tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1410154145523402549..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The CalvinazisRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63528093122078782512009-08-07T14:45:13.426-04:002009-08-07T14:45:13.426-04:00As Stephen Colbert once said: "That's a s...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.<br /><br />I suppose it shows yet again the Arminian fetish with "but the dictionary says" arguments.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68387778280983189182009-08-07T13:05:38.997-04:002009-08-07T13:05:38.997-04:00Yes, Peter. Your maturity does outshine the rest o...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."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.indeathorlife.org/fun/tria_flowchart.php" rel="nofollow">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.</a>bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85839844556879732392009-08-07T09:55:32.015-04:002009-08-07T09:55:32.015-04:00You probably use Strong's Concordance in the s...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).<br /><br />Secondly, you can call your writing "pithy" if you want, but the rest of us still know you just type with a lisp.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18255446700269697362009-08-07T03:51:17.600-04:002009-08-07T03:51:17.600-04:00Oh and Peter, here's a Thesaurus.com entry for...Oh and Peter, here's a Thesaurus.com entry for you:<br /><br /><b>Main Entry:</b> satire<br /><b>Part of Speech:</b> noun<br /><b>Definition:</b> ridicule intended to expose truth<br /><b>Synonyms:</b> banter, burlesque, caricature, causticity, chaffing, irony, lampoon, lampoonery, mockery, parody, pasquinade, persiflage, play-on, put-on, raillery, <b>sarcasm</b>, send-up, skit, spoof, squib, takeoff, travesty, wit, witticismbossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6821401877161701532009-08-07T03:43:35.507-04:002009-08-07T03:43:35.507-04:00Shouldn't BSman be wondering why his sentence ...<i> Shouldn't BSman be wondering why his sentence went over so poorly with a Wesleyan?</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />You're a pretty funny person, Peter. The irony in everything you write cracks me up.<br /><br />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?bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72163919423735577522009-08-06T20:26:06.616-04:002009-08-06T20:26:06.616-04:00I originally said:
---
And said, as close as I can...I originally said:<br />---<br />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.'"<br />---<br /><br />BSMan responds:<br />---<br />Peter, I thought you were the master of spotting satire? What happened?<br />---<br /><br />Almost all of the errors that BSman habitually commits are seen right here in this very response.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />B) I quoted my friend. <i>What does this have to do with me?</i> If <i>my friend</i> 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?<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Again, BSMan proves that he is woefully inept at understanding the terms that he likes to banter about.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Finally, BSman says:<br />---<br />I did admit I wasn't perfect.<br />---<br /><br />As if anyone was in doubt of this.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6031889564145016962009-08-06T18:57:24.347-04:002009-08-06T18:57:24.347-04:00"When you agree with your fellow Arminians th..."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."<br /><br />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! :-)stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58515339709715236142009-08-06T17:36:34.731-04:002009-08-06T17:36:34.731-04:00You better tell that to some of the Calvinists I h...<i>You better tell that to some of the Calvinists I have spoken with who are very adamant that God's reprobation brings Him glory.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />On the one hand, you say we misrepresent Arminianism, and on the other, you deliberately misrepresented Calvinism. Double - standard.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><br />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?</i><br /><br />One thinks BSmanham should acquaint himself with the psychological phenomenon known as transference.<br /><br />He needs to get with his fellow Arminians like JC Thib. on this too...but when asked, he grows strangely silent.<br /><br /><i>Sure there are. As I said, neither side is immune to defectors.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><br />I'm not too sure that follows logically.</i> 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.<br /><br /><i><br />I don't see Birch attacking people and name calling on a daily basis. I see him attacking a system of theology.</i> <br /><br />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.<br /><br />2. Indeed, some of them involved them coming out swinging at us first.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>So Paul wants us to jump down each other's throats more often that having edifying and loving dialog?</i><br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25323179611644284842009-08-06T15:55:23.610-04:002009-08-06T15:55:23.610-04:00Gene,
No Calvinist, not even a hardcore Supra bel...Gene,<br /><br /><i>No Calvinist, not even a hardcore Supra believes this. Rather, they are reprobated as sinners.</i><br /><br />You better tell that to some of the Calvinists I have spoken with who are very adamant that God's reprobation brings Him glory.<br /><br /><i> Elmer Towns has specifically stated that the ability to believe/disbelieve comes as a matter of common - not universal prevenient - grace.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>There are plenty of Arminian apostates...John Loftus for example</i><br /><br />Sure there are. As I said, neither side is immune to defectors.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />I'm not too sure that follows logically.<br /><br /><i>But you don't believe this, because you're not on Birch's blog leveling this same criticism against your fellow Arminians.</i><br /><br />I don't see Birch attacking people and name calling on a daily basis. I see him attacking a system of theology.<br /><br /><i>You cite Ephesians and 1 Cor. without reference to the rest of Scripture.</i><br /><br />So Paul wants us to jump down each other's throats more often that having edifying and loving dialog?bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19361104334420960992009-08-06T15:55:11.863-04:002009-08-06T15:55:11.863-04:00Peter,
I did admit I wasn't perfect. Saying y...Peter,<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.'"</i><br /><br />Peter, I thought you were the master of spotting satire? What happened?<br /><br />When did succinct statements become useless?<br /><br /><i>You utterly flippant disregard of rational discourse is why it's pointless to talk with you.</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />Steve,<br /><br /><i>I already addressed that objection. All you’re doing is to parrot Birch’s rejoinder, while ignoring my surrejoinder.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>What I said is that he implied it, and I gave a supporting argument for my contention.</i><br /><br />He didn't imply it. In fact he has stated the exact opposite.<br /><br /><i>You present a threadbare denial in lieu of a counterargument. That’s symptomatic of your partisanship.</i><br /><br />Irony. I get it.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />Okay....<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />When did you start worrying about partisanship?<br /><br /><i>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</i><br /><br />Okay. So can you tell Peter? Then maybe we can all have edifying discussions. Maybe we should all work on this?<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />So Paul is contradicting himself?bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71313153246737351992009-08-06T13:30:23.317-04:002009-08-06T13:30:23.317-04:00But Billy never said this was a universal position...<i>But Billy never said this was a universal position among Calvinists. That word was added by Steve.<br /><br />Steve claims Billy says Calvinists are sub-Christian. Never happened.</i><br /><br />Actually, it did happen, when Billy said that these persons are not attracted to the Gospel.<br /><br />Pity you can't follow an argument.<br /><br /><i>Actually, that's exactly what Calvinists believe. They also think it glorifies God.</i><br /><br />No Calvinist, not even a hardcore Supra believes this. Rather, they are reprobated as sinners.<br /><br /><i><br />No, Pelagians are Pelagians and Arminians are Arminians.</i><br /><br />Sure there are. Elmer Towns has specifically stated that the ability to believe/disbelieve comes as a matter of common - not universal prevenient - grace.<br /><br /><i>Calvinism to liberalism: PCUSA, Princeton, Crystal Cathedral, Friedrich Schleiermacher. The point is neither side is immune from defectors.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><br />Come on, Gene. Really.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>. Even though I disagree with his Calvinism, he is nice to people! </i><br /><br />Notice the lack of a biblical mandate to be "nice."<br /><br /><i>But I don't jump on people who come to my blog and converse with me. </i><br /><br />No, you jump on them on their blogs.<br /><br /><i>That would include not misrepresenting people's theology.</i><br /><br />Where have we misrepresented Arminianism? You, on the other hand, have, in this very thread, misrepresented Calvinism.<br /><br /><i><br />“Since we are all in the same body, it doesn't do us any good to be castigating one another.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i> It also means not jumping down their throats in a reactionary manner all the time.</i><br /><br />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.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41481480947201072652009-08-06T11:28:21.141-04:002009-08-06T11:28:21.141-04:00BOSSMANHAM SAID:
“But Billy never said this was a...BOSSMANHAM SAID:<br /><br />“But Billy never said this was a universal position among Calvinists. That word was added by Steve.”<br /><br />I already addressed that objection. All you’re doing is to parrot Birch’s rejoinder, while ignoring my surrejoinder.<br /><br />That’s symptomatic of your partisanship.<br /><br />“Steve claims Billy says Calvinists are sub-Christian. Never happened.”<br /><br />What I said is that he implied it, and I gave a supporting argument for my contention. <br /><br />You present a threadbare denial in lieu of a counterargument. That’s symptomatic of your partisanship. <br /><br />“Actually, that's exactly what Calvinists believe.”<br /><br />That’s a deliberate falsehood. And once again it disregards my specific argument to the contrary.<br /><br />Calvinists do not believe that God withholds mercy “merely because he decreed it.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The decree is not the reason. Rather, the decree is the result of a reason. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />You are not attempting to accurately represent the opposing position. Instead, you're just acting like a partisan. <br /><br />“They also think it glorifies God.”<br /><br />In which case God doesn’t withhold mercy because he decrees it.<br /><br />“But I try to avoid the personal deprecation. I can't speak for others.”<br /><br />But you are speaking for others. You’re speaking for Birch. And you’re defending his use of personal deprecation.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />“I mention your lack of civility because I expect more from Christians.”<br /><br />You don’t expect more from your fellow Arminians. You’re criticisms are wholly one-sided. <br /><br />“That would include not misrepresenting people's theology.”<br /><br />Which both you and Birch have done.<br /><br />“It also means not jumping down their throats in a reactionary manner all the time.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“Since we are all in the same body, it doesn't do us any good to be castigating one another.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />“Now how can the body work if one hand is smacking the other hand and calling it a semi-pelagian heretic all the time?”<br /><br />Now how can the body work if Arminians say Calvinists worship a Satanic God?<br /><br />But, of course, you’re mute on what your own side does. You observe a code of silence where your own comrades are concerned. <br /><br />You’re a respecter of persons, Brennon. <br /><br />“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?”<br /><br />But, of course, you don’t really believe that do you, Brennon? That only applies to Calvinists. Never to your Arminian compadres. <br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77921790102242785442009-08-06T10:05:24.616-04:002009-08-06T10:05:24.616-04:00Look, Mr. History-Began-47-Seconds-Ago. Here's...Look, Mr. History-Began-47-Seconds-Ago. Here's how you opened your "dialogue" with me:<br /><br />---<br />And yet no cohesive point was made in this entire post. Wah wah waaaaah.<br />---<br /><br />Apparently your loving "Christian" spirit that you claim in these comments only comes into play after you've been schooled.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />---<br />For some reason (certainly not me) my good friends at Triablogue have been calling us Arminians out for calling them out on being meanies. <br />---<br /><br />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.'"<br /><br />He then asked, "And what's with this statement?"<br />---<br />They have quoted several occasions where J & C used invective language against the system known as Calvinism.<br />---<br /><br />"'The system known as'? There's four unnecessary words, which seem to imply that Calvinism is sub-Christian."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />---<br />Nope, actually it's not. So sorry.<br />---<br /><br />But even in these comments, you respond with such brilliant arguments as:<br /><br />---<br />Come on, Gene. Really.<br />---<br /><br />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.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60927319736409082012009-08-06T09:48:17.411-04:002009-08-06T09:48:17.411-04:00BSMan said:
---
but I try to avoid the personal de...BSMan said:<br />---<br />but I try to avoid the personal deprecation<br />---<br /><br />That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39406041296963323712009-08-06T01:52:42.716-04:002009-08-06T01:52:42.716-04:00Okay, Gene.
