Tuesday, July 07, 2009

The Obligatory "Triablogue is Full of Big Meanies" Post

Given the amazingly poor lack of comprehension displayed by many a commenter, it has become apparent that there are a lot of people who are reading Triablogue for the first time, and some of them just happen to have the same names as people who’ve been here for a long time. How else can we explain the fact that we’ve repeatedly made arguments in the past against positions they continue to hold as if said position has never been refuted?

Be that as it may, I feel it but my public duty this time to write the obligatory “Triablogue Is Full of Big Meanies” post for the new initiates to this blog. If there is one thing that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, New Agers, 9/11 Truthers, agnostics, Wiccans, atheists, and Arminians agree upon, it is that T-Bloggers are nothing but a bunch of Big Meanies.

This must be true, because every interaction that we’ve ever had with anyone holding those various heretic positions has eventually come down to “You don’t show the love of Christ” claims. While it is well known that the reason for this is because there remain no actual arguments against our positions on these matters, it is apparently believed by some that screaming like a harpy or crying in the corner that your opponent is a Big Meanie will somehow shame those who’ve behaved justly and correctly into some kind of compassionate, tender hearted pat on the shoulder and a “there, there, the sun will come up in the morning” round of self-help blather. I am here to break the unfortunate news that all such behavior gets is a run-on sentence describing it.

I remain dumbstruck, however, that people who come into the T-blog arena like a cocky junior high hockey team facing the satanic Red Wings are somehow shocked to discover that they’re involved in a full contact sport. It does little good to complain that T-bloggers are a bunch of Big Meanies when you’ve spent the past week offering brilliant arguments like “Only a delusion could cause someone to think that” and responding with the nuclear “Nope, actually it's not. So sorry” defense. Nor does it help you plead your case when your wit consists of: “How many logical fallacies can we count in these responses? Let's see, one, two, three........” And: “Wah wah waaaaah.”

And when you label someone’s statement as “dumbness” and then are aghast to be told “the only reason I'm not deleting [your post] now is so that all can see how stupid you are and that I did not invent your idiotic quotation” one really must question why your parents ever let you out of their basement.

Ironically, however, it is not these people who generally take up the Whining Like A Sissy Girl Mantle. No, it is their enablers. Some of whom will even claim to be on the side of the T-Bloggers. “I believe what you do,” they say, “but I think you’re a Big Meanie.” This is done to score them cred points with the opposition. I imagine the behind-the-scenes commentary goes something like this: “You called them stupid and said their mama’s dressed ‘em funny, and they said if you kept it up they’d delete your posts?! HOW DARE THOSE EVIL T-BLOGGERS PICK ON INNOCENT PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU! I mean, I asked John Calvin in my heart, just like they did, BUT THIS IS TOO FAR!”

They then ask The Question™. The Question that can only ever be asked of the T-Bloggers. “How does this show the love of Christ?” Some even go so far as to say, “Why, I’ve never seen Christians behave in this manner toward each other!”

This shows a dangerous level of naivety, one that proves said person has never been to AWANA. Nor, apparently, have they ever read the term Filioque.

Sigh.

Yes. It is true. We are all a bunch of Big Meanies. If you tread into these dangerous Triablogian waters, you are at least now forewarned. Here there be Big Meanies. Big Brained Big Meanies, but Big Meanines nevertheless.

Now give me a lawn so I can yell at you to get off it.

74 comments:

  1. No doubt speaking the truth "in love" is important and godly, and proper for a Christian; otherwise Paul would have just told Timothy and the various churches he wrote to to just embarrass their heretical adversaries and call them names and make them look like idiots. And to tell the truth, the truth "spoken in love" is not what you find on Triablogue at times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for "speaking the truth in love"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steven probably means: Speak the truth, but do it in a nice way; indeed, if you really want to speak the truth in love, you should learn to say the truth with a British accent. :-) No sarcasm.

    We have done both here. But Paul reserves "stern rebukes" for obstinate folks (cf. Titus 1:13-14). And that's who we usually deal with (cf. Dan the Arminian's refusal to admit that his argument has been defeated).

    ReplyDelete
  4. For any person S, S is "speaking the truth in love" if and only if (1) S is speaking, (2) S is speaking to another person, (3) what S is saying is true, (4) the manner in which S is speaking would be described as "loving" by the participants in the discussion as well as whatever third-party observers are present, in so far as the participants in the discussion as well as whatever third-party observers have a proper and biblical understanding of the term "loving".

    Perhaps that might work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No doubt a British accent would also help, but it is not at all necessary :) I'm sure Paul spoke the truth in love at times, but without the accent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Given that you quoted me several times, I assume you are referring to my comment in a previous post. Yes, I am a Calvinist, of the staunch 5-point variety, and yes, I believe in thorough, hard-hitting exegesis, and I even think it is ok to very truthfully tell someone (i.e. an Arminian, or a Pentecostal, or whomever I might be disagreeing with) that I think they have quite clearly missed the point of a biblical text or texts. However, this does not mean that I should argue, or even rebuke in the case of a heresy (which I DON'T think is being argued for here), in a manner that is disrepectful, mean-spirited, or rude. You do not have the authority of the apostle Paul and are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore have no right whatsoever to claim that you can attempt to imitate his exercise of authority that is found in Scripture (which incidentally, I don't even think you imitate it very well - Paul may have been bluntly honest, but he certainly wasn't a jerk).

    Once again, I will reiterate the fact that I am not attempting to argue with any of your theological tenets, so stop throwing that red herring at me. I am saying that through reading a sampling of your posts and comment threads you exhibit a prideful, arrogant spirit that does not reflect Christ or his love for his church. No matter how vehemently you disagree, no matter how much you think someone else is being a complete moron (and they very well may be), it is still our responsibility as believers to "speak the truth in love," "turn the other cheek," and show compassion towards all men. It is not your job to tell anyone how stupid or incoherent they are out of a prideful or mean spirit but to be iron sharpening iron, brothers and sisters pushing one another toward Christ. You are not exhibiting that at all in your rhetoric here.

    One final note: my words towards those who blog here does not excuse those who comment in a way that I have described. However, as it is the person's or persons' responsibility who manages the blog to drive the discussion and therefore the tone of that discussion, I am addressing this comment primarily to those of you who are responsible for the content on this blog.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  7. But Matt, why do you not speak to me in a loving manner? Why are you so mean and hostile and such a jerk to me?

    ReplyDelete
  8. John said:
    ---
    Red Wings? Go Pens!
    ---

    I'm an Avs fan, hence the "satanic" appellation before the Dead Wing's name...

    ReplyDelete
  9. It does little good to complain that T-bloggers are a bunch of Big Meanies when you’ve spent the past week offering brilliant arguments like “Only a delusion could cause someone to think that” and responding with the nuclear “Nope, actually it's not. So sorry” defense. Nor does it help you plead your case when your wit consists of: “How many logical fallacies can we count in these responses? Let's see, one, two, three........” And: “Wah wah waaaaah.”

    I laughed so hard I have to go change my under-roos

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steven said:
    ---
    For any person S, S is "speaking the truth in love" if and only if (1) S is speaking, (2) S is speaking to another person, (3) what S is saying is true, (4) the manner in which S is speaking would be described as "loving" by the participants in the discussion as well as whatever third-party observers are present, in so far as the participants in the discussion as well as whatever third-party observers have a proper and biblical understanding of the term "loving".
    ---

    That's fine except for the fact that "loving" is defined by subjective notions "felt" by various members who observe a conversation, and thus will NEVER obtain. Hence my response to Matt above.

    See, I know Matt truly believes that I have acted like a jerk, and so when he tells me what he thinks, he says so. But I can simply respond with righteous indignation: "Why are you being a jerk to me?" Indeed, taken in isolation, Matt's comments do look overly harsh. I estimate from what I've read that that is not his intention, but that is simply the nature of internet discourse.

    But as I've said elsewhere, I do not find insults bothersome to me. I don't find people who mock me to be offensive to me; indeed, when folks like BSman try to mock me it's not worth getting offended over in the first place.

