ARMINIAN SAID:
”I completely agree with Ben.”
Birds of a feather…
“Let me add that the comments quoted in the OP did not call God Hitler nor call Calvinist Nazis or fascists. I believe it stated that Calvinist theology, which the auhtor rejects, makes God like Hitler and makes God racist. There's a big difference between saying the Calvinist God is x vs. saying Calvinistic theology makes God out to be x.”
Explain the “big difference.”
Suppose I said Roger Olsen is like Josef Mengele.
Suppose Roger Olsen rankled at that comparison.
Suppose I responded by saying, “Hey, Rog. I didn’t say you *were* Josef Mengele. I only said you were *like* Josef Mengele. There’s a big difference, ya know!”
Robert is saying the God of Calvinism has the same moral character as Nazis and Klansmen. And he says the same thing about Calvinists. Where’s the “big difference”?
In addition, you say you “completely agree” with Ben. Well, Ben said “I agree that it would be wrong to flatly call the Calvinistic conception of God Hitler, but I don't think it is wrong to point out that Calvinism seems to logically lead to such conclusions.”
Well, if you agree with Ben that it logically leads to Hitlerian conclusions, then what’s the “big difference”?
“Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God?”
We worship the same Hitlerian God?
ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:
”If the Calvinistic conception of God's dealings with people resembles in some way the way that Hitler dealt with people, or if the Calvinistic conception of election resembles (on some points and to some extent) racialism that we would normally view as immoral, then I don't see a problem with that being pointed out.”
Does this mean your defending Robert’s statements? Yes or no?
“But mostly, when people make such references they are just speaking of what seems to them to be logical implications of each other's theology.”
Even if that were true, it doesn’t let Robert off the hook. He’s repeatedly lectured Tbloggers about how Christians should be civil and charitable in how they address believers and unbelievers alike. His rhetoric about Nazis and Klansmen stands in blatant contradiction to that oft-repeated claim.
ARMINIAN SAID:
“The big difference seems easy to grasp. One says that another's conception of a person logically implies the person to be like x, whereas the other asserts the person to be x. Your example doesn't fit the situation.”
How is that a big difference in the context of this debate? There’s an ontological difference between being x and being like x. But every invidious comparison takes that ontological difference for granted. So what?
If Robert says a Calvinist is like a Nazi, he isn’t claiming that a Calvinist is a Nazi. Identity is irrelevant to what makes the comparison invidious. But makes it invidious is the allegation that both parties share the same moral traits.
“In this example, we are talking about the same person, but advancing very different views of how he acts as well as different opinions about the logical implication of how he acts.”
Once again, how is that relevant to the issue at hand? An invidious comparison naturally reflects the viewpoint of the speaker. And the butt of the invidious comparison will normally reject the invidious comparison. That has no effect on the intent of the speaker.
“But that the Calvinist conception of God makes him out to have such character.”
In which case you agree with Robert. In which case, where’s the “big difference”? You say it makes him (the God of Calvinism) out to have a Hitlerian character. And that’s suppose to make a “big difference”?
“The big difference is that we contend that God does not act that way and does not have that charcater.”
Irrelevant. The question at issue is not whether Arminians differ from Calvinists. That’s a given. The real question is whether Arminians agree with each other on the Hitlerian character of the Calvinist God.
“Our point would be that your conception of God implies him to be Hitlerian (worse really) in our opinion, though we happily see that you inconcsistently don't think he is Hitlerian.”
If the Calvinist God is Hitlerian, yet Calvinists lack the moral discernment to recognize Hitlerian evil when it’s staring them in the face, then isn’t that, itself, gravely evil?
“Are you now a hyper-Calvinist who thinks Arminians are not saved?”
What does hypercalvinism have to do with it?
“It is sounding like you don't think Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God.”
i) You’re the one who chose to frame the issue in those terms, not me. I’m merely answering you on your own terms. That says nothing about my own position, one way or the other.
But given your chosen framework, doesn’t that generate an internal tension. On the one hand, you say Arminians and Calvinists worship the same God. And since you think the Arminian God is the true God, then if we both worship the true God, Calvinists also worship the true God.
On the other hand, you say the Calvinist God is worse that Hitler. How can we worship the true God if the God we worship is worse than Hitler?
ii) Are you trying to drive a wedge between our concept of God and the God we really worship?
If so, would you apply that to a Baal-worshiper? He mistakenly thinks he’s worshiping Baal, but he’s really worshipping Yahweh.
iii) But since you bring up with issue of salvation, you seem to be hedging your bets. On the one hand, you feel free to use this bridge-burning rhetoric about the Calvinist God. But if you think the Calvinist God is Hitlerian or worse, then isn’t he a false God?
If, on the other hand, the Calvinists turn out to be right, then doesn’t that make you blasphemers?