Does Piper say, as a universal truth,...Okay, Gene.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />But Billy never said this was a universal position among Calvinists. That word was added by Steve.<br /><br />Steve claims Billy says Calvinists are sub-Christian. Never happened.<br /><br /><i>Finally, Calvinism does not take the position that God withholds mercy on some or many 'merely because he decreed it'</i><br /><br />Actually, that's exactly what Calvinists believe. They also think it glorifies God.<br /><br /><i>No, some Arminians are Pelagians</i><br /><br />No, Pelagians are Pelagians and Arminians are Arminians.<br /><br />Calvinism to liberalism: PCUSA, Princeton, Crystal Cathedral, Friedrich Schleiermacher. The point is neither side is immune from defectors.<br /><br /><i>it's done to you to demonstrate your double standards.</i><br /><br />Come on, Gene. Really.<br /><br /><i>>You criticize us while all the time engaging in the same thing yourselves.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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</i><br /><br />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 <b>nice to people!</b> 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!<br /><br /><i>Worst, you cite verses of the Bible in support, but you don't exegete them</i><br /><br />Some Bible verses speak for themselves. But okay, let's look at Ephesians 4:<br /><br /><i>1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called</i><br /><br />Paul the apostle wants the Ephesians (and us) to walk in the way we are called to walk by Jesus.<br /><br /><i>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</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />Since we are all in the same body, it doesn't do us any good to be castigating one another.<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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?bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37992344972081867712009-08-05T18:50:17.481-04:002009-08-05T18:50:17.481-04:00I see Billy's criticism of people lying as val...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Like what? Steve quotes Billy word for word and then compares Billy's responses to his criticisms with what he originally wrote.<br /><br /><i>Is that a lie? </i><br /><br />You're accusing Steve of lying. Document the lies.<br /><br /><i>Is when MacArthur says that Arminians are Pelagians a lie? </i><br /><br />No, some Arminians are Pelagians.<br /><br /><i>Is when Calvinists claim that Arminianism leads to liberal Christianity and Calvinism doesn't a lie?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><br />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!</i><br /><br />Wrong:<br /><br />1. It's done to you to demonstrate your double standards. You criticize us while all the time engaging in the same thing yourselves.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />3. Worst, you cite verses of the Bible in support, but you don't exegete them. <br /><br />Try again.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68336898606479961362009-08-05T18:08:58.461-04:002009-08-05T18:08:58.461-04:00Bossmanham said:
It's a logical fallacy. Just...Bossmanham said:<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />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.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91606251094014035092009-08-05T17:34:24.089-04:002009-08-05T17:34:24.089-04:00"I'll point out your next fallacy, Peter...."I'll point out your next fallacy, Peter. The ad hominem. It's almost like you can't help yourself."<br /><br />It's almost like you don't even know how ironic you are.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12442257325800201982009-08-05T17:31:11.636-04:002009-08-05T17:31:11.636-04:00Patrick,
It's a logical fallacy. Just because...Patrick,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Peter,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />I'll point out your next fallacy, Peter. The ad hominem. It's almost like you can't help yourself.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68076116831272211912009-08-05T09:49:15.123-04:002009-08-05T09:49:15.123-04:00BSMan said:
---
And you just tu quoqueed!!!
---
S...BSMan said:<br />---<br />And you just tu quoqueed!!!<br />---<br /><br />Sadly, hypocrites are the last to know they're hypocrites.<br /><br />Furthermore, you totally misunderstand what a tu quoque is. Given your lack of understanding of the word "irenic" this is not surprising.<br /><br />Tu quoque would be if you said: "Steve calls people liars" and Steve said: "So do you."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20108956190759950082009-08-05T06:43:37.833-04:002009-08-05T06:43:37.833-04:00Bossmanham / Brennon Hartshorn said:
And you just...Bossmanham / Brennon Hartshorn said:<br /><br /><b>And you just tu quoqueed!!!</b><br /><br />But what's wrong with using tu quoque argumentation in certain situations? See philosopher and logician Peter Geach's book <i>Reason and Argument</i>.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9867844703160807252009-08-05T02:04:48.425-04:002009-08-05T02:04:48.425-04:00Funny that when Birch calls me a liar, you give hi...<i>Funny that when Birch calls me a liar, you give him a pass.</i><br /><br />So we're not going to call it lying when you do it? And you just tu quoqueed!!!bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51439953179382128602009-08-04T18:27:15.762-04:002009-08-04T18:27:15.762-04:00Another example the striking contrast between the ...Another example the striking contrast between the kinder, gentler discourse of the saintly Arminian and the ad hominem rhetoric of the angry Calvinist:<br /><br />Johnny Dialectic said...<br />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.<br /><br />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). <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59498320848540303842009-08-04T17:41:16.887-04:002009-08-04T17:41:16.887-04:00Steve said...
"I see that a very long defens...Steve said...<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-noticed-agnostic-in-combox-who-said.html#c7043805158127407243<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3954856543800240132009-08-04T17:26:52.671-04:002009-08-04T17:26:52.671-04:00Bob Brewer said...
"The fact that the triabl...Bob Brewer said...<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-arminian-fruit-tree.html#comment-1887082949113728107<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com