Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Slave of one


slaveofone said...

I take it as given that if a man can do no spiritual good, he can do no other good either. The reason for that is simple: because good is defined by whether a person's being is aligned with Yahweh's or not. Yahweh is the only measurement of good because only a universal can define a particular and only Yahweh is a universal.

A person who saves another person from drowning cannot be doing good unless he/she is spiritually conformed to Yahweh. If someone is depraved beyond all hope spiritually, he/she can do nothing good in the human sphere either. To say otherwise is to create a universal out of a particular that is not Yahweh--and that is idolatry.

As for "regeneration", I find the Calvinistic concept of it to be powerless pragmatically and empirically and nonsensical rationally according to the ancient Jewish world-view. Therefore I have no reason to believe any Calvinist is "regenerated". And even if I did, I have no way to know whether their total depravity has been regenerated at any point in time since that regeneration is spiritual, not physical. Thus, all I know about someone who says they're Calvinist is that they believe there is nothing good they can say or do either spiritually or physically and as a consequence their position is self-defeating.


To argue that a position is “self-defeating,” you must mount an internal critique. You try to show that the position in question is inconsistent on its own grounds. That, indeed, is the point of slaveofone’s syllogism.

Now, however, he is switching to an external reference point. He is at liberty to shift grounds, but in so doing he needs to withdraw his original objection. He is no longer mounting an internal critique, but an external critique.

And why would he shift grounds unless the original argument was flawed? So he needs to retract his original allegation.

We are simply taking him at his word. Does he not want to be taken at his word? Should everyone assume that he’s not a serious thinker with serious ideas?

If he is going to argue that Calvinism is self-defeating, then he needs to use Reformed usage according to Reformed usage.

If he’s going to empty Reformed usage of Reformed content and pour in his own definitions, then whatever else his argument may prove, it can never prove that Calvinism is self-defeating.

I made this point. Gene made this point. And Peter Nelson made this point.



I haven't defined my view (as you define it "scripturally") because I operate according to a Jewish world-view, not a Pagan Greek system like "proof-texting".


i) Is prooftexting a Greco-pagan system? Jesus and the Apostles often cite Scripture to prove a point. Are they complicit in a Greco-pagan system?

Perhaps Slaveonone can give us some examples of heathen Greeks who quote the Bible to prove a point.

ii) I’d add that there’s more to the Reformed doctrine of depravity than a set of prooftexts. We have the exegesis to back it up.


Of course I've laid my definition... why wouldn't I say what I believe? Why would I back up definitions I don't believe? It's no strawman, it's laying bare the facts as I see them--you can't expect me to lay bare the facts that I don't see.


It’s a strawman argument if you say the Reformed doctrine of total depravity is self-defeating, even casting that claim in syllogistic form, only to redefine the key terms by evacuating Reformed usage of Reformed meaning and plugging in whatever definition you please.



My blog isn't an apologetic blog--I'm not here to argue and debate others or bring long lists of scriptural references which *prove* my point [shakes head in sadness I'm here to state my opinions and views and thoughts and anyone is welcome to see them.


Is honesty part of his Jewish worldview? Or is honestly part of a Greco-pagan system?

Is he here to state demonstrably false opinions? To misrepresent the position he’s opposing.

Does he think he’s immune to correction? Is that part of his Jewish worldview?

It's certainly no part of the OT worldview or the NT worldview.

No comments:

Post a Comment