    And when they engage in such behavior, I assume they've set the rules of our discussion and that if they have no problem dishing it, they ought have no problem taking it. I certainly don't.

    Likewise, when I "banned" BSman from commenting on my previous blog post, it wasn't because he was insulting, rude, arrogant, and belligerent--it was because he refused to engage in proper debate, twisting my words and pretending I'd been talking about things that I was clearly not talking about. And I told him, all he has to do is simply answer appropriately on topic and he can respond there.

    So I have no problem with insults and the like. But I do have a problem when people single me out as if I'm being rude and arrogant in a vacuum, because if such things offend you when I do it they darn well better offend you when others do it. All I ask is that you be consistent in your application.

    Whoever I speak with sets the tone for how we proceed. (Note: have I ever been rude toward you? No, because you've always been polite toward me, so I assume you want polite discourse. If you were rude toward me, I'd give it back because I'd assume that's the kind of discourse you'd want.)

    Not everyone has the same views as to what is "proper" etiquette, especially on the internet, so I certainly could be wrong (but see no reason to think so). Even if I am wrong, I don't see much harm from my position. True, if I respond to a fool according to his folly, I may be just like him; but I may also show him the error of his ways.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MATT SAID:

    “However, as it is the person's or persons' responsibility who manages the blog to drive the discussion and therefore the tone of that discussion, I am addressing this comment primarily to those of you who are responsible for the content on this blog.”

    Well, I guess I’d be one of those people. So let’s address the issue of “tone.”

    “However, this does not mean that I should argue, or even rebuke in the case of a heresy (which I DON'T think is being argued for here), in a manner that is disrepectful, mean-spirited, or rude. You do not have the authority of the apostle Paul and are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore have no right whatsoever to claim that you can attempt to imitate his exercise of authority that is found in Scripture.”

    I take from the way you set of the contrast that it’s out of bounds for an uninspired Christian to argue or even rebuke in a rude, disrespectful, or mean-spirited manner, but if you happen to be an authority figure (like an apostle) or inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it’s okay to be disrespectful, mean-spirited, or rude.

    I find that an odd argument. We normally consider that an abuse of authority. A superior can be rude, mean-spirited, or disrespectful to his subordinates because they don’t dare talk back to him. He acts that way because he knows he can get away with it.

    Aren’t you describing the self-defense of the typical cult-leader, who preaches one code of conduct for his follows while he himself is above the law?

    BTW, I’m not conceding that your adjectives accurately characterize Peter’s speech. I’m just addressing your objection on its own terms.

    “I am saying that through reading a sampling of your posts and comment threads you exhibit a prideful, arrogant spirit that does not reflect Christ or his love for his church.”

    Even if, for the sake of argument, that’s an accurate characterization of Peter’s speech, how does your conclusion follow?

    Your previous objection was based on a disanalogy between inspired/apostolic discourse and lay/uninspired discourse.

    Now, however, your follow-up objection is based on an analogy between Christ and Christians.

    But if, as per your previous objection, inspiration and/or authority entitles one to be rude, mean-spirited, or disrespectful, then Peter’s speech, even if your characterization were accurate, would reflect dominical discourse (i.e. Mt 23).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul said:
    ---
    But Paul reserves "stern rebukes" for obstinate folks (cf. Titus 1:13-14). And that's who we usually deal with (cf. Dan the Arminian's refusal to admit that his argument has been defeated).
    ---

    Not only that, but part of why I quoted 2 Corinthians 11:16-21 in the comments of the other post is because of Paul's great use of satire. You can't read the last few chapters of 2 Corinthians without realizing that he was a master satirist. When he says he speaks as a fool, even as a madman, and that he has just as much rights as those "super-apostles," none can help but see the wit he had.

    Some people assume that satire is just mockery. (Personally, I believe satire is derived from the old tire company, USA TIRE, when the font was printed U S A T I R E and the U wore off...) But I think satire works for the same reason that parables work: so that though seeing, some remain blind; though hearing, they remain deaf. Ultimately, a good satirical piece will separate those who actually read what you wrote from those who read into what you wrote.

    I think the best (contemporary) example of this was the Expelled people pulling off the "Dawkins Rap" and all the atheists thought it was praising them.

    In any case, Paul's use of satire shows that it's certainly an allowable form of expression.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter,
    Your response holds no water. As you asked me to tell you how to respond with the love of Christ in the other post on which I commented, so I need to ask you here how I was in any way a jerk in my response to you. You wrote a condescending post in response to my serious objection to your tone of interaction with your brothers in Christ and I attempted to respond in an honest but loving manner. I do not think I am alone in my assessment of your (and other writers') tone, language, and demeanor in your posts and comments. Perhaps the wise thing to do would be to actually consider this critique as holding some water instead of continuing to belittle those who disagree with you.

    Steve,
    I apologize for being unclear concerning my analogy between Peter and the apostle Paul. What I was referring to was Peter's comment in a previous post referring me to 2 Corinthians 11:16-21 as a text I needed to read. What I understood his comment to mean was that he was intending to address his detractors in the same way that Paul did in 2 Cor. My point in saying that "You do not have the authority of the apostle Paul and are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore have no right whatsoever to claim that you can attempt to imitate his exercise of authority that is found in Scripture" should be fairly clear; Peter has no apostolic right to try to imitate Paul's authority exercised in that passage or other passages. You did not, though, finish my statement in your response, because I go on to say that I don't think Peter "imitate[s Paul's exercise of authority] very well - Paul may have been bluntly honest, but he certainly wasn't a jerk." In other words, even if I did grant that Peter had the right to attempt to imitate Paul's exercise of authority in those passages, I still do not believe that he is doing so in a way that reflects Paul's spirit towards his opponents. Paul does not make arguments in a way that belittles his Christian brothers and sisters, even when exercising considerable amounts of apostolic authority; Peter, however, does. Paul speaks the truth in love at all times, compromising neither the integrity of the God's Word nor the spirit of God's love; Peter does, as do many other writers on this blog. My point was not to say that Paul gets to talk this way but you all don't; my point is that no Christian should ever engage in dialogue in the way that you all do.

    Again, I think you all would do well to consider the matter prayerfully instead of jumping to the defensive. However sinfully and incoherently it may be presented, you seem to have had numerous brothers and sisters in Christ address this issue (thus this post) and so it seems that might suggest a need to actually consider if this is an area in which sanctification through Christ's grace is needed in your blogging.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steven,

    Re your definition: your point #4 made your admonishion in your first comment rather pointless. In fact, you basically said that speaking the truth in love is speaking the truth in love. Not very enlightening. Your definition is also faulty because it is possible that some person, S, understand the biblical meaning of "love" while also missaplying it to a given situation, due to various factors, say, face-salvation. We see this point pop up all the time in ethics, for instance. You see, part of the relativist's argument is that there is ethical disagreement, therefore ethics are relative. But this overlooks the fact that two cognizers might agree about a norm, and sufficiently understand the norm, yet disagree on how to apply the norm to a given situation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A further response to the actual post:

    You said, "Ironically, however, it is not these people who generally take up the Whining Like A Sissy Girl Mantle. No, it is their enablers. Some of whom will even claim to be on the side of the T-Bloggers. “I believe what you do,” they say, “but I think you’re a Big Meanie.” This is done to score them cred points with the opposition."

    No, my concern is not with my 'cred,' but with the glory of Christ, and the dialogue on this blog does not seem to reflect a tone that would glorify him.

    Ask yourselves this question: if an unbeliever came across this blog and read the posts and comment threads that address the 'fools,' as you call them, do you think they would come away with an accurate picture of Christ? Because that is what you are supposed to reflecting, and I simply don't think your language, tone, etc. are doing that. Answer that question honestly and without sarcasm or belittlement and I'll be happy to consider changing my opinion if you can prove to me scripturally that the way you are conducting yourselves reflects Christ.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peter,
    First, it appears that I responded to your first response to me at the exact same time that you responded to me again concerning the 2 Corinthians passage, so when I said that your response to me holds no water, I was referring to the first instance you responded when you said I was just being a jerk to you.

