John Calvin said this....
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
The answer to that question is implied by my statement.
It wouldn't prove anything I suppose. I wasn't attempting to prove anything when I said it. My point is simply that words mean things and changing the name of something so as to avoid having to deal with source documents is only evidence that those documents are an embarrassment. And embarrassing Calvinists with their own doctrine is the entire point of this thread.
I HATE Calvin and Calvinists (i.e. educated ones) and want their doctrine exposed for the blasphemy that it is. On what basis do you propose to convince me that I should go along with someone who wants to hide himself from something as obviously damning as undisputed, well documented and widely agreed with quotes from the founder of Calvinism? On what planet does it make sense for me to go along with someone who wants to muddy the water by calling himself other than what he is?
Why would I do that?
Calvinists have a mental disorder!
So what? Really?
These quotes embarrass even the likes of you, a Calvinist who KNOWS that Calvinism makes no sense and DOESN'T CARE! I have no doubt that you're one of those that believe its a sign of faith and piety to toss sound reason down the toilet in favor of believing that God is responsible for every event that happens.
What effect do you suppose reading these quotes will have on the average pew sitting Christian who thinks he's a Calvinist but doesn't really know anything about what Calvinism actually teaches or what the implications of those teaching are? The best thing that could ever happen on a thread of this nature is for you guys to come running to Calvin's defense, which you always do. The next best thing is for you guys to start to hide from Calvin. A tactic that I have no intention of letting you get away with.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Not allowing an opponent an out while you've got him squirming isn't picking at nits, its playing the game to win.
I've quoted nothing other than the man's teachings - nothing at all.
Where is the Calvinist on this thread who has denied a single quote?
Where is the Calvinist ANYWHERE in the world who would disagree with a single syllable of even one of these quotes?
Where is the Calvinist confession of faith that teaches a word that is contrary to anything I've quoted in this thread?
Is it you? Do you deny agreement with something I've quoted? All the quotes are collected together in the opening post. Which of them do you disagree with?
Resting in Him,
Clete
moparguy
New member
In other words, you'll just stomp your foot and repeat yourself?
How does that do anyone any good?
Stomp your feet, refuse to exegete. It was good enough for the bereans, but is it for you?
Are you capable of reading, or does that skill elude you?
I didn't accuse God of creating evil, Directly, indirectly, or in any other way. That sick idea is coming from you, not my posts.
Text scream, stomp your feet, repeat yourself; that's a great way to show everyone I'm wrong. Whatever you do, don't exegete God's word.
It's interesting, the ideas that you manage to find in the text of my post that aren't there. So, now my post magically said "I'm upset," when it didn't.
(I Corinthians 2:11) For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
(I Samuel 16:7) But the LORD said to Samuel, Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.
Should we amend these verses and add your name along with God's? So far you haven't exhibited any qualms about posting things that you could only know if you knew my mind. Yet again, you've refused another chance to be berean, and you've refused an invitation to extend the gospel too.
Dialogos
Well-known member
Ok, so then let me take a more direct approach.
Why should anyone give a whole lot of weight to what you think about who is and who isn't just a layman on this matter?
Your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the estimation of many of the "calvinists" you don't think get to be called "true calvinists."
And why should they care what you think?
At the end of day "calvinist" is just a label to describe something that either is or is not what the bible teaches about how and who God saves. What, really matters is what the Word of God says not what you think, or what I think, or what John Calvin thought.
Clete said:
I think that's the real problem. Those aren't "source" documents in the way I estimate true sources.. The only infallible source is the word of God, and the word of God is the source of my own views on soteriology.
Does trying to embarrass people rather than arguing persuasively from God's Word for your own position really sound like a compelling way to argue for your own theological position?Clete said:
Your whole approach is just a big, fat logical fallacy called "poisoning the well."
Anyone could do the same regarding Open Theism.
Shall I poach a few heretical quotes from Clark Pinnock? How about some juicy nuggets of stupidity from Boyce or Sanders. Or maybe I should hold you to the teaching of the first Open Theist, Socinius?
Do you deny the Divinity of Christ?
The first Open Theists did.
Should we then use those quotes to bludgeon you and other Open Theists over the head over and over again?
Or should we engage in the more fruitful task of going to the true "source" of wisdom which is God's word?
Ah, a crusade fueled by hatred of people, that always works out well...Clete said:
On what basis do you propose that every Calvinist is bound to everything Calvin said?Clete said:
Here is something you should probably know. Very few Calvinists today agree with everything Calvin ever wrote and many agree with only a portion of what he wrote. Some limit their agreement to his views on predestination and salvation and many of them have gone on to refine their understanding as they take Calvin's reflections on scripture and go back to those scriptures themselves.
As I said before, the reformation didn't end with Calvin.
Don't get me wrong, I would likely agree with many of the quotes you ripped out of context were they appropriately put back into context.
But I'm not obligated to believe any of them. I don't believe in the sovereignty of God over salvation because "Calvin" taught the doctrine, I believe in the sovereignty of God over salvation because the word of God teaches that doctrine.
Are you willing to bend your will to the word of God? Or do you cherish your traditions too much?
:yawn: That's a tired old Ad Hominem attack Clete.Clete said:
