Circling the wagons

Victor Reppert and the militant Arminians are busy circling their wagons:

steve said...
Why should we even bother given your past performance and statements?

i) When you cite prooftexts for your position, and I cite non-Calvinists who offer interpretations consistent with Calvinism, you respond in silence.

ii) You've also said that if you were convinced that Reformed exegesis is sound, then that would be a reason to reject the inerrancy of Scripture.

iii) In addition, you've set the bar arbitrarily high for Reformed exegesis and arbitrarily low for opposing exegesis. You've said that any merely possible interpretation is always preferable to a Reformed interpretation.

When you've rigged the game in so many ways, why should we play your game? You cheat. You used marked cards.

Sure, we could spend a lot of time on Hamilton. Suppose we showed that his exegesis is implausible.

Would you become a Calvinist? Clearly not. By your own admission, you have too many layers of resistance.

So why do you even go through the motions of invoking Scripture? You admit that you're not bound by Scripture if it conflicts with your intuitions. So why the charade?


steve said...
Victor Reppert said...

"I said Lincoln's analysis of John 3:16 didn't entail that it was not also saying that loves all persons alienated from God."

You denied it, but you didn't offer a counterargument, as I recall.

If your going to use Jn 3:16 to disprove Calvinism, then the question is not whether this verse is consistent with Arminianism (open theism, universalism), but whether it's inconsistent with Calvinism.

I asked you to show how Lincoln's interpretation is at odds with Calvinism. I don't see where you've done that.

I've also pointed out that the way you construe kosmos would make nonsense of 1 Jn 2:15. Once again, I don't recall any response at your end.


steve said...
Victor Reppert said...

"Why assume that the same Greek word has exactly the same meaning in all context. It's not that way in English. What makes Greek different?"

In that case you have to individually show what it means in each separate Johannine occurrence. I await your documentation.


steve said...
Robert said...
“I really don’t like racial prejudices and other prejudices that come from hateful hearts”

Of course, this is symptomatic of Robert’s self-righteousness. Christians of genuine sanctity don’t strut and fluff their feathers in this ostentatious way. Is there something about Arminian theology that fosters all this moral preening?

“And they have certain common features, such as the racist decides beforehand, completely apart from what the person does or what kind of a person they are, that an entire class of human persons is worth being hated and mocked and destroyed.”

Of course, in Calvinism, God damns sinners. But Robert can’t tell the difference between sin and skin. And somebody who can’t tell the difference between sin and skin is, by definition, a racist.

“And for the racist if someone is from that class of hated non-persons, then anything evil done to them is justified.”

Notice that Robert equates retributive justice with evil–nicely illustrating his morally inverted scale of values.

“He decides beforehand that certain individuals will be part of the class of reprobates. He then hates everyone in this class regardless of what they do or what kind of person they are.”

A bald-faced lie. The rebrobate are sinners. That’s the kind of person they are.

When someone lies as often as Robert does, you begin to question his spiritual paternity. Like father/like son.

“He just hates them because they are reprobates.”

No, because they’re hateful sinners deserving God’s wrath.

“(And he decided they would be in the reprobate class, the class of those ‘automatically damned’).”

Just like the OT had automatic penalties for capital crimes.

“And the calvinists just can’t understand why non-Calvinists find their system to be so morally objectionable.”

Oh, it’s easy to understand why someone like Robert finds Calvinism so morally objectionable. He loves his own kind.

“That is like the Grand Dragon or Imperial Wizard not understanding why non-racists find their beliefs and practices to be morally objectionable. The parallels between racists like the KKK and the Nazis and the God of calvinism who reprobates most of the human race for his pleasure are chilling.”

This is from a man who pats himself on the back for his Christian civility. But, with Robert, it doesn’t take long for the mask to come off.

“Actually it is because we believe that scripture has authority that we accept scripture and reject the Calvinistic system.”

“We”? That’s not how Reppert framed the issue. He asked how we should respond if the “best reading of Scripture” yielded a certain consequence. And he used that as a reason to reject what, by his own hypothetical, is the “best reading of Scripture.” That’s hardly deferring to Scripture.

And it’s not as if Robert cares about the authority of Scripture. Why didn’t he take issue with Reppert’s subversive way of framing the issue, which contains an implicit challenge to the authority of Scripture?

But, no. That would go against Robert’s priorities. The Bible is fishwrap to Robert compared with what is really important to him: attacking Calvinism.

“And calvinists reject the plain and clear teachings of scripture because of their false man invented system of theology. You really can’t be any more plain and clear than when God says ‘For God so loved the world that . . .’ We take it to mean what it was intended to mean. Necessatarians on the other hand have to **reinterpret** texts like John 3:16 to fit their a priori system, so they lose their plain and clear intended meanings.”

Of course, in responding to Reppert’s appeal to Jn 3:16, I didn’t quote a “Calvinist” interpretation. I quoted a non-Calvinist. So Robert’s statement is either willfully ignorant or willfully false.

“And my intuition that racism is wrong does not conflict with scripture but is supported by scripture. And your system of theology which makes God into the worst racist in existence is contrary to both my intuition and the scripture. So both our intuitions and scripture are against the racist Calvinistic theology. The theology that makes God a racist against the reprobates. With the non-reprobates then wearing the white sheets and justifying and rationalizing their hatred. And like the KKK the calvinists have the gall to use scripture to justify and rationalize their hatred.”

Another example of Robert’s Arminian civility in action. His charity knows no bounds.

“The dirty little secret Hays keeps putting under the rug or hiding in the closet is that if all events are predetermined by God (as Hays wishes were true) then God predecides every choice that we will make.”

I’ve never tried to “hide” that connection. Robert sounds increasingly like a tinfoil conspiracy theorist.

“And so every time we sin we are only doing what God predecided in eternity that we would do and then ensures that we do in time by controlling us and forcing us to do the sins that he predecided that we would do.”

Robert needs to explain where “force” comes into play.

And, according to Arminianism, God “predecided” what we would do by creating the world in which we will do it. Once he does that, there’s no turning back.

“God makes all of the choices; we just carry out the orders as he controls us and forces us to do what we do like the good sock puppets that we are.”

I agree that Robert is a sockpuppet, although the choice of adjectives (“good”) is certainly debatable.

“And being forced to do things, is not coercion against our will, rather, it is being forced to do things because he directly and completely and continuously controls our wills.”

Another falsehood. In Calvinism, God doesn’t control everything “directly.”

“Oh and Steve if anything I say here upsets you or frustrates you, (assuming your system to be true), then I am only following orders, only doing what I was controlled to do. I couldn’t help myself, it was impossible for me to do otherwise. So if you have a problem with anything I say then take it up with your puppet master version of God.”

To the contrary, it’s not my problem when folks like Robert store up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath. They’re fulfilling an eschatological prediction. That’s a problem for them, not for me.


steve said...
drwayman said...

"Robert - it appears that you are being cast as a non-Christian."

But if Robert is casting Calvinists as Nazis and Klansmen, that doesn't bother Wayman. That's because Wayman is an Arminian respecter of persons. An Arminan chauvinist. He only loves his own kind. Thanks for showing Arminian ethics in action.


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

"When exactly did you become God? Can you justify a person? Can you regenerate a soul? Can you persevere a believer? When did you become the Judge of all the earth?"

When Robert compares Calvinists to Nazis and Klansmen, you don't think that's judgmental language? Do you think Hitler went to heaven when he died?

But, of course, Robert one of your own, so you give him a pass. You're just another Arminian respecter of persons. You love your own kind. Make excuses for your own team. You preach universal love and equal treatment for all, but in practice you play favorites. A sectarian chauvinist.


steve said...
drwayman said...

"Steve - It's too bad that you see me as so narrow as to only love Arminians. I love you too."

Robert compares Calvinists to Nazis and Klansmen. Is that your idea of loving discourse?

If a Calvinist compared Arminians to Nazis and Klansmen, would you regard that as loving discourse?

But you pass over his comparisons in silence. So you play favorites. You're just another Arminian chauvinist.


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

"Yeah, you just say that he is storing up wrath for himself against the Day of God's judgment. That's so much nicer!"

Once again, you're ducking the question of whether or not you think Robert's language is judgmental. Shifting the blame is just a dodge.

But since Robert is one of your own, he's above criticism. You only love your own kind.


steve said...
drwayman said...

"Steve - I give you a pass. I love you."

Your lips say one thing but your feet say another. Try to bring your lips and feet into a state of mutual alignment.


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

"Have you ever prayed for me, Steve? Do you pray to the Lord that he will open our eyes? Do you have any pity on us, that we are caught up in this false doctrine?"

Since I don't regard Arminianism as a damnable error, I'd have no occasion to pray for an Arminian on that account. There might be other occasions, but that's not one of them.

And, at the risk of stating the obvious, I either know or know about far more people than I have time to pray about, so I prioritize.


steve said...
J.C. Thibodaux said...

"You haven't answered his question Steve: what do you mean by 'respecter of persons?'"

I've already that question two months ago:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/08/double-dealing-arminians.html


steve said...
J.C. Thibodaux said...

“Irony #1, someone who teaches that God condemns people on an unconditional basis but saves others on an equally unconditional basis is so quick to accuse people of 'respect of persons.'”

No irony here, since I’m not faulting Robert, or his Arminian defenders, by my own standards. Rather, I’m faulting him and his Arminian defenders by Arminian standards. You’re the guys whose theological ethic commits you to equal treatment for all.

“Irony #2, a person who baselessly implies that Christians are reprobates and thinks that maliciously slandering and bearing false witness against them is justifiable, suddenly starts whining that the other side's supposed to be 'civil' when comparisons between his beliefs and a racist belief system are drawn.”

Aside from your tendentious mischaracterization, which is, itself, slanderous, bearing false witness, &c., I’m not faulting Robert by my own standards. Rather, I’m faulting Robert by his own standards. He’s the one who makes pretentious claims about Christian civility, while he then proceeds to flagrantly violate his own code of conduct where the Calvinist is concerned.

Next time you go hunting for ironies, try to master what it means to answer an opponent on his own grounds. It would behoove you not to be so trigger-happy, for you end up shooting yourself in the foot.

But, of course, you’re a partisan, so you react like a partisan-thereby corroborating my allegation. Thanks for the supporting evidence.

September 21, 2009 4:12 PM


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

“Where are Robert's words? I haven't read them in this thread.”

I see. So you rush to Robert’s defense before you even read the statements of his that I was responding to. That knee-jerk reaction is the very definition of a blind partisan.

“Yeah, you just say that he is storing up wrath for himself against the Day of God's judgment. That's so much nicer!”

Let’s evaluate Robert by Birch’s own criteria, shall we? As a recall, Birch has said, on more than one occasion, that Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God. And since he obviously thinks that Arminians worship the true God, then, by parity of argument, he must believe that Calvinists also worship the true God.

Enter Robert: Robert compares the God of Calvinism to Nazis and Klansmen.

By Birch’s own logic, this means that Robert is comparing the true God to Nazis and Klansmen.

Wouldn’t that qualify as blasphemy? And what is the presumptive spiritual status of blasphemers? You tell me.


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

"And I noticed that the ONE thing you refused to comment on in my thread was my sincere prayer for you, Hays, and your family."

Well, Billy, the problem is that you mentioned two different prayers:

"Perhaps something happened to you or a family member. Immediately I began praying for you and your family, that God would protect you physically, mentally and emotionally."

"I have, however, prayed that God would open your hearts to treat others better."

The first prayer is a nice Christian prayer, and I have no reason to question your sincerity.

However, the second prayer is really a reproof cloaked in prayer. The mention of the second prayer spoils the effect of the first.


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

"Well, Steve, shall you not partake of your own medicine? Robert was merely taking an idea and showing a similarity. They only have to be similar to one another in some important respect."

Which begs the question of whether his Nazi/KKK comparisons are specious or logically sound. Are you now agreeing with him?

Unless you have suddenly retracted your oft-stated position regarding Arminians and Calvinists worshipping the same (true) God, how could comparing the true God with Nazis and Klansmen be a valid comparison?


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

“And how could comparing the fatalistic and dualistic notions of Manichaeanism be a valid comparison of Arminius's Arminianism?”

For specific reasons I gave–which you’ve done nothing to rebut.

“(Don't think that I and everyone else watching hasn't noticed your avoidance in answering Dale's simple question, cf. 1 John 5:1-2.)”

Since Dale doesn’t act lovingly towards Calvinists, I take it that you don’t think Dale is born again–a la 1 Jn 5:1-2. Was that your point?

“Nazis and Klansmen prefer to favor a respective race. God unconditionally prefers to favor certain people.”

Racists (e.g. Nazis, Klansmen) don’t favor one race over another unconditionally. Rather, their racism is predicated on a theory of racial superiority. To be favored, you must meet a condition of racial purity and racial superiority.

So your comparison is fatally equivocal.

“I loved your latest post on prayer. What a coincidence that you thought to post that after I publicly stated my praying for you.”

I didn’t single out anyone in particular. I didn’t name anyone.
“BTW, you just exposed the apostle Paul's public acknowledgment that he prayed specifically for others.”

No named individuals–much less individuals he disapproved of.

“…betrays praying for one's enemies in the first place.”

Since I don’t regard mere theological opponents as “enemies," what’s the point?


steve said...
J.C. Thibodaux said...

“Such elephant-hurling/non-explanatory strawman burning doesn't explain anything about what you're saying. Care to cite any specifics?”

Specifics for what? Evidence that Robert frequently insists on the necessity of civil discourse? Since you read blogs where Robert has often left such comments, I hardly need to tell you what you already know. Do you deny that Robert has frequently made statements to that effect?

Or evidence that given his aforesaid statements, he has violated his own code of conduct? A specific case in point would be the very example I cited (e.g. Nazis/Klansman).

“Wrong again, you've plainly stated as much yourself. Your sophistry won't evade that fact.”

Which I rebutted:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/08/arminian-two-step.html

“If you're still under the delusion that answering someone 'on his own grounds' justifies breaking God's commands by bearing false witness, you can keep such godless rhetoric, thank you.”

i) Which I’ve rebutted (see above).

ii) You’re also shifting ground. Your initial argument imputed irony to my response. Since, however, there was nothing ironic about my response, you have to change the subject.

iii) I’d also add that you’re the one, not me, who indulged in slanderous innuendo and bearing false witness by your broad-brush insinuation that two or more Tbloggers were sockpuppets.

iv) And given your high tolerance for Robert’s Nazi/Klansmen” rhetoric, your abhorrence of “godless rhetoric” is somewhat deficient in the sincerity dept.

“You continued to baselessly wail that I'd ‘defended Robert’s misconduct,’ even after I'd clearly stated that Robert could speak for himself on the matter.”

i) You came to his defense by responding to something I said in reply to Robert. For you to then say, in that very context, that you’re not defending Robert is a tribute to your powers of partisan self-deception.

ii) You speak on his behalf when it suits your agenda, but conveniently say he can speak for himself on other occasions when his statements are indefensible.


steve said...
William Watson Birch said...

"BTW, Dale is one of the nicest Arminians on the 'net."

One of the nicest Arminians to fellow Arminians. When commenting on Calvinists and Calvinism, he checks his nicety at the door.