Why do you think your attitude towards the true God would have no bearing on your salvation? It’s not as if you’ve left yourself a fallback position. If you use slash-and-burn rhetoric about the Hitlerian God of Calvinism, then haven’t you gone out of your way to cross a line of no return? To foreclose any avenue of retreat? I don’t see that Robert (for one) is leaving himself an out. So why should I?
Making allowance for the anachronistic labels, what if an ancient Israelite compared Yahweh to Hitler or Himmler or the Imperial Wizard of the KKK? How would that position the Israelite on the day of judgment?
“But it is not uncivil or unloving to point out what you think are the logical implications of someone else's doctrine. Are you saying that is uncivil or unloving? Now it may be that Robert has gone over the line by going beyond that. Is that what you are saying? Or do you think the mere drawing out of what one thinks to be the objectionable logical implications of doctrine is itself uncivil or unloving? That would be strange IMO.”
If Robert hasn’t gone over the line, then what would it take to go over the line?
I don’t have a problem with invidious comparisons. But what type of rhetoric could ever count as uncivil or uncharitable if no matter what adjectives you use, if now matter what comparisons you use, you can always justify your scorched-earth rhetorical on the grounds that you’re merely pointing out the logical implications of the opposing position?
Robert, Billy Birch, and other Arminians constantly presume to lecture us on the proper tone of Christian discourse.
Yet they turn around and either use or defense the use of comparisons between the Calvinist God and Moloch, Satan, Nazis, and Klansmen, as well as applying the same comparisons to Calvinists.
If you think that’s justifiable, so be it. I’m merely judging you by your own standards.
But if you think that’s justifiable, then I can’t imagine any rhetoric, any invective, that could possible cross the line.
Do one or the other.
For Annoyed Pinoy:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/praying-for-past.html
Robert is just simply the worst possible kind of troll.
ReplyDelete"How can we worship the true God if the God we worship is worse than Hitler?"
ReplyDeleteIn any court of law, not only are motive and severity of the crime considered: the degree of culpability on the part of the perpetrator is also taken into account.
Crimes committed through sheer accident or especially committed under duress are not treated in the same manner as those that are premeditated and calculated.
If a judge sentenced to death a man who accidentally ran over someone because the person had run out into the road, we'd consider the judge to be either a lunatic or a fiend. It defies what we know to be "just".
The problem with Calvinism is that it declares men "blameworthy" even though they are being guided, directed and steered into the very actions that condemn them. The person has, according to Calvinism, no power or ability to do anything otherwise. Their entire lives are "under duress", if you will.
Yet, God holds them accountable for their actions and we are told this is "just". Why? Well, because God decreed it, so just sit down and shut up. (Romans 9:20)
So, okay, the Calvinist God isn't "Hitler". But what does it mean to say He is "just"? I can't tell, because we are unable (and really not permitted) to apply our human standards of justice to Him. What does that word, then, mean? It means less than nothing.
We may as well say He is "eizoicp".
It seems it would be as coherent.
So, John, your objection boils down to the alleged incompatibility of determinism with responsibility. Gee, that's a novel objection. I don't think any Calvinists has every heard of that one before. Kinda leaves me speechless.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea: if you're going to raise stale objections, at least try to show some minimal familiarity with the counterarguments. For starters, take the standard literature on compatibilism and semi-compatibilism.
I said: “The big difference seems easy to grasp. One says that another's conception of a person logically implies the person to be like x, whereas the other asserts the person to be x. Your example doesn't fit the situation.”
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "How is that a big difference in the context of this debate? There’s an ontological difference between being x and being like x. But every invidious comparison takes that ontological difference for granted. So what?
If Robert says a Calvinist is like a Nazi, he isn’t claiming that a Calvinist is a Nazi. Identity is irrelevant to what makes the comparison invidious. But makes it invidious is the allegation that both parties share the same moral traits."
**** It makes all the difference in the world. You conveniently left out the more accurate example I gave, which illustrates the differnce. Secondly, I would not approve of blanketly saying that Calvinists are like Nazis. I would have to look at Robert's argument again to detemrine if there is anything to his comparison, but granting that there is for the sake of argument, I think it would be acceptable to say that Calvinist beliefs are like Nazi beliefs in certain respects.
I said: “In this example, we are talking about the same person, but advancing very different views of how he acts as well as different opinions about the logical implication of how he acts.”
Steve said: "Once again, how is that relevant to the issue at hand? An invidious comparison naturally reflects the viewpoint of the speaker. And the butt of the invidious comparison will normally reject the invidious comparison. That has no effect on the intent of the speaker."
