It’s hatefest week at sbc tomorrow. Indeed, every week at sbc tomorrow is hatefest week. Here’s a sampler:
On Rob Bell: Burn Heretic! Burn! by Peter Lumpkins
Hence, when I see the latest huffing and puffing about Rob Bell coming from a select network of blogging kingpins, I‘ve got to be honest, it’s tempting to help them gather wood for a bonfire to see Rob Bell burn. After all, he’s a heretic, is he not?
So who’s building a bonfire to burn Rob Bell? Joshua Harris: so convinced was Harris about burning Bell in a bonfire...Candidly, I think more will join the crew gathering wood.
That's such a charitable way for Lumpkins to characterize his Reformed opponents, right?
Arminian hatefest
ReplyDeleteSome Arminians are haters.
Steve said "I’ve noticed over the years that one of the fringe benefits of Arminian theology is that as long as you say God loves everyone, as long as you repeat that sentiment 5 times a day, like praying the Rosary, this excuses you from actually having to love everyone."
ReplyDeleteThis is a great opportunity then, to show those silly Arminians how not to hate.
A modicum of tolerance, I think, would do it.
Are you leaving similar comments at Arminian blogs? Or is this another instance of your cronyism?
ReplyDeleteSteve said "Are you leaving similar comments at Arminian blogs? Or is this another instance of your cronyism?"
ReplyDeleteI will if you wish.
However, it may be as much a chance of being another instance of my cronyism as it does of being another instance of your use of ad hominem logic.
Ad homineum logic?
ReplyDeleteSteve is quoting Lumpkins own words. He is then holding them to the standard that their philosophy seeks to uphold, namely the notion that God loves everybody equally...and it is they who regularly chide us both here specifically and Calvinists in general for being so "unloving." Sorry, but Steve's logic doesn't begin to qualify for ad homineum invective.
"I’ve noticed over the years that one of the fringe benefits of Arminian theology is that as long as you say God loves everyone, as long as you repeat that sentiment 5 times a day, like praying the Rosary, this excuses you from actually having to love everyone. Especially those whose theology you disdain. To say “God loves everyone” is your Arminian waiver not to love everyone. Just talk about love. Don’t do it. Just talk about it."
ReplyDeleteI haven't noticed it nearly as succinctly as it is expressed there, above, Steve. But, with comments like that one, it sharpens my senses to actually see it!
I will add Isaiah's comments and wonder out loud if any Arminian would like to comment on his utterance, "knowing" God so loved the world, He gave His only Begotten Son, here:
Isa 11:3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear,
Isa 11:4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
Isa 11:5 Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins.
Going a bit farther with Isaiah's reasonings, I would also note the "love" that God uses to "kill" the wicked by these clear Words of Grace and Mercy and Peace uttered and recorded about from none other than Jesus Himself, here:
Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
Joh 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."
Seeing to "know" God is a "God thing", not seeing has to be a "God thing" too!
Question then, sincerely:
"Is it ok for us to hate what and who God hates now that His love for Christ is in us as Jesus is in us, too?"
GeneMBridges said "Ad homineum logic?"
ReplyDeleteGeneMBridges, you didn't read the exchange did you.
He wasn't asking if this was an instance of Lumpkins' cronyism, and therefore he wasn't making a point about Lumpkins, or defending his position.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteJust love your "logic." Immediately following your selective quote, I wrote
"And, you know, I might too [i.e, help them gather wood for a bonfire to see Rob Bell burn] when I have enough to compel me to place the straw around Bell’s ankles and strike the match"
Woe is me. According to you, I'm hating myself.
Ya gotta love it.
With that, I am...
Peter
Oh, I read the exchange...you are castigating Steve for using ad homineum logic.
ReplyDeleteYou're alleging Steve is writing ad homineum invective...but we've seen where your pet peeves lie in your posting record here, and Steve's initial post is hardly ad homineum. I fear it is you who suffer from the reading comprehension difficulty, not I.
PETERLUMPKINS SAID:
ReplyDeleteSteve,
"Just love your 'logic.' Immediately following your selective quote, I wrote
'And, you know, I might too [i.e, help them gather wood for a bonfire to see Rob Bell burn] when I have enough to compel me to place the straw around Bell’s ankles and strike the match' Woe is me. According to you, I'm hating myself.
That's a hypothetical throwaway line.
And that comes on the heels of all the other nastiness and you and your commenters (with your frequent approval) have directed at the Reformed.
Dear Steve:
ReplyDeleteI personally have witnessed the "hatred" for Calvinists that you speak about on Peter's blog. I have not been treated all that kindly there myself.
Blessings,
Stephen
PETERLUMPKINS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Just love your 'logic.' Immediately following your selective quote, I wrote 'And, you know, I might too [i.e, help them gather wood for a bonfire to see Rob Bell burn] when I have enough to compel me to place the straw around Bell’s ankles and strike the match' Woe is me. According to you, I'm hating myself.
That's a rhetorical disclaimer to buy yourself a bit of plausible deniability in case, once his book hits the shelves, it turns out that Bell is undeniably a universalist.
On the one hand you're using Bell as a pretext to attack Calvinists. On the other hand you don't want to be seen defending a universalist. So you need to put a bit of distance between yourself and Bell. Have it both ways.
Peter,
ReplyDeletehaving had a few go arounds with you before, I want to note hereon something you commented above, here cited:
Woe is me. According to you, I'm hating myself.
Ya gotta love it.
With that, I am...
Peter
At first read, I was hopeful.
Then as I further reflected on my run ins with you before, I am not so hopeful.
Why?
Well, consider this:
Luk 14:25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them,
Luk 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
...
Luk 14:33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:34 "Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored?
Luk 14:35 It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
I am not so sure you realize it, there is a proper sense when we are suppose to hate ourselves?
Just how keenly aware of this are you, then?
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete“I will if you wish.”
So you’d only be equitable if I wish. You won’t be equitable on your own initiative. Thanks for that reflection of your ethics.
“However, it may be as much a chance of being another instance of my cronyism as it does of being another instance of your use of ad hominem logic.”
What about your use of ad hominem logic when you impute to Calvinists the position that Christ’s blood doesn’t cover their sins?
Not only is that ad hominem, that’s scurrilous.
Or what about your insinuation that Calvinists are intolerant? (“A modicum of tolerance, I think, would do it.”). What’s that if not ad hominem logic?
Or take this allegation: “the even odder tendency for Calvinists to assume for themselves the adoption, the glory, the covenant, and the promises).”
Another ad hominem charge.
Or what about this rhetorical question? “…are Christian's of any stripe exempt from following His example when dealing with fellow Christians?”
What’s that if not another ad hominem slam against what you perceive to be misconduct on the part of Calvinists in dealing with fellow Christians?
But your antipathy to Calvinism blinds you to your own reflexive ad hominem logic.