    Second, you said, "Paul's use of satire shows that it's certainly an allowable form of expression." I agree that satire is a helpful mode of communication, but I will continue to argue that you go beyond satire into the realm of mean-spirited belittlement. The two are not the same.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  17. Maybe we would all do well to read 1 Corinthians 13. Without love, all our theological knowledge is kaput.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think telling someone the truth is the most loving thing a Christian can do. Even if it's a truth the other person doesn't want to hear. Or even if the truth is told in a manner or tone that the other person doesn't like.

    Think of the TV show "House". I'd argue that Dr. House is a guy who's enormously dedicated to saving his patient's lives even though they don't like his bedside manner.

    I think Steve and his T-blog cohorts are like Dr. House and I'm lucky enough to contribute once in a while.

    For the naysayers with their subjective notions of what love is, all I gotta say is: "Get over being so quick to be offended, shut up, and you might learn something if you ask the right questions and LISTEN.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Truth Unites...and Divides,
    Yes telling the truth is of course loving, but apparently speaking the truth is not enough: we have to speak it in love. This, by the way, is NOT a good example of that - "Get over being so quick to be offended, shut up, and you might learn something if you ask the right questions and LISTEN." That is quite possibly one of the most single-handedly arrogant statements I've heard in awhile. I mean seriously, how do you not see this?

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  20. Matt said:

    One final note: my words towards those who blog here does not excuse those who comment in a way that I have described. However, as it is the person's or persons' responsibility who manages the blog to drive the discussion and therefore the tone of that discussion, I am addressing this comment primarily to those of you who are responsible for the content on this blog.

    Since Matt is addressing "those of you who are responsible for the content on this blog," and sometimes I do post here and am responsible, for better or for worse...

    A couple of points:

    1. In his commentary on Ephesians, Peter O'Brien writes the following about "speaking the truth in love":

    "As Paul now focusses [sic] positively on the ultimate goal towards which he and his readers are moving, he desires that together they may grow up into Christ, who is the head. This growth will occur as they speak the truth in love rather than being misled by the malicious scheming of the false teachers. A sharp contrast, heightened by a chiasmus, is drawn between the final words of v. 14 and this opening clause of v. 15. Over against the 'crafty scheming' stands the expression in love (a key phrase in the letter, see below), while speaking the truth is set in opposition to the words 'of error'. Thus, speaking the truth in love lays out a twofold contrast with the false teachers: the latter were presenting false doctrine in a deceptive manner, but over against this God's people are to grow through proclaiming the truth in love."

    In other words, as I read O'Brien, it seems like his point is Paul's emphasis in Eph. 4:15 ("speaking the truth in love") is not so much about tone or style of communication as it is about communication of the truth.

    Of course, I'm not at all saying the Bible doesn't talk about tone elsewhere. Obviously that's not the case. My immediate point is it seems the main emphasis of Eph. 4:15 isn't placed on tone so much as it is placed on truth.

    Practically speaking, it seems this verse is teaching us that genuine love for a fellow Christian is to tell him the truth and thus help him to grow and mature in faith, "so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" but rather "we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ..."

    True doctrine which leads to growth and maturity in the faith is where the accent is placed in this verse, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 2. In context, Eph. 4:15 is written to Christians. Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that we should always speak "nicely" to our opponents on the basis of this verse, then what about opponents who are not Christians? How would this verse square with non-Christians?

    3. If we look at the Bible in its entirety for balance on the topic (e.g. Col. 4:6, which is about "outsiders"), then we must also include other verses such as Titus 1:13 (as Paul mentioned).

    4. Speaking more broadly, the apostles and of course our Lord himself make the distinction between professing believers who live and behave like professing believers and professing believers who live and behave like unbelievers -- and treat each accordingly, which sometimes includes some fairly harsh remarks. Is it sinful if we do the same?

    5. Matt said: "My point was not to say that Paul gets to talk this way but you all don't; my point is that no Christian should ever engage in dialogue in the way that you all do."

    But some of the apostles did utter rather harsh and even seemingly ungracious remarks (as did our Lord). The apostles were Christians. Were they wrong to speak and behave the way they spoke and behaved?

    6. Matt said: "Again, I think you all would do well to consider the matter prayerfully instead of jumping to the defensive. However sinfully and incoherently it may be presented, you seem to have had numerous brothers and sisters in Christ address this issue (thus this post) and so it seems that might suggest a need to actually consider if this is an area in which sanctification through Christ's grace is needed in your blogging."

    Of course, having sheer numbers on one side doesn't necessarily imply anything one way or the other.

    And I'm not saying we shouldn't evaulate ourselves.

    But, speaking personally, I have yet to read a good argument from other Christians in regard to this issue. I haven't read every single comment on every single post on our blog, so perhaps some good ones have been offered but I've somehow missed them. In any case, my point is that I'd please like to hear a good argument from Scripture for why it's sinful to sometimes behave harshly towards certain people at certain times rather than to be admonished for vaguely illicit speech or behavior without further details.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Patrick,
    Thanks for your response. I only have a couple of things to bring out.

    1) I agree that the apostles and Jesus are blunt and, in your terms, harsh in Scripture. However, I do not see where they are belittling or demeaning the intelligence of their opponents, which, in the last few posts/comment threads I have read here, has been the case.

    A related question/point would be, 2) could you show me where in Scripture the apostles/Jesus are not only harsh/blunt to fellow believers but are also doing so in a way that could be compared to some of the mocking and demeaning comments on this blog? (I realize these are my adjectives, and you may object; however, I think you understand the gist of the tone I am getting after here.)

    3) I possibly would concede your point about speaking differently to unbelievers who are spreading false teaching than to believers with whom we disagree; however, I'm not willing to part ways with my blanket statement of how we should speak to others until I do further scriptural research. What immediately comes to mind, though, is Jesus calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers; I'm pretty sure that didn't come across as 'nice.'

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good point Patrick.

    I made the point about style above. Matt and Steve seemed concerned with being "nice", and doing so with a British accent. But love doesn't = nice. Parents can spank their kids in love. This causes pain. It is sometimes embarrassing for the kid. And these kids, most times, do not think of this as an act of love. Maybe later they will. And I can guarantee that if some of these Arminians became Reformed, they would be thankful for our conversations, thought at the time they didn't like it. But someone here might get the thanks while those who sat on the sidelines being "loving" didn't really do squat.

    Matt quoted Peter as saying something "mean" and "arrogant" with I guess means "not loving." But when you could point to very similar behavior in the prophets, Jesus, and apostles, Matt's retort is: "But they were different than you, so you can't assume to do what they do." Well, that point is far from obvious as a defeater. Certainly when they speak in other kinds of ways, ways which might send feelings made of "good vibrations" down our spine, Matt &co are probably quick to recommend that we do act like them! Furthermore, is Matt a relativist? The point is that if his speaking the truth in love (and, much like with Steven, I don't know what Matt means here since he hasn't bothered to lay out just what, exactly, is it to "speak the truth in love") is supposed to function as some kind of ethical norm that, if violated, one sins, then saying Jesus &c. did a sinful act without sinning seems odd. Could Jesus have raped or murdered and not been guilty? If not, why could he sin in speech and not be guilty? If Matt responds that the speech of those in the Bible are not examples of speaking the truth unlovingly, and if our speech is very similar to some of theirs, then how can one conclude that we are speaking it unlovingly!?

    It's not as if any one here disagrees with the Bible in Eph. 4! Therefore it's not enough to simply proof text with some pious remarks about the oppositions being "unloving." That's almost to win by definition.

    Matt may wish to recast his point rater than get involved in the troubles his comments have seemed to make for him (see my comments above). Maybe what he really means is that you can catch more flies with honey. Civil dialogue, minus any, well, "smack talk", is just better. More nice. More civil. More conducive to continued debate. I think that's the point he wanted to make, and it's a valid one, a discussion worth having. I just think Matt is caught in the Evangelical trap of having to "proof text" every comment with some verse (which ironicaly stiffles discussion since those who do so are usually hoping people won't respond to their "thus sayeth the Lord" argument, and when someone does respond, a good discussion cannot had because the proof-texter now thinks the respondant is arguing against God and so just can't be right).

    So, Matt, for these reasons I think you should recast your objection in the following terms: Just according to the rules of civil discussion and dialogs that can progress, I think the tone should be changed here. Then a good, healthy debate can follow and we can leave all this proof texting and bad (honestly) arguments from the Bible aside. Or, I guess you have the optinion of doing some good exegesis and showing how there have been violations of the Bible, rebutting the defeaters to your defeater from following biblical example (which, BTW, if your arument were sound, would make a great argument against credo baptists!), and so on and so forth. Me thinks the first route will be easier for you to argue. But I guess if you're convinced that you have a "thus sayeth the Lord" argument, and it is just obvious that some here are in the wrong (as you intimate above), then I respectfully suggest that you have cut off good dialog yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul,
    While in your Rules of Engagement and in Peter's comments with BSMH in a previous post you all say that you need to be aware of the actual arguments being made and stick to them, you have not done this with me.

    First, you continue to claim that I say Jesus/the apostles can speak however they want to and get away with it, but we can't. That is not what I said. I've already responded to this once in this same comment thread and see no reason to do so again. I will simply paste what I said earlier: "My point in saying that 'You do not have the authority of the apostle Paul and are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore have no right whatsoever to claim that you can attempt to imitate his exercise of authority that is found in Scripture' should be fairly clear; Peter has no apostolic right to try to imitate Paul's authority exercised in that passage or other passages. You did not, though, finish my statement in your response, because I go on to say that I don't think Peter 'imitate[s Paul's exercise of authority] very well - Paul may have been bluntly honest, but he certainly wasn't a jerk.' In other words, even if I did grant that Peter had the right to attempt to imitate Paul's exercise of authority in those passages, I still do not believe that he is doing so in a way that reflects Paul's spirit towards his opponents. Paul does not make arguments in a way that belittles his Christian brothers and sisters, even when exercising considerable amounts of apostolic authority; Peter, however, does."

    Second, if you want me to give you a solid once and for all definition of speaking the truth *in love*, I can't. I'm not a legalistic moralist who wants to lay out overarching rules that aren't in Scripture. My point is that the tone of this blog, IMO, not only hinders what you call civil discourse but also does not reflect this command in Ephesians 4. You can disagree with that, and that's fine; Peter has already said as much in a different comment thread and I simply have to say, "alright I'm not the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot convict your heart, so I agree to disagree." I am more than happy to say that to you, but I do not concede the argument because this is not a logical battle where there are fallacies at hand, but an issue of spiritual discernment. I do not see the wisdom or love in the way the tone of this blog typically comes out; you see no problem. We will simply have to part ways on the matter.

    Third, just as a matter of opinion, I don't think your spanking analogy works. 1) You are not a parental authority over the people who comment on your blog, and so do not have the same authority as a parent does over their child. 2) While the act of judgment (spanking), may be embarassing, I would argue that if done out of love (gasp) this is never demeaning to the child, which is what I see the tone of this blog as tending towards: mockery and belittlement.


    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  25. Matt,

    1. This is the first time I've said anything to you, so I have "continued to say" nothing.

    Anyway, you rather missed my point. If what the prophets, Jesus, and apostles did in certain occasions was not sinful, was not speaking unlovingly, and if what we have done on certain occasions is relevantly similar (putting the various statements in their historical context, which you seem to not do for those in the Bible, but read their statements as if they were said today, and might not be considered "jerky"), then what we've said in certain occasions is not unloving.

    Furthermore, is Paul in a relevantly similar position as we are? That's not clear. So, while he may have been kind to honest and sincere inquirers, I don't think that's what we're dealing with.

    Lastly, according to ANE and 1st century contexts, what Paul &co. said at times was considered "jerky". There were no Christians in Jesus' time, the religious community, the church, was made up of the Jews. So, when Jesus mocked and belittled and embarrassed the Pharisees, he was dpoing it to the church members of his day. If I said I wished baptists would drown themselves, you would say I was a jerk. Yet Paul isn't a jerk when he says he wishes the Judaizers would cut off their penises? See, you just needed to contextualization! There are far too many of these to get into, but we can. The basic point is that I disagree with your interpretation of the events and would wager that your misunderstanding is based on anachronistic readings. Things then that weren't jerky might be jerky now, and vice versa.

    2. Okay, so your entire condemnation is based on your gut feeling and evangelical hankering for experiential confirmation. In orhter words, you have no other argument from the Bibe than to proof text and then assert that we are "not speaking the truth in love" while admitting that you don't know what they meant by that but you sure know how you feel about that.

    3. It is a basic axiom that not analogies line up in one to one correspondence, otherwise we'd have an identity and not an analogy. Having said that, I deny that your disanalogies were relevant analogies to the way I used the example.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Normally, superiors are supposed to set an example. Be a role model.

    So it's rather odd to say we should go out of our way to avoid emulating the linguistic practices of Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Paul,
    1. You have *continued* to miss my point, which is that I do not buy that you are doing the same thing as my the apostles/Jesus were doing. Again, we can disagree and that is fine, because it is a matter of discernment and wisdom and so there's no way one of us could say to the other that we have iron clad textual proof that what the other is doing is incorrect or sinful. Just as a side note, I play on a different hermeneutical field than you and don't buy the use of the "ANE context" argument in exegesis, but that is a totally separate matter entirely.

    2. You can say that I am trying to proof text, but that's just as much of a red herring as anything possibly could be. I tried to carefully explain in my previous comment to you that I believe it is a matter of spiritual discernment and not one of proof texting, vague feelings, liver shivers, or whatever. You and I can disagree on the wisdom of your tone and whether Eph 4 applies without you accusing me of being lovey-dovey and controlled by emotions.

    3. Why do you deny my disanalogies? Simply denying them doesn't make them untrue, which I believe one of you pointed out something similar in another comment thread.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  28. Steve,
    My whole point is that you all are *not* properly emulating those men, no matter how many times you assert that you think you are.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  29. Matt,

    1. I have *continued* to do nothing. I made the claim that there were similarites. You don't buy it. So, I know your point, and I met it. If you can assert, so can I. Catching on now? (BTW, my ANE point had nothing to do with "hermeneutical rules" but was a statement of fact that in the time of the ANE some things were considered rude/polite that are not now. This is not something to disagree with me about but to accept.)

    2. I asked you to give an argument, you haven't done so. Your claim *hinges* upon a certain reading of Eph 4 (which we saw that even O'Brien didn't take). In order to have something more than liver shivers, I'm afraid you're going to need more than calling what we are doing "unloving" and then asserting that Eph. 4 is talking about what is going on here.

    3. Why? I'm arguing like you now. It's a matter of logical intuition and discernment :-)

    Anyway, I asked you to re-read what i wrote cause I thought the the similarities evident. Do you seriously think I was trying to say I was their dad? No. The point was that "love" can be "hurtful" and "embarrassing" and viewed as unloving by the recipeient at the time the "love" is handed out. I think those are the relevant analogies and you could have caught it if you weren;t trying so hard to "win" a debate.

    And, why am I sensing that you are becoming increasingly more unloving in your responses to me?

    I am tempted to act like an idiot and totally ignore every point you make, and then brag about how good my theological take on the matter is, and then see how quick your "love" goes out the door. Then you'll see what we deal with.

    3.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Me at 12:16 am: "I think telling someone the truth is the most loving thing a Christian can do. Even if it's a truth the other person doesn't want to hear. Or even if the truth is told in a manner or tone that the other person doesn't like.

    Think of the TV show "House". I'd argue that Dr. House is a guy who's enormously dedicated to saving his patient's lives even though they don't like his bedside manner.

    I think Steve and his T-blog cohorts are like Dr. House and I'm lucky enough to contribute once in a while.

    For the naysayers with their subjective notions of what love is, all I gotta say is: "Get over being so quick to be offended, shut up, and you might learn something if you ask the right questions and LISTEN."


    Matt at 12:23 am: "Truth Unites...and Divides,
    Yes telling the truth is of course loving, but apparently speaking the truth is not enough: we have to speak it in love. This, by the way, is NOT a good example of that - "Get over being so quick to be offended, shut up, and you might learn something if you ask the right questions and LISTEN." That is quite possibly one of the most single-handedly arrogant statements I've heard in awhile. I mean seriously, how do you not see this?

    In Christ,
    Matt"

    Matt,

    #1. Obviously, you were quick to be offended by my comment.

    #2. By being so quick to be offended (actually, it seems more like if someone doesn't agree with you, then you're offended), you are then quick to offend others by being harshly and unnecessarily offensive yourself. I mean seriously, how do you not see this?

    #3. I don't know how long your "... I've heard in awhile" is, but if it's one year or more, then you must live in a rather cloistered bubble where your reputation for temper tantrums must precede you and cause others to water down and dilute what they say in an effort to please what you consider to be Christianly Correct Tone.

    #4. You wrote: "That is quite possibly one of the most single-handedly arrogant statements I've heard in awhile."

    (a) So Matt, you're telling me your statement is an example of speaking "truth in love"?

    (b) If so, you're a hypocrite. A judgmental pharasaic hypocrite, for that matter.

    (c) My statement is a request for those who are arrogant to be more humble. And then of course, you have to go ahead and prove my speculation that you are indeed arrogant by being the quick-to-be-offended arrogant type of person.

    #5. You don't like T-blog because you think they don't show enough "grace" to those who are being stupid or who are morally foolish or who disagree with them or a combination of all three.

    Well, let's think about it. If you tell a person that they're stupid (about some particular matter), then they're likely to be offended. Or if you tell them that they're being morally foolish (about some particular matter), then they're likely to be offended.

    At some point in time, you, Matt, need to realize that a person being offended is not a bad thing. Jesus offended people. In fact, He got crucified because He offended people. The Gospel of the Cross is offensive to people. Telling sinners that they are sinners is offensive to sinners.

    Matt, get over yourself and get off your high horse of arrogance. And if that offends you, so be it.

    Pax.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Matt said:
    ---
    I do not see where they are belittling or demeaning the intelligence of their opponents
    ---

    "You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?" (Matthew 23:17).

    "But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'" (Luke 12:20).

    "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:1-3).

    "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?" (James 2:20).

    And some OT smackdown too:

    "For they are a nation void of counsel, and there is no understanding in them" (Deuteronomy 32:28).

    "Even when the fool walks on the road, he lacks sense, and he says to everyone that he is a fool." (Ecclesiastes 10:3).

    "Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?" (Psalm 94:8).

    "The princes of Zoan are utterly foolish; the wisest counselors of Pharaoh give stupid counsel. How can you say to Pharaoh, 'I am a son of the wise, a son of ancient kings'?" (Isaiah 19:11).

    "For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are 'wise'—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not." (Jeremiah 4:22).

    "Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, for his images are false, and there is no breath in them" (Jeremiah 51:17).

    "Ephraim is like a dove, silly and without sense, calling to Egypt, going to Assyria." (Hosea 7:11).

    Must I go on?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "I DENY YOU ARE ACTING LIKE ANY OF THEM!"

    T-blog Peter to Arminian: Why are you so dull and can't grasp it?

    Jesus to Peter: Are you still so dull?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "I DENY YOU ARE ACTING LIKE ANY OF THEM!"

    when Paul called the high priest a white washed tomb, some were upset that he "insulted" the high priest. Paul said that he didn't know he was the high priest, implying he would have no problem "insulting" a regular joe.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I DENY YOU ARE ACTING LIKE ANY OF THEM!"

    "You foolish Galations!"

    "You foolish Arminians"

    ReplyDelete
  35. Matt said:

    2) could you show me where in Scripture the apostles/Jesus are not only harsh/blunt to fellow believers but are also doing so in a way that could be compared to some of the mocking and demeaning comments on this blog?

    Hi Matt,

    Thanks for the dialogue.

    In response to your question, I suppose if we want to draw some sort of parallels between Scripture and some of the "mocking and demeaning comments on this blog," then the following verses might do. I think they're probably harsher than what anyone here has ever said about you.

    * "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision" (Psa. 2:4).

    * "And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, 'Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself..." (1 Kings 18:27).

    * "But he turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man'" (Matt. 16:23).

    * "And Jesus answered, 'O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?'" (Matt. 17:17).

    * "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves" (Matt. 23:15) and "Woe to you, blind guides ... You blind fools! ... You blind men! ... You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (Matt. 23:15, 17, 19, 33).

    * "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (Mark 7:27).

    * "All who came before me are thieves and robbers..." (John 10:8).

    * "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51).

    * "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10)

    * "Then Paul said to him, 'God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!'" (Acts 23:3).

    * "O foolish Galatians!" (Gal. 3:1)

    * "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal. 5:12).

    * "Look out for the dogs..." (Phil. 3:2).

    * "One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true" (Titus 1:12-13).

    * "You adulterous people!" (Jas. 4:4)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Note some of these verses were spoken to professing believers.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Carl Trueman has a post which could be relevant to the discussion. Maybe, maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Guys, there are quite a few responses I'm going to have to write here, so please bear with me.

    RESPONSE 1:

    Patrick (and Peter, in dealing with scriptural passages),
    Thanks for the responses. If the nature of discourse continues as it has with the two of you I'd love to continue the conversation on whatever subject you guys post on. There are a few questions I'd ask in response to you: 1) I appreciate you taking the time to cite Scripture here; my question would be this though - even though, as you point out Patrick, there are a few of these verses where believers are addressed, isn't the vast majority of this language used towards unbelievers? And even if it is used towards believers at times, it seems as though the vast majority of the NT puts the emphasis not on copying this (what I see as rare) use of rhetoric towards *believers,* but on a different attitude. Jesus says that the man who calls his brother a fool is damned, Paul exhorts us to (yes I know the old refrain) speak the truth in *love*, build one another up, be kind etc etc from 1 Cor 13, live peacably with all men (Rom 13), and I could go on. The point is, while I concede that you have brought up some very important passages, a) don't most of those apply to unbelievers and b) shouldn't we take the whole counsel of God into consideration, which I am suggesting paints a different picture than the one you have painted with these verses? In other words, *perhaps* (and that is a big perhaps in my opinion) there is a time to rebuke someone using strong, harsh, and even mocking language (i.e. 'fool'), but shouldn't it be our default mode to (as cliche as it sounds) "turn the other cheek"?

    2)I am not sure exactly which part of the Trueman article you wanted me to read, but I found this quote to stand out, and think maybe you were referring to it (correct me if I'm wrong): "Trueman's Second Law would be formulated something like this: in any exchange of views, sooner or later one or more of the participants will describe themselves as hurt or in pain as a result of somebody else's comment; and at that point it is clear that they have lost the real debate." I just want to point out that I brought up this whole thing in a separate post and was not involved in the debate at all when I made my first comment. I, in fact, agreed with what Peter had posted, and so please don't think I pulled the cry baby card because I lost an argument. This post arose out of my responses in that one, and like I'll say in a second to Paul, I don't think we've been debating anything, but having a conversation among brothers.

    ReplyDelete
  39. RESPONSE 2:

    Paul, while I sense just a bit of sarcasm (or maybe a lot :-) ) from you, I can take that. I appreciate most of your first response. The other ones where you're yelling in all caps and providing subtle ad hominems as to my tone, not so much. As to your first response, I will focus on point 2. 1 and 3 I think are areas where we're just talking past each other and I'm just too tired to pursue it any more. As to point 2, you say that I need more than liver shivers, and I wholeheartedly agree; but as I've already said, I'm not trying to push some 'proof text/thus saith' thing on you, I am attempting to articulate the fact that I don't think it is wise to make the default mode of interaction with your opponents (however unintelligent and belligerent) be mockery and belittlement. We can disagree here, and that's fine. It is a subjective interpretation of what God has left open in Scripture (e.g. what 'in love' means in specific situations).

    Well I changed my mind; I guess I will address 3. As far as I'm concerned I'm not trying to win a debate. If I've come off that way I apologize. What I am trying to do is have a conversation with you about spiritual wisdom concerning the nature of discourse. We perhaps have gone off on various tangents and then it probably has been a bit more like debate. But at the core what I perceive the discussion revolving around is what I just said; spiritual wisdom in how to conduct discourse with unbelievers.

    True,
    I find it ironic that you all are allowed to be bluntly honest on this blog and I cannot do the same. What I am arguing against is not honesty, but mockery and belittlement. Those are things that you stooped to in your response to me, and something I don't think I've done to you. I don't think it would be fruitful for the two of us to continue the dialogue. And BTW, the James verse says do not be quick to anger, not do not be quick to be offended. a) I'm not offended by any of this; sometimes I find myself laughing at this whole thing, and b) I do not think I have ever exhibited anger towards any of you. If I have, please point it out to me and then I hope you'll accept my apology.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  40. This may be one of the stupidest discussions I'll ever engage in but...

    Steven,

    Re your definition: your point #4 made your admonishion in your first comment rather pointless. In fact, you basically said that speaking the truth in love is speaking the truth in love. Not very enlightening.


    Well you are right; speaking the truth in love is speaking the truth in love. But I'm not sure that's what I said. I said speaking the truth in love is basically speaking in the truth in a manner that is loving; what other definition can I give? That it is speaking the truth kindly? I can offer synonyms for "loving" but I'm still saying the same thing.

    Your definition is also faulty because it is possible that some person, S, understand the biblical meaning of "love" while also missaplying it to a given situation, due to various factors, say, face-salvation. We see this point pop up all the time in ethics, for instance. You see, part of the relativist's argument is that there is ethical disagreement, therefore ethics are relative. But this overlooks the fact that two cognizers might agree about a norm, and sufficiently understand the norm, yet disagree on how to apply the norm to a given situation.

    I suppose you have a point here. Perhaps the fourth of the four conditions should be something like: "The conversation is such that an ideal third-party observer would describe it as loving", and let's say part of that person's being ideal is that he can never misapply the concept of "loving".

    Or maybe rather we can say: "The conversation is such that both of the parties involved would describe the conversation as loving."

    Or maybe: "The conversation is such that both of the parties involved would describe the conversation as loving, and an ideal third-party observer would agree."

    But really it doesn't even matter. Even if I can't devise some sort of criterion of "loving truth-speak", I can still tell when it is and when it isn't. And at times, it is not, round these parts.

    Peter Pike said:
    That's fine except for the fact that "loving" is defined by subjective notions "felt" by various members who observe a conversation, and thus will NEVER obtain. Hence my response to Matt above.

    No, if the persons involved and observing have a grasp of the true Biblical notion of what it means to speak the truth in love, and are such that they cannot misapply the tag to a conversation, then it is possible that there be a conversation that really is the truth in love.

    Also, it might not be bothersome to you if someone insults you over the internet, but no doubt it might be bothersome to another person. (I don't presume to be the moral beacon of the blog world or anything, but I might as well talk if I've got nothing better to do.) No doubt you would like Bossmanham to engage you in conversation in such a way as you find proper, so why not engage him in such a way as he finds proper? This seems to be the good and gracious thing to do, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Matt: "And BTW, the James verse says do not be quick to anger, not do not be quick to be offended."

    A little deeper thinking would have at least caused a person to realize that some people are quick to anger because they are quick to be offended.

    "I find it ironic that you all are allowed to be bluntly honest on this blog and I cannot do the same."

    I never said that you couldn't. You're bearing false witness.

    I'm just holding you up to the same standard that you yourself set.

    Anyways, thanks for tacitly admitting that you were harsh, offensive, and not speaking the "truth in love".

    ReplyDelete
  42. Matt said:
    ---
    In other words, *perhaps* (and that is a big perhaps in my opinion) there is a time to rebuke someone using strong, harsh, and even mocking language (i.e. 'fool'), but shouldn't it be our default mode to (as cliche as it sounds) "turn the other cheek"?
    ---

    I think you'll find that our default mode is to egnage respectfully with everyone who comes in. We have perfectly fine conversations with rational and well-behaved individuals all the time. But when someone comes in, as BSman did, then we respond accordingly.

    In point of fact, I think that we are even turning the other cheek in our responses. Because a slap on the cheek was a form of insult, and turning the other cheek, to me, seems to say A) "Your insult was pathetic" and B) "Here's how little I think of it: try the other cheek."

    ReplyDelete
  43. Steven,

    I think you'll agree that your strictures basicaly ruin your attempts to claim there is "unliving speaking" going on here. So, it may sound fine as a platitude, but your understanding of the relevant passage is sufficiently abstract as to make it useless to function as a guide to action, and the inability of a norm to function this way is one of the classic signs that ones ethical theory is lacking.

    Anyway, your final position is to claim that you can just tell when it is and isn't, and it isn't here. Well, if we're going to debate that way, all sorts of absurdities follow. And I trust you're sharp enough to think of some yourself. Of course, I also don't deny that you can tell when it is and isn't, but this is just circular since I never doubted you had a deficient view of "love" in the first place. So, all you've done with your last remark is to beg the question yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well, whatever :) I can tell, and probably you can too, when a person's speech is proper and improper, and no doubt Triablogue is entertaining to read, but perhaps not always proper and kind. And I think it is more likely that you convince your opponents of the deficiency of their position and the truth of your own when you communicate in such a way that they don't have any excuse for continuing to believe as they do, including emotional excuses like: "those T-blog jerks, if Calvinists are like that, I don't want to be one." No doubt that's not a rational reason for failing to be a Calvinst; in fact such a person is irrational in holding to his Arminianism at that point. But I should think the point is not to make Arminians irrational, but to make them Calvinists. Would you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Peter,
    Although I don't know that I agree with your exegesis of turning the other cheek, I certainly find that interpretation appealing. :-)

    Let me end by clarifying what I mean by default mode - I meant more a "70x7" approach. Is that what you would consider your default mode? Just so you all know, after Peter's answer to that specific question, I'm out. Thanks to those of you who have been forthcoming and (sometimes :-) ) kind in your dialogue. Peace out.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steven said:
    ---
    Also, it might not be bothersome to you if someone insults you over the internet, but no doubt it might be bothersome to another person.
    ---

    Yes, I grant that is true; but it's also bothersome for Arminians to have any Calvinists say anything at all at any time. Again, I tailor my response to the people I'm interacting with. I don't engage in insults with you because your writing shows me that you want to speak on serious topics without any verbal jousting. Thus, I behave that way toward you, because that's the way you've indicated you wanted the response.

    But doing so, no doubt, offends someone somewhere in the world. I can't write anything that will be accepted by every single person. No one can.

    You said:
    ---
    No doubt you would like Bossmanham to engage you in conversation in such a way as you find proper, so why not engage him in such a way as he finds proper?
    ---

    I thought when he started off with "Only a delusion would believe that" etc. that he was indicating what way he finds proper.

    Setting aside other issues for a moment, if BSman is not offended by the use of insults and if I am not offended by the use of insults, then why would there be a problem with our conversation including insults?

    Of course, if BSman is NOW offended by insults, then we could certainly address his hypocrisy in being able to "dish it" but not "take it", but that's a separate issue (and as far as I know he hasn't said one way or the other to date). And if he now says, "Sorry, I shouldn't have done that, let's continue without insults" and I THEN continue to insult him, then yes I am engaging in sinful behavior at that point.

    But I don't see how it's sinful if both sides have agreed, whether by explicit agrement or the tacit flow of conversation, that insults are "okay." Even if others who read it might be offended if such insults were directed at them, I don't see how they can have valid offense by proxy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Matt,

    See, that's just the problem, I do not think I resorted to mockery and belittlement with you. You've given away the farm by exposing an extra sensitive nature that you apparently have. Or, we're just from different planets.

    I also wasn't implying anything by the all caps.But hey, while you're on the judgmental role, keep it going!

    Funny thing is, if you were privy to private corrspondances between Hays and I (not that I critiqued him or anything, just where I've expressed my own feelings), you'd probably find out that I agree with you way more than you think.