**** Because it would not be claiming God is such and such, but that the Calvinist view logically implies him to be such and such. It is pointing out a problem with Calvinist theology, and that should be perfectly fine, just as it is perfectly fine for Calvinists to point out what they believe to be problems with Arminian theology. This seems very obvious and basic. Are you really suggesting that Calvinists and Arminians should not point out problems with one another's theology? That would condemn much of what you write. Are you suggesting that it is unloving or uncivil for an Arminian or Calvinist to point out what he believes to be problematic logical implications with the other theology? That would condemn much of what you write as unloving and uncivil.
Continued in next post . . .
coninued from previous post . . .
ReplyDeleteI said: “But that the Calvinist conception of God makes him out to have such character.”
Steve said: "In which case you agree with Robert. In which case, where’s the “big difference”? You say it makes him (the God of Calvinism) out to have a Hitlerian character. And that’s suppose to make a “big difference”?"
**** I have explained the big difference above as well as in the previous post. And you specifically say that I say what I have argued against saying. I have specifcally said that any such implications are not to be attributed to the God of Calvinism, for the God of Calvinism and the God of Arminianism are the same God. Arminians and Calvinists worship the same God, but have different beliefs about some of the things he does and the logical implications of what they believe he does. This is a huge problem for much of your response. I don't attribute anything bad to the God of Calvinism, though I think the distinctive Calvinistic conception of God has horrible logical implications.
I said: “The big difference is that we contend that God does not act that way and does not have that charcater.”
Steve said: "Irrelevant. The question at issue is not whether Arminians differ from Calvinists. That’s a given. The real question is whether Arminians agree with each other on the Hitlerian character of the Calvinist God.
But I said: “Our point would be that your conception of God implies him to be Hitlerian (worse really) in our opinion, though we happily see that you inconcsistently don't think he is Hitlerian.” "
Steve said: If the Calvinist God is Hitlerian, yet Calvinists lack the moral discernment to recognize Hitlerian evil when it’s staring them in the face, then isn’t that, itself, gravely evil?
**** There's that equivocation of yours of the distinctive Calvinst conception of God and the Calvimist God. I would not say that the Calvinist God is Hitlerian. He is my God too. But the distinctive Calvinist conception of God logically implies him to be Hitlerian and worse. Thankfully, Calvinists do not believe what their theology implies (just as Arminians do not believe what Calvinists think their theology implies).
I said: “Are you now a hyper-Calvinist who thinks Arminians are not saved?”
Steve said: "What does hypercalvinism have to do with it?"
**** You are sounding like a hyper-Calvinist who thinks Calvinists and Arminians do not worship the same God and that Arminians are not saved? And that is a big problem. And frankly, it would blow any credibility you have. So are you a hyperCalvinist who thinks Calvinists and Arminains worship different Gods or that Arminians are not saved?
contuned in next post . . .
continued from last post . . .
ReplyDeleteI said: “It is sounding like you don't think Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God.”
Steve said: "i) You’re the one who chose to frame the issue in those terms, not me. I’m merely answering you on your own terms. That says nothing about my own position, one way or the other."
**** Well, the faulty logic you are applying to what I say seems to imply you would think Calvinists and Arminians don't worship the same God. Even if you try to argue on my terms, you are still applying *your* logic. So you have to account for that. I don't see it the same way as you would see it at all. And to boot, from things you say in other posts etc., you do think that the Arminian view of God is false. So then by your own logic here, it would seem you think the Arminian God is a different God than the Cavlinist God. I hope not. And if not, that should show you your logic is faulty. So this is not a problem for me; I don't agree with your reasoning. But it seems you are caught by your own reasoning.
Steve said: "But given your chosen framework, doesn’t that generate an internal tension. On the one hand, you say Arminians and Calvinists worship the same God. And since you think the Arminian God is the true God, then if we both worship the true God, Calvinists also worship the true God."
**** No internal tension here. Calvinists do worship the true God even though I believe they are wrong about some things about him. Indeed, I assume I am wrong about some things about him that I am not aware of. That doesn't mean I worship a false God. This seems very basic and obvious. Do you think you have a perfect view of God? Do you think that if someone is wrong about anything about God then the person is worshipping a false god? That seems crazy.
Steve said: "On the other hand, you say the Calvinist God is worse that Hitler. How can we worship the true God if the God we worship is worse than Hitler?"
**** Another strawman based on that equivocation of yours mentioned earlier. I do not say that the Calvinist God is worse than Hitler. But I think that the logical implications of the Calvinist conception of God, which Calvinists do not see or agree to, make him worse than Hitler.
continued in next post . . .
continued from previous post . . .
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "ii) Are you trying to drive a wedge between our concept of God and the God we really worship?"
**** Of course, as do you if you believe that Arminians worship the same God but are wrong about some things about him. I.e., we both try to convince one another (at least Arminians and Calvinists in general) that the other's conception of God is mistaken to some degree.
Steve said: "If so, would you apply that to a Baal-worshiper? He mistakenly thinks he’s worshiping Baal, but he’s really worshipping Yahweh."
