddenly find themselves abhoring ad hominem.

    In fact, their entire case against Calvinism these days is ad hominem. Rather than looking at Scripture, they attack Triablogue, as if attacking us personally is somehow a refutation of Calvinism. Indeed, they are engaged in the very definition of ad hominem every time they say, "No Christian would behave like Triabloggers do" instead of saying, "This exegesis is wrong because of this reason."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Funny that you say you see something different in Dan than the rest of us, yet you treat him in the same way, Hays. I don't know how many times you've called him a liar.

    If extrapolating things that aren't explicitly said is valid, as you state, then here's mine. I think with all this defense of the un-Ephesians 4-like behavior, you betray the conviction you are under. You know the Bible doesn't give you the authority to act this way, but you try to justify the behavior anyway. Consider this my Matthew 18:15 moment.

    I'm not excusing any bad behavior from our side, by the way. No tu quoques please.

    I know the two possibilities here

    1) You will castigate me and obfuscate the Bible some more.

    2) You will delete this message.

    Maybe I'll be surprised? God bless.
    -----------
    Peter,

    If there could be a reasonable dialog with you guys, you'd have far less criticism and more interaction with your arguments. Michael Patton is able to do it. Why can't you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the other hand, he didn't use the word "irenic" again. Maybe there's some hope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Mr. Hays for drawing my attention to the excellent article by Billy Birch and vindicating his analysis.

    Billy, you have a bright future ahead of you, and are already way out in front of your peers. Just beware that your first class work will draw lots of criticism from those who fear you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Summer school for Birch.

    I.e., Hays is schooling you Birch. Humbly acknowledge it and grow in both knowledge and wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BOSSMANHAM SAID:

    "Funny that you say you see something different in
    Dan than the rest of us, yet you treat him in the same way, Hays. I don't know how many times you've called him a liar."

    Funny that when Birch calls me a liar, you give him a pass. You're an Arminian respecter of persons. Is that the fruit of the Spirit?

    "If extrapolating things that aren't explicitly said is valid, as you state, then here's mine. I think with all this defense of the un-Ephesians 4-like behavior, you betray the conviction you are under. You know the Bible doesn't give you the authority to act this way, but you try to justify the behavior anyway. Consider this my Matthew 18:15 moment."

    And if Birch calls me a liar, is that "un-Ephesians 4-like behavior?" How do you apply Mt 18:15 to his behavior? Oh, that's right–you don't.

    Thanks for publicly proving yourself to be a blind partisan. In your case, like so many of your cohorts, the poison apple didn't fall very far from the Arminian apple tree.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another stirring example of the difference between the gracious, Spirit-filled discourse of the Arminian and the graceless, hateful invective of the Calvinist:

    ***********************************************************************

    Anonymous said...

    I think Calvinism is indeed a cancer. In some (the "nice" Calvinists) it is perhaps in stasis, but the cancer remains. It inevitably harms those who have it, though the harm may be subtle. Being "nice" in a false system that teaches error and slander's God's character is not a benefit to anyone.

    Why does Calvinism produce so many people like Hays? Another reason, I think, is that its dark determinism leaves little room for anything but trying to justify oneself before God by "fighting" for him. It's a perverse pride that produces this, undiscerned by the subject--sort of like an undiagnosed cancer, you see.

    http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-arminian-fruit-tree.html#comment-698568208542431895

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob Brewer said...

    "The fact that the triabloguers use "harsh" and judgmental language" when dealing with Arminians in particular and non-Clavinists in general reveals their underlying belief that Calvinism "IS" the gospel and that all other systems are heretical and thus their adherents are teachers of heresy."

    http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-arminian-fruit-tree.html#comment-1887082949113728107

    And when Birch uses harsh, judgmental language when dealing with Calvinists, does this reveal his underlying belief that Arminianism "IS" the gospel and that all other systems are heretical and thus their adherents are teachers of heresy?

    "My brother, I was appalled at Steve Hays insinuations that you would not make a good church historian. These personal attacks are reprehensable. I look forward to your posts and so let me encourage you to not grow weary in doing good for I am blessed by God's gifts faithfully used in your hands."

    If I engage in "personal attacks," that's "reprehensible–but if Birch engages in personal attacks, that's a faithful use of Birch's God-given abilities.

    Notice a pattern here? Notice how many Arminians only love their own kind? They jawbone about universal love, unlimited atonement, &c. but in practice they have one standard for the Arminian elect and another standard for the Reformed reprobate. They define the brethren as their fellow Arminians.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve said...

    "I see that a very long defense of bad behavior has been posted at Triablogue. What would happen if they took just half of the effort expended to defend and excuse incivility and used that amount of effort in the service of playing nicely with others? They might actually accomplish something."

    http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-noticed-agnostic-in-combox-who-said.html#c7043805158127407243

    i) Of course, it was Birch who initiated that exchange by his unprovoked attack on Calvinists in general and Triablogue in particular. Why no criticism for the amount of time he expended in his gratuitous assault?

    ii) In addition, I'm happy to compare the amount of time I ( as well as Peter Pike and Paul Manata) expend defending Christianity against liberals and Muslims and atheists and Catholics, &c., to the amount of time Birch expends on the single issue of Arminianism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another example the striking contrast between the kinder, gentler discourse of the saintly Arminian and the ad hominem rhetoric of the angry Calvinist:

    Johnny Dialectic said...
    What a great topic, Billy. I have given a lot of thought to the psychology of angry Calvinists, because the system seems to darken the hearts of so many of its adherents. Pride and anger become the marks of such followers, not love of the saints. If John 13:35 has any meaning, even salvation may be at issue. It is sad what the system does to people. We all know it dampens evangelism and chills churches. But how it twists the hearts of its proponents is heartbreaking in the extreme.

    Why the anger? It's part of their "works righteousness." Yes indeed, they are trying to "win the favor" a deterministic God, and do this in part by slashing anyone, even from the same camp, who dares to have a different theological idea. (Thus, e.g., the Triablogue atrocity). They want to go down as great "defenders of the faith"! That's not a bad impulse, unless it is based on untruth and pride. Then, as they get further darkened in this deception, they gradually lose the ability to detect the beam in their own eyes. The irony is that, in trying to please God this way, they drift further from him. (See, again, John 13 and how Jesus defines a true disciple).

    Another point is that Calvinism requires much mental acuity to play with the moving parts, to get them to some form of cohesion. Thus, it draws smart people, and they tend to take pride in their intellectual capacity. They are too smart for the simple gospel! They think their system must be valid just because it is challenging. When someone of a simpler cast tries to defend the basic, God given gospel, Calvinists smell "fresh meat" and have a chance to show off their brainpower. (One must acknowledge here, however, that there is a large ocean of bad non-Calvinist theology and flummery. No excuses there, either. Thank God for your work here, Billy, and that of the many great theologians and bloggers who are rising up to educate on the true character of God).

    A final point about the anger. Deep down in their hearts I believe Calvinists know their concept of God is not the God of the Bible. Yet they harden their hearts in order to save their system. The inner witness of the Holy Spirit informs them that their concept of God is anathema, but they learn to cut off all such thoughts. Is it any wonder that many become hard and unloving as a result?

    Some Calvinists reading these comments will, sad to say, react with more denial and anger (proving the points herein), and fall deeper into the gaping maw of their man-made construct.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Funny that when Birch calls me a liar, you give him a pass.

    So we're not going to call it lying when you do it? And you just tu quoqueed!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bossmanham / Brennon Hartshorn said:

    And you just tu quoqueed!!!

    But what's wrong with using tu quoque argumentation in certain situations? See philosopher and logician Peter Geach's book Reason and Argument.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BSMan said:
    ---
    And you just tu quoqueed!!!
    ---

    Sadly, hypocrites are the last to know they're hypocrites.

    Furthermore, you totally misunderstand what a tu quoque is. Given your lack of understanding of the word "irenic" this is not surprising.

    Tu quoque would be if you said: "Steve calls people liars" and Steve said: "So do you."

    But that's not what happened here. Rather, you said: "Steve calls people liars" and Steve said: "Why don't you mind that Birch calls people liars?" There's no "So do you" at all. All Steve did was point out that you have one standard for Arminians and another standard for Calvinists.

    Thus, you are a hypocrite. And your constant misuse of big words demonstrates you're an empty suit well on the way to becoming Mrs. Malaprop. I shall invest in popcorn.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Patrick,

    It's a logical fallacy. Just because someone else is guilty of a criticism they level at someone else doesn't mean the criticism becomes invalid.

    Peter,

    We Arminians (and others) made a criticism of the way triablogue relates to fellow Christians. You come back with, well you do it too, so your criticism is invalid! Steve citing that Billy has done the same is tantamount to saying, "so do you." That's a tu quoque. It's the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

    I see Billy's criticism of people lying as valid. There are times in Steve's criticism of Billy where he does read things into what Billy said and misrepresent it.Is that a lie? Is when MacArthur says that Arminians are Pelagians a lie? Is when Calvinists claim that Arminianism leads to liberal Christianity and Calvinism doesn't a lie?

    I'll point out your next fallacy, Peter. The ad hominem. It's almost like you can't help yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I'll point out your next fallacy, Peter. The ad hominem. It's almost like you can't help yourself."

    It's almost like you don't even know how ironic you are.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bossmanham said:

    It's a logical fallacy. Just because someone else is guilty of a criticism they level at someone else doesn't mean the criticism becomes invalid.

    Uh, thanks for restating the definition of a tu quoque argument! Again, please refer to Geach's book for a studied logician's case for why tu quoque arguments may not always be invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I see Billy's criticism of people lying as valid. There are times in Steve's criticism of Billy where he does read things into what Billy said and misrepresent it.

    Like what? Steve quotes Billy word for word and then compares Billy's responses to his criticisms with what he originally wrote.

    Is that a lie?

    You're accusing Steve of lying. Document the lies.

    Is when MacArthur says that Arminians are Pelagians a lie?

    No, some Arminians are Pelagians.

    Is when Calvinists claim that Arminianism leads to liberal Christianity and Calvinism doesn't a lie?

    Considering Arminianism's historical track record with respect to liberalism, no, it's not. The original Arminians became fast friends with non-trinitarians. The Free Will Baptists were consequently destroyed until the New Connexion. When Arminianism took hold in Geneva in the 18th century, it took all of one generation to plunge the academy and the city itself into full blown theological apostasy. Calvinism qua Calvinism doesn't turn into liberalism unless you start down the road of Neo-Orthodoxy, and the NO's have to leave elements of their Calvinism behind in order to do so.

    It's a logical fallacy. Just because someone else is guilty of a criticism they level at someone else doesn't mean the criticism becomes invalid.

    That's only true if Person B (the person engaging in tu quoque is attempting to deflect the criticism. However, if his intention is to demonstrate the double standards of the critic, it's not a fallacious tactic. You really should bone up on basic logical argumentation.


    We Arminians (and others) made a criticism of the way triablogue relates to fellow Christians. You come back with, well you do it too, so your criticism is invalid!


    Wrong:

    1. It's done to you to demonstrate your double standards. You criticize us while all the time engaging in the same thing yourselves.

    2. Worse, you do so on a particular moral standard...so you set yourselves on the moral highground to do it, yet you refuse to acknowledge fruit inspection cuts both ways.

    3. Worst, you cite verses of the Bible in support, but you don't exegete them.

    Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Okay, Gene.

    Does Piper say, as a universal truth, that Calvinists produce negative and mean-spirited attitudes? If that were Piper's actual position, would Piper still be a Calvinist? Clearly, Birch is misrepresenting Piper's position.

    But Billy never said this was a universal position among Calvinists. That word was added by Steve.

    Steve claims Billy says Calvinists are sub-Christian. Never happened.

    Finally, Calvinism does not take the position that God withholds mercy on some or many 'merely because he decreed it'

    Actually, that's exactly what Calvinists believe. They also think it glorifies God.

    No, some Arminians are Pelagians

    No, Pelagians are Pelagians and Arminians are Arminians.

    Calvinism to liberalism: PCUSA, Princeton, Crystal Cathedral, Friedrich Schleiermacher. The point is neither side is immune from defectors.

    it's done to you to demonstrate your double standards.

    Come on, Gene. Really.

    >You criticize us while all the time engaging in the same thing yourselves.

    While I won't claim perfection, I don't know if I've ever called any of you a "hypocrite" or if I've ever altered any of your names to abbreviated curse words. I do criticize your system of theology, as the Wesleys did, but I try to avoid the personal deprecation. I can't speak for others.

    Worse, you do so on a particular moral standard...so you set yourselves on the moral highground to do it, yet you refuse to acknowledge fruit inspection cuts both ways

    No. I have many good conversations with other Calvinists. I particularly enjoy Michael Patton's blog. Even though I disagree with his Calvinism, he is nice to people! When they engage him in conversation it does not turn into the playground shove fest that you see here. I mention your lack of civility because I expect more from Christians. Am I perfect? No. But I don't jump on people who come to my blog and converse with me. This is the only blog this has ever happened at in my experience. You have even had Calvinists come here and tell you the same thing!

    Worst, you cite verses of the Bible in support, but you don't exegete them

    Some Bible verses speak for themselves. But okay, let's look at Ephesians 4:

    1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called

    Paul the apostle wants the Ephesians (and us) to walk in the way we are called to walk by Jesus.

    2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace

    We should be humble. We should be patient with other Christians. We should love one another. You can flip over to 1 Corinthians 13 to see what Paul thinks about love for fellow Christians. We should strive to keep unity. That would include not misrepresenting people's theology. It also means not jumping down their throats in a reactionary manner all the time.

    4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

    Since we are all in the same body, it doesn't do us any good to be castigating one another.

    Paul further explains in the chapter that we are all given different gifts to perform different functions in the body of Christ. Now how can the body work if one hand is smacking the other hand and calling it a semi-pelagian heretic all the time?

    29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

    Is it edifying to call me a hypocrite? Is it edifying to be so confrontational? Can we not have a civil discussion about theology? It's been done before. Aren't you at all worried that you could grieve the Holy Spirit? Is it worth it just to win an argument?

    ReplyDelete
  19. BSMan said:
    ---
    but I try to avoid the personal deprecation
    ---

    That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Look, Mr. History-Began-47-Seconds-Ago. Here's how you opened your "dialogue" with me:

    ---
    And yet no cohesive point was made in this entire post. Wah wah waaaaah.
    ---

    Apparently your loving "Christian" spirit that you claim in these comments only comes into play after you've been schooled.

    I thought it hillarious that you were responding to a post that I clearly marked as "Satire" as if it were not satire in the first place. It told me wonders about your reading comprehension.

    In any case, one of my best friends happens to be a Wesleyan and after he read some of these posts, he clicked over to your website. He read this line:

    ---
    For some reason (certainly not me) my good friends at Triablogue have been calling us Arminians out for calling them out on being meanies.
    ---

    And said, as close as I can paraphrase, "Gee, that guy's not arrogant at all with his 'certainly not me' and his lie that he considers you guys 'good friends.'"

    He then asked, "And what's with this statement?"
    ---
    They have quoted several occasions where J & C used invective language against the system known as Calvinism.
    ---

    "'The system known as'? There's four unnecessary words, which seem to imply that Calvinism is sub-Christian."

    For the record, I told him that in my opinion you were like the college student who took one year of philosophy, learned how to say a few big words (but unfortunately didn't learn their meaning) and thinks he knows everything now. It was an assessment my Wesleyan friend seemed to agree with.

    Finally, it's is abundantly clear to everyone that it is pointless to try to dialogue with you. Not only have you previously offered such fine rebuttals as:

    ---
    Nope, actually it's not. So sorry.
    ---

    But even in these comments, you respond with such brilliant arguments as:

    ---
    Come on, Gene. Really.
    ---

    It would be one thing if that was the start of your response, but this is your entire response to whole chunks of Gene's argument. You utterly flippant disregard of rational discourse is why it's pointless to talk with you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. BOSSMANHAM SAID:

    “But Billy never said this was a universal position among Calvinists. That word was added by Steve.”

    I already addressed that objection. All you’re doing is to parrot Birch’s rejoinder, while ignoring my surrejoinder.

    That’s symptomatic of your partisanship.

    “Steve claims Billy says Calvinists are sub-Christian. Never happened.”

    What I said is that he implied it, and I gave a supporting argument for my contention.

    You present a threadbare denial in lieu of a counterargument. That’s symptomatic of your partisanship.

    “Actually, that's exactly what Calvinists believe.”

    That’s a deliberate falsehood. And once again it disregards my specific argument to the contrary.

    Calvinists do not believe that God withholds mercy “merely because he decreed it.”

    Your claim, parroting Birch’s, isn’t even coherent. The decree is not the reason that God withholds mercy. Rather, it’s because God has a reason to withhold mercy that he decrees that outcome.

    The decree is not the reason. Rather, the decree is the result of a reason.

    You, along with Birch, have things exactly backwards: God doesn’t withhold mercy because he decreed it: rather, he decreed it because he withholds mercy.

    You are not attempting to accurately represent the opposing position. Instead, you're just acting like a partisan.

    “They also think it glorifies God.”

    In which case God doesn’t withhold mercy because he decrees it.

    “But I try to avoid the personal deprecation. I can't speak for others.”

    But you are speaking for others. You’re speaking for Birch. And you’re defending his use of personal deprecation.

    That’s because you’re a partisan. Like so many Arminians, you pay lip-service to the adage that God is no respecter of persons, but when it comes to dealing with Calvinists you’re a respecter of persons. You will defend a fellow Arminian simply because he’s a fellow Arminian. So you don’t really believe in equal treatment for all.

    “I mention your lack of civility because I expect more from Christians.”

    You don’t expect more from your fellow Arminians. You’re criticisms are wholly one-sided.

    “That would include not misrepresenting people's theology.”

    Which both you and Birch have done.

    “It also means not jumping down their throats in a reactionary manner all the time.”

    But you don’t have a problem when Birch does it. That’s because he’s a fellow Arminian, and you only love your own kind.

    “Since we are all in the same body, it doesn't do us any good to be castigating one another.”

    Tell that to Birch. Tell that to Robert. Tell that to Thibodaux. But of course you don’t because you’re a team player. One yardstick for your team, another yardstick for ours.

    “Now how can the body work if one hand is smacking the other hand and calling it a semi-pelagian heretic all the time?”

    Now how can the body work if Arminians say Calvinists worship a Satanic God?

    But, of course, you’re mute on what your own side does. You observe a code of silence where your own comrades are concerned.

    You’re a respecter of persons, Brennon.

    “Is it edifying to be so confrontational? Can we not have a civil discussion about theology? It's been done before. Aren't you at all worried that you could grieve the Holy Spirit? Is it worth it just to win an argument?”

    But, of course, you don’t really believe that do you, Brennon? That only applies to Calvinists. Never to your Arminian compadres.

    BTW, if you were to extrapolate from Paul’s statements about the Judaizers in Galatians rather than his statements about in Ephesians, you’d come up with a very different paradigm of Christian discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  22. But Billy never said this was a universal position among Calvinists. That word was added by Steve.

    Steve claims Billy says Calvinists are sub-Christian. Never happened.


    Actually, it did happen, when Billy said that these persons are not attracted to the Gospel.

    Pity you can't follow an argument.

    Actually, that's exactly what Calvinists believe. They also think it glorifies God.

    No Calvinist, not even a hardcore Supra believes this. Rather, they are reprobated as sinners.


    No, Pelagians are Pelagians and Arminians are Arminians.


    Sure there are. Elmer Towns has specifically stated that the ability to believe/disbelieve comes as a matter of common - not universal prevenient - grace.

    Calvinism to liberalism: PCUSA, Princeton, Crystal Cathedral, Friedrich Schleiermacher. The point is neither side is immune from defectors.

    A list is not an argument. I also anticipated that argument, which you neatly ignored. To become NeoOrthodox, one must abandon one's Calvinism. This can't be said of Arminianism. There are plenty of Arminian apostates...John Loftus for example.


    Come on, Gene. Really.


    Yes, really. Every time you open your mouth, you engage in hyprocrisy. You entered this blog in attack mode from the very day you first had words with Manata and me. To say otherwise is to lie.

    I don't know if I've ever called any of you a "hypocrite" or if I've ever altered any of your names to abbreviated curse words. I do criticize your system of theology, as the Wesleys did, but I try to avoid the personal deprecation.

    When are agree with your fellow Arminians that you are what you worship and your fellow Arminians call our beliefs subChristian and Satantic, you do these very things.

    . Even though I disagree with his Calvinism, he is nice to people!

    Notice the lack of a biblical mandate to be "nice."

    But I don't jump on people who come to my blog and converse with me.

    No, you jump on them on their blogs.

    That would include not misrepresenting people's theology.

    Where have we misrepresented Arminianism? You, on the other hand, have, in this very thread, misrepresented Calvinism.


    “Since we are all in the same body, it doesn't do us any good to be castigating one another.


    But you don't believe this, because you're not on Birch's blog leveling this same criticism against your fellow Arminians. That's the point Steve is making...you have one standard for us and another for them. You either join in the fun over there or you stay silent.

    It also means not jumping down their throats in a reactionary manner all the time.

    You've confused application and exegesis. Try again. Some of Scriptures harshest words are reserved for members of the covenant community. You cite Ephesians and 1 Cor. without reference to the rest of Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Peter,

    I did admit I wasn't perfect. Saying you didn't make a coherent point in a post was just an observation. The waaah waah waaaaah was to inject a little humor. You have a sense of humor right? Aren't you good at satire? I will admit that it didn't contribute to an edifying discourse and apologize.

    And said, as close as I can paraphrase, "Gee, that guy's not arrogant at all with his 'certainly not me' and his lie that he considers you guys 'good friends.'"

    Peter, I thought you were the master of spotting satire? What happened?

    When did succinct statements become useless?

    You utterly flippant disregard of rational discourse is why it's pointless to talk with you.

    My utterly flippant disregard of rational discourse is reserved for people that don't allow rational discourse because they attack those who disagree with them right off the bat and then justify the behavior. Sound like anyone you know?

    Steve,

    I already addressed that objection. All you’re doing is to parrot Birch’s rejoinder, while ignoring my surrejoinder.

    As I've read in many of your debates, Steve, your reply was lacking. Billy has stated before he doesn't think all Calvinists are like that. He has Calvinist friends. I think he's talking mainly about people like you guys.

    What I said is that he implied it, and I gave a supporting argument for my contention.

    He didn't imply it. In fact he has stated the exact opposite.

    You present a threadbare denial in lieu of a counterargument. That’s symptomatic of your partisanship.

    Irony. I get it.

    You, along with Birch, have things exactly backwards: God doesn’t withhold mercy because he decreed it: rather, he decreed it because he withholds mercy.

    Okay....

    That’s because you’re a partisan. Like so many Arminians, you pay lip-service to the adage that God is no respecter of persons, but when it comes to dealing with Calvinists you’re a respecter of persons. You will defend a fellow Arminian simply because he’s a fellow Arminian. So you don’t really believe in equal treatment for all.

    You're assuming quite a bit. I read both sides and decided that you had misrepresented what Billy had said in those instances. I am blogging, however, to advance Arminian theology and reduce the impact of the Calvinist resurgence in any way I can, so I really am not hiding any secret allegiances.

    When did you start worrying about partisanship?

    Tell that to Birch. Tell that to Robert. Tell that to Thibodaux. But of course you don’t because you’re a team player. One yardstick for your team, another yardstick for ours

    Okay. So can you tell Peter? Then maybe we can all have edifying discussions. Maybe we should all work on this?

    BTW, if you were to extrapolate from Paul’s statements about the Judaizers in Galatians rather than his statements about in Ephesians, you’d come up with a very different paradigm of Christian discourse.

    So Paul is contradicting himself?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gene,

    No Calvinist, not even a hardcore Supra believes this. Rather, they are reprobated as sinners.

    You better tell that to some of the Calvinists I have spoken with who are very adamant that God's reprobation brings Him glory.

    Elmer Towns has specifically stated that the ability to believe/disbelieve comes as a matter of common - not universal prevenient - grace.

    I can't really comment because I'm unfamiliar with Mr. Towns work. I know Arminius was very clear on the depravity of man and the need for prevenient grace, as was Wesley. Those are the two I look to for Arminian theology.

    There are plenty of Arminian apostates...John Loftus for example

    Sure there are. As I said, neither side is immune to defectors.

    When are agree with your fellow Arminians that you are what you worship and your fellow Arminians call our beliefs subChristian and Satantic, you do these very things.

    I'm not too sure that follows logically.

    But you don't believe this, because you're not on Birch's blog leveling this same criticism against your fellow Arminians.

    I don't see Birch attacking people and name calling on a daily basis. I see him attacking a system of theology.

    You cite Ephesians and 1 Cor. without reference to the rest of Scripture.

    So Paul wants us to jump down each other's throats more often that having edifying and loving dialog?

    ReplyDelete
  25. You better tell that to some of the Calvinists I have spoken with who are very adamant that God's reprobation brings Him glory.

    God reprobating solely on the basis of a decree (your original contention) and reprobation for His glory are not convertible. Calvinists of all stripes agree that reprobation glorifies God. However, as Steve pointed you, you misrepresented Calvinism here.

    On the one hand, you say we misrepresent Arminianism, and on the other, you deliberately misrepresented Calvinism. Double - standard.

    I can't really comment because I'm unfamiliar with Mr. Towns work. I know Arminius was very clear on the depravity of man and the need for prevenient grace, as was Wesley. Those are the two I look to for Arminian theology.

    Yes, you are unfamiliar with a great many representatives of your side of the aisle, which rather makes my point for me..there are, in fact, some Arminians who are Pelagian, Towns being a fine example.


    My utterly flippant disregard of rational discourse is reserved for people that don't allow rational discourse because they attack those who disagree with them right off the bat and then justify the behavior. Sound like anyone you know?


    One thinks BSmanham should acquaint himself with the psychological phenomenon known as transference.

    He needs to get with his fellow Arminians like JC Thib. on this too...but when asked, he grows strangely silent.

    Sure there are. As I said, neither side is immune to defectors.

    Problem is Loftus remains an Arminian. The groups you named left Calvinism. I went over that already, but, perhaps in your theolgoical naivete you don't know the difference between Calvinism and NeoOrthodoxy....Further, Arminianism leads to universalism, Socinianism, and Neo-Socinianism. It's history is littered with such examples from its inception, beginning with none other than Episcopius. That's what Calvinists who say Arminianism leads to liberalism are saying...Calvinism qua Calvinism is a conserving force, whereas Arminianism is not. Indeed, NeoOrthodoxy isn't classically liberal, rather it was a conserving force among the Liberals, so even we include the Neoorthodox, the point remains, Calvinism is a conserving force...Arminianism is liberalizing. History demonstrates this.


    I'm not too sure that follows logically.
    Sure it does, the same way that Jesus told the religious leaders that by boasting of the way they had built the tombs of the prophets they agreed with their forefathers' murder of them.


    I don't see Birch attacking people and name calling on a daily basis. I see him attacking a system of theology.


    1. Many of the instances to which you might point occurred after we gave those persons a chance at rational dialog. You, like so many, come into the fray in the middle of an ongoing discussion.

    2. Indeed, some of them involved them coming out swinging at us first.

    3. And many MANY of the people in these comboxes here come here complaining about the level of discourse but are themselves the ones who lowered it to begin with.

    So Paul wants us to jump down each other's throats more often that having edifying and loving dialog?

    My first interaction with Birch on this blog took all of a handful of posts before he got rather arrogant. In fact, he entered the combox aping his opponents. Why do you continue to give him a pass for his behavior and not us?

    Does that follow from anything I wrote? No, rather I wrote essentially that Sola Scriptura is Tota Scriptura. Try to follow along. In fact, to help you, I'll make my point even more clearly: you are operating with a lopsided view of what constitutes Christian discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "When you agree with your fellow Arminians that you are what you worship and your fellow Arminians call our beliefs subChristian and Satantic, you do these very things."

    I guess that in Arminian doublespeak, to be Satanic is not to be sub-Christian! :-) You can be a practicing Christian and a practicing Satanist all at once! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. I originally said:
    ---
    And said, as close as I can paraphrase, "Gee, that guy's not arrogant at all with his 'certainly not me' and his lie that he considers you guys 'good friends.'"
    ---

    BSMan responds:
    ---
    Peter, I thought you were the master of spotting satire? What happened?
    ---

    Almost all of the errors that BSman habitually commits are seen right here in this very response.

    A) Notice he doesn't deal with what was said. That's typical of BSman. Offer brief, pointless, and irrelevant utterances and pretend you've answered someone.

    B) I quoted my friend. What does this have to do with me? If my friend says, "Gee, that guy's not arrogant at all with his 'certainly not me' and his lie that he considers you guys 'good friends'" how does that warrant a "I thought you were the master of spotting satire" response to me? Shouldn't BSman be wondering why his sentence went over so poorly with a Wesleyan?

    Once again we see BSMan cannot even follow a simple conversation. And he even pasted what he didn't read in before ignoring it in his response!

    C) BSman is also ignorant of the difference between sarcasm and satire. So, to answer his pedantic question: Yes, I can spot satire, and your statement isn't satire. It contained a couple of sarcastic elements, nothing more.

    Again, BSMan proves that he is woefully inept at understanding the terms that he likes to banter about.

    We also see from the rest of his response that BSman considers "waaah waah waaaaah" to be an expression of humor. I suppose maybe Mr. Hutton's 3rd grade class is laughing themselves silly over it.

    Finally, BSman says:
    ---
    I did admit I wasn't perfect.
    ---

    As if anyone was in doubt of this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Shouldn't BSman be wondering why his sentence went over so poorly with a Wesleyan?

    I'm wondering why you didn't explain to your friend that I was being satirical. And are you saying that my satirical (or sarcastic if that makes you happier; fyi satire can contain sarcasm) statement should affect your Wesleyan friend who doesn't know me and read one post on my blog different than someone else?

    You're a pretty funny person, Peter. The irony in everything you write cracks me up.

    Do you want me to write doctoral dissertations in response to all of your bloviating? I still don't understand what's wrong with pithy responses. Did someone make you the anti-pithy response police?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh and Peter, here's a Thesaurus.com entry for you:

    Main Entry: satire
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: ridicule intended to expose truth
    Synonyms: banter, burlesque, caricature, causticity, chaffing, irony, lampoon, lampoonery, mockery, parody, pasquinade, persiflage, play-on, put-on, raillery, sarcasm, send-up, skit, spoof, squib, takeoff, travesty, wit, witticism

    ReplyDelete
  30. You probably use Strong's Concordance in the same way. Go read "A Modest Proposal" by Swift, or maybe some Mark Twain. Then compare what you wrote to it (not that I actually think you'd be able to that level of self-examination--so maybe you should ask an English professor if a piece that contains a single opening sentence with two sarcastic elements can be considered satire, or if it's just a sarcastic aside; then lock yourself in your room and despair, or whatever it is you do).

    Secondly, you can call your writing "pithy" if you want, but the rest of us still know you just type with a lisp.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, Peter. Your maturity does outshine the rest of the class. Now pull out your Webster's dictionary and look up the definition of "synonym."

    I think that method you just used was the rectangle in the middle row stemming from the "is he taking you to the cleaners?" box.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As Stephen Colbert once said: "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it." You are incapable of correction. I again ask you to submit your post to ANY English prof and see if they agree it's satire. But I know you're not going to do so.

    I suppose it shows yet again the Arminian fetish with "but the dictionary says" arguments.

    ReplyDelete