    Lastly, you've not cited anything I've said and I'd also point out that repeating the same tone or kind of response isn't necessarily being mean, it's holding a mirror up. I think people confuse this for meanness sometimes. They take our "being an ______ to the _________" as being mean, when all we're doing is answering on their own grounds, in hopes that they drop their behavior and stick with the arguments, 'cause at the end of the day, that's all I actually want.

    But I'm fine not continuing anything. I shouldn't have even comented in the first place. Waste of my time. But for me, even if I agree with someone, if they are offering bad or weak arguments, I usally want to say something.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Peter: suppose both parties agree that the use of foul language is acceptable for the course of the conversation. They both agree the conversation is fine for them, but clearly it is wrong, given the various exhortations in scripture to abstain from crude talk, and so on.

    Now there is a clear scriptural teaching on foul language; perhaps not so much (or at least I cannot at the moment come up with a clear scriptural teaching) on harsh or "mean" language. I don't know if I can prove that even harsh language is improper; but no doubt my convictions are the same. Also it seems to me to be more fruitful in your discussion if you do abstain from harsher language.

    But each one should be convinced in his own mind. If you don't think your manner of dialog is improper, and I admit I don't think I can prove it is, then we should both go whatever way we think is right. :)

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'd note in passing that much if not most of the harsh language in Scripture is directed at professing believers. And that's because the Bible is primarily written to and for the community of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Steven,

    Well, whatever. Good one.

    you said,

    "And I think it is more likely that you convince your opponents of the deficiency of their position and the truth of your own when you communicate in such a way that they don't have any excuse for continuing to believe as they do, including emotional excuses like: "those T-blog jerks, if Calvinists are like that, I don't want to be one."

    I know you're young and naive, so I'm taking it easy :-)

    I disproved this notion in my debates with Reppert (I have the 15 or so back-n-forths complied somewhere here). Of course, I was still mean for defending a mean God. I was then told that even though I was acting kind this was inconsistent with my theology cause we have a mean theology. And, my arguments received no more respect than if I would have called some of the responses "the most dumbest things I have heard coming out of a yap for a long time." So, once you actually get your clothes dirty and find out that you worship the devil and are only "nice" because of an inconsistency, I suspect you'll drop your utopian view of converting arrogant Arminian epologists.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hey guys, on a side note, did any of you hear Michael Jackson died? Crazy!!!!! THE KING OF POP NOW STAND BEFORE THE KING OF KINGS MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  52. Steven,

    Well, whatever. Good one.


    I'm not concerned with giving a real good set of conditions that are such that if fulfilled would constitute a conversation's being "the truth spoken in love." But you didn't think I was actually interested in such a thing.

    I know you're young and naive, so I'm taking it easy :-)

    I appreciate that, believe me!

    I disproved this notion in my debates with Reppert (I have the 15 or so back-n-forths complied somewhere here). Of course, I was still mean for defending a mean God. I was then told that even though I was acting kind this was inconsistent with my theology cause we have a mean theology. And, my arguments received no more respect than if I would have called some of the responses "the most dumbest things I have heard coming out of a yap for a long time." So, once you actually get your clothes dirty and find out that you worship the devil and are only "nice" because of an inconsistency, I suspect you'll drop your utopian view of converting arrogant Arminian epologists.

    Even if you are not treated with dignity and respect, I mean you have to admit it is only right to respond with dignity and respect. Yes, you and I worship Satan, I know that, but we'd still do well to represent him in a positive light! Perhaps I am a misled youth, with crazy ideas about causing a Calvinist revival among the Arminian bloggers (though I don't think I have such ideas), but surely I can't be accused of anything bad for speaking in a way that is kind and not demeaning--this is not to say that I do speak in a kind and non-demeaning way, only that I think it is right to attempt to.

    I already said earlier, if you don't think you're wrong, and I don't think I can convince you otherwise, then each one should go his own way. But I do think that the Triabloggers could at times be kinder.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "But I do think that the Triabloggers could at times be kinder."

    Perhaps. But there could be times when Triabloggers are too kind.

    Ever heard of the phrase "Too much kindness kills"?

    Anyways, by today's standards, Jesus and many of the other figures in the Bible weren't always kind.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Matt said...
    Hey guys, on a side note, did any of you hear Michael Jackson died? Crazy!!!!! THE KING OF POP NOW STAND BEFORE THE KING OF KINGS MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    In Christ,
    Matt

    7/08/2009 11:43 AM


    Of course, plenty of unbelievers and emergent types would call the above manifestly unloving.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anyways, by today's standards, Jesus and many of the other figures in the Bible weren't always kind.

    You do have a point here. "Brood of vipers" is hardly a compliment, and the truth is Jesus was not always seeker friendly. Perhaps, though, Jesus can take into account their heart-condition; he knows the Pharisees were reprobates, they didn't care about learning from him, they were deceptive and evil, and they wanted to catch him in his words at various times. But the same does not hold true for you and I: I don't know if Arminian X is a reprobate or not; I do know, however, that I can have profitable and edifying discussion with him if I manage to behave myself in a certain way with him; I can have a potential friend, even if we disagree, but I should think I won't have a friend if I don't behave myself in a certain way, and certainly I won't be convincing anyone--which I think is one of the goals of dialog like this--if I am overly harsh with them. (I don't mean to say that conversion is the only purpose of dialog of this sort; I enjoy dialog for the sake of dialog, but convincing someone of the deficiency in their system and the superiority of my own is also a plus.)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Steven,

    Actually what I was going to try and get at was your understanding of Eph. 4, from where you took your verse and try to argue that you are missaplying it.

    Respect n such? Again, what does that look like? Wishing a group of professing believers would cut off their members?

    And, I note, again, that, at least for me, the (culturally) rude behavior is almost always responsive to another comment and is meant to show the implications of going down that road in the debate. It's a tactic, perhaps not a wise one as it can backfire, but that's the *motive*.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Steven: "I can have a potential friend, even if we disagree, but I should think I won't have a friend if I don't behave myself in a certain way"

    Poor Steven. He thinks he won't have a friend if he doesn't behave himself in a certain way.

    Here's the lyrics to a Barney the Purple Dinosaur song that'll help you behave in a way that you think will gain you friends:

    "I love you,
    You love me,
    We're a happy family,
    with a great big hug,
    and a kiss from me to you,
    Won't you say you love me TOO!

    I love you,
    You love me,
    We're best friends like friends should be,
    With a great big hug,
    And a kiss from me to you,
    Won't you say you love me too?"

    ReplyDelete
  58. Actually what I was going to try and get at was your understanding of Eph. 4, from where you took your verse and try to argue that you are missaplying it.

    Respect n such? Again, what does that look like? Wishing a group of professing believers would cut off their members?

    (I am not sure that Paul thought the circumcision party were actually believers. In fact he says they've fallen from grace, essentially, if I remember correctly.) Well do you think your behavior, given the circumstances, is as justifiable as Paul's, given the then circumstances? Do you think that the significance of the discussion you might be having, for example, justifies your use of language the way that the significance of the issue with the Galatians, for example, justified Paul's use of language?

    But not only that: do you think that, if Paul did it, then it is good to do it? Clearly not, and even though Paul says "Imitate me, as I am imitating Christ", or anything like that, he clearly does not mean imitate everything that he does, because there are times he does the evil he doesn't want to do, for example.

    And, I note, again, that, at least for me, the (culturally) rude behavior is almost always responsive to another comment and is meant to show the implications of going down that road in the debate. It's a tactic, perhaps not a wise one as it can backfire, but that's the *motive*.

    You at least admit that the use of harsher language is possibly unwise. It is not always clear that it is in response to the Arminian's behavior, though. Though here you have a good point: if the Arminian begins the discussion down that path, and doesn't like where it goes, it is his own fault. I agree with you there.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hehe, well, what can I say! I prefer a friend to an enemy if I ever have to choose between the two. Who could blame me?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Steven

    You need to learn to draw a distinction between professing and actual believers.

    When you bring up "my" language, I'd need to see specifics.

    Anyway, right, you'd condemn Paul. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, &c too. With all of this people-watching, do you have time left for yourself? Anyway, didn't God inspire the verse about cutting penises off?

    To your last point, yeah, I admitted that. But you have not given me any examples when you bring me up, and I also began my discussion with you because I was unconvinced your *argumemnt* supported your conclusion, *even if* your conclusionw as right.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You need to learn to draw a distinction between professing and actual believers.

    I don't think that I am unaware of any distinction, clearly there is a difference between a person who says he's a Christian and someone who actually is. The distinction is unimportant anyway, the deal with the circumcision party is irrelevant. I didn't have to bring it up.

    When you bring up "my" language, I'd need to see specifics.

    Your post, "The Consistency of an Arminian: BSMANgreeneggsandHAM", basically consists of you laughing at Brennon for being inconsistent.

    Anyway, right, you'd condemn Paul. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, &c too. With all of this people-watching, do you have time left for yourself? Anyway, didn't God inspire the verse about cutting penises off?

    I don't know about condemning Paul (or anyone for that matter), but he would never say he never behaves improperly. And as for Luther, yes, Bondage of the Will is perhaps overly harsh when he calls the Diatribe "idiotic" and other nice zingers. That referring to their opponents as "dogs" was commonplace in Calvin's time (like he calls Servetus a dog in one of his commentaries) means nothing; Calvin is not above reproach either. But the point is not in condemning others: the point is, what is the right way for me to behave? And I think it is by being calm and kind and gentle to others, especially to other believers, like Paul and others repeatedly say so.

    As far as God inspiring the bit about the circumcision party emasculating themselves--who cares. My point was not that Paul in that moment was behaving badly, my point is, if Paul did it, then it's ok, is not a good principle, not without qualification anyway.

    To your last point, yeah, I admitted that. But you have not given me any examples when you bring me up, and I also began my discussion with you because I was unconvinced your *argumemnt* supported your conclusion, *even if* your conclusion was right.

    I'm not sure what argument you're talking about. That you don't convince any Arminians of Calvinism that way? Or what?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Matt said:
    ---
    Let me end by clarifying what I mean by default mode - I meant more a "70x7" approach. Is that what you would consider your default mode?
    ---

    No, because again I don't view insults and such as sinful behavior in and of themselves, so I don't see the need to "forgive" someone who has just insulted me. (Except when TUAD insults me. That I find offensive because he's a goober.)

    In any case, I "arbor" no bad feelings from my neutral tree toward you :-)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Steven,



    "Your post, "The Consistency of an Arminian: BSMANgreeneggsandHAM", basically consists of you laughing at Brennon for being inconsistent."

    No it did not. See, it's hard to take you serious with this. If this is a real example, then there's nothing to talk about. The posts consists of me strictly pointing out an inconsistency in Brennon's dealings with me. Instead of dealing with my arguments he said, "I love how Paul is bragging about winning the argument." I simply cite him doing it. This takes away his exacuse for not dealing with me and exposes his usual tactics, actually, typical tactics of all these guys: accuse others of doing what you do. I thus shed light on hypocrisy. You're off base here. Got another example?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Here's my hobby horse:

    See, this kind of stuff is easy:

    In the very next chapter after truth and love Paul tells us not to enagage in fooslish talk and crude jokes. But that's what the MJ and doing dongs jokes were, folish and crude.

    So, Matt, remove the log before pointing out specks. Or, you can roll your eyes at my take on eph. 5, and then I'll simply respond that now you know how it feels, and not only that, I'm right because it's a discernment thing.

    Either way: you're a log gawker or an enlightended person, seeing that your kind of hobby horse can quickly be rode against you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Peter Pike: "Except when TUAD insults me. That I find offensive because he's a goober."

    Hockey sucks!

    Except when the U.S. hockey team beat the Russians for the gold medal in 1980!

    Other than that, hockey sucks. All that unnecessary brawling, yuck.

    So do couples figure skating instead Peter. You can glide harmoniously around the ice, twirling with Matt and Steven in sweet embrace.

    Good idea? Good idea!

    ReplyDelete
  67. At least this shows why hockey will always be better than soccer, cuz this would NEVER happen in hockey:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UKWIIPpphE

    Compare and contrast:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u_sKxbu5XA

    ReplyDelete
  68. How Arminians play hockey.

    Note that the Arminians wear the righteous white jerseys, while those ebil Calvinists are in black.

    *shudder*

    ReplyDelete
  69. Paul,
    Upon further reflection I took down my second joke. I apologize for any offense given.

    TUAD,
    I certainly do appreciate the humor. And thanks for the technical correction.

    In Christ,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  70. Matt,

    You didn't give offense. I trust I've made your position and tactics sufficiently uninteresting and void of the pious content desired for them. That you "took down" your joke betrays more than you may be willing to admit. But at this point I doubt we'll agree and so those who saw what I did will get it, and those who side with you will still do so. Now that you see how easy it is to find fault in other, maybe you will just be able to sit back and filter out the things you subjectively dislike here and read the meat of posts and coments, which are the arguments. People have different charachter traits and levels of tolerance. Imposing your rather sensitive mores on others isn't helpful, though I appreciate your motives. I don;t say any of thise to be mean but it is my analysis of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Peter,

    You still have time to train. You have a better chance of doing well in this instead of in hockey.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Matt said:

    The point is, while I concede that you have brought up some very important passages, a) don't most of those apply to unbelievers and b) shouldn't we take the whole counsel of God into consideration, which I am suggesting paints a different picture than the one you have painted with these verses? In other words, *perhaps* (and that is a big perhaps in my opinion) there is a time to rebuke someone using strong, harsh, and even mocking language (i.e. 'fool'), but shouldn't it be our default mode to (as cliche as it sounds) "turn the other cheek"?

    Sorry for the late response, Matt!

    I haven't read thru the rest of the thread as I'm kinda pressed for time right now. I've only read this initial response from you. I'm sure everyone else added good and helpful points, though, so please excuse me if I'm repeating or whatever.

    Just quickly then:

    1. Yeah, I totally agree with what you said above. I do think "our default mode" should be one of humility and graciousness etc. in how we speak and treat others -- whether believers or unbelievers.

    2. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about the special cases.

    a. For one thing, much of our seemingly harsh tone on Tblog is directed either toward unbelievers (including apostates) or professing believers who don't exactly speak or behave as professing believers but worse.

    b. For another thing, this is a weblog. Much of the discussion is anonymous. Or at least pseudo-anonymous. By virtue of this sort of forum, we don't see the people we're debating face-to-face. We're communicating via an indirect medium. This has several ramifications which can go in several different directions.

    Anyway, how we treat people here isn't necessarily how we treat people elsewhere. Tblog is only one (thin?) slice of our lives.

    3. Originally, you asked me: "1) I agree that the apostles and Jesus are blunt and, in your terms, harsh in Scripture. However, I do not see where they are belittling or demeaning the intelligence of their opponents, which, in the last few posts/comment threads I have read here, has been the case. A related question/point would be, 2) could you show me where in Scripture the apostles/Jesus are not only harsh/blunt to fellow believers but are also doing so in a way that could be compared to some of the mocking and demeaning comments on this blog?"

    So I responded with a list of verses which I believe meet your criteria (e.g. mockery, belittlement, insult, disparagement, and so on -- which is mainly of a worse kind than what you've experienced here, I think).

    4. Actually, I think there are quite a number of these sorts of verses which are aimed at professing believers.

    5. In any case, these verses are also part of the whole counsel of God. So I don't think it's a quantity kind of thing, where we place verses which exhort us to graciousness etc. on one side of the scale and verses which demonstrate harshness etc. on the other side, and then see which outweighs the other and act thusly (in case that's what you're suggesting, but maybe you're not suggesting this at all). Rather, I think even if we only had (say) one or two "harsh" verses in the whole of Scripture, then, well, those one or two verses are still Scripture, and we have to weigh them in context and so forth to see how they applied to their original audience, and how they apply to us today.

    6. Okay, cool, let's skip the Trueman article then. I only posted it as a "maybe it could be helpful, maybe not" kinda thing.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Okay, cool, let's skip the Trueman article then."

    Are you kidding? That was a fantastic article!!!

    It should be mandated reading for all people professing to be Christians.

    ReplyDelete