**** Of course not. You seem to be begging the question again. You posit 2 different gods here and ask about how it works if one thinks he worships one when actually worshipping the other. That's bizarre. The case with Arminians and Calvinists is that they both worship the same God yet one or both are worng about some things about him. It is self-evident that someone can be wrong about something about someone yet still be thinking about the same person and relating to the same person.
Steve said: "iii) But since you bring up with issue of salvation, you seem to be hedging your bets. On the one hand, you feel free to use this bridge-burning rhetoric about the Calvinist God. But if you think the Calvinist God is Hitlerian or worse, then isn’t he a false God?"
**** There you go again saying I am speaking aganst the Calvinist God. Far from it. It undoes your whole argument. Its akin to me asking you, Steve, if you have stopped beating your wife.
Steve said: "If, on the other hand, the Calvinists turn out to be right, then doesn’t that make you blasphemers?"
**** No, of course not. It would make us wrong about the logical implications of Calvinism. But on your (erroneous) logic, if the Arminians are right, doesn't that make you blasphemers? More than that, if the Arminians are right, how do you think he will feel about the Triablogue post calling him a stupid pansy? That really is uncivil and blasphemous since it is a direct attack on the true and living God, the God worshipped by both Calvinists and Arminians.
continued in next post . . .
continued from previous post . . .
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "Why do you think your attitude towards the true God would have no bearing on your salvation?"
**** Another "have you stopped beating your wife" question/argument; the loaded question fallacy.
Steve said: "It’s not as if you’ve left yourself a fallback position. If you use slash-and-burn rhetoric about the Hitlerian God of Calvinism, then haven’t you gone out of your way to cross a line of no return? To foreclose any avenue of retreat?"
**** No, since I don't speak so. The God of Calvinism is not Hitlerian. He is the very same God of Arminianism. But the logical implications of distinctive Calvinist doctrine make him (the God we both worship) out to be Hitlerian and far worse.
Steve said: "I don’t see that Robert (for one) is leaving himself an out. So why should I? "
**** Well, I am not here to speak for Robert, but . . . because Robert should not be the standard of your behavior.
Steve said: "Making allowance for the anachronistic labels, what if an ancient Israelite compared Yahweh to Hitler or Himmler or the Imperial Wizard of the KKK? How would that position the Israelite on the day of judgment?"
**** But that does not match at all the situation we are addressing. I am not comparing God to Hitler, but saying that the logical implications of distinctive Calvinist doctrine make him out to be like Hitler.
I said: “But it is not uncivil or unloving to point out what you think are the logical implications of someone else's doctrine. Are you saying that is uncivil or unloving? Now it may be that Robert has gone over the line by going beyond that. Is that what you are saying? Or do you think the mere drawing out of what one thinks to be the objectionable logical implications of doctrine is itself uncivil or unloving? That would be strange IMO.”
continued in next post . . .
continued from previous post . . .
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "If Robert hasn’t gone over the line, then what would it take to go over the line?"
**** Well, I have said that Robert may have gone over the line. I would have to look back specifically at what he said. But I am not here to assess his rhetoric. I am more interested in a broader principle you seem to be denying, that it is perfectly civil to draw out what one thinks to be the objectionable logical implications of certain doctrine. Are you denying that it is? You should answer my questions. Some of my questioning was asking for clarification.
Moreover, I have actually identified an example of what would go over the line. Lots would go over the line. Saying the Calvinist God is Hitler or Hitelerian would count. Calling the Arminian God a stupid pansy would count. Or insulting the person you are discussing with would count, something you seem to do a lot. It seems strange that you would ask me what would go over the line when I have already identified something that would while also saying what would not.
Steve said: "I don’t have a problem with invidious comparisons. But what type of rhetoric could ever count as uncivil or uncharitable if no matter what adjectives you use, if now matter what comparisons you use, you can always justify your scorched-earth rhetorical on the grounds that you’re merely pointing out the logical implications of the opposing position?"
**** See above.
Steve said: "Robert, Billy Birch, and other Arminians constantly presume to lecture us on the proper tone of Christian discourse.
Yet they turn around and either use or defense the use of comparisons between the Calvinist God and Moloch, Satan, Nazis, and Klansmen, as well as applying the same comparisons to Calvinists."
If you think that’s justifiable, so be it. I’m merely judging you by your own standards."
**** You are not juding me by my own standards. You seem to have created your own standard that you apparently claim I hold to and then judge me by it, which is invalid. But then you don't seem to hold to it either, or are massively inconsistent, since you speak against Arminian theology alot. It is justfiable to draw out what one thinks to be the objectionable logical implications of doctrine one disagrees with. Don't you think so? And that's not at all inconsistent with Arminian principles or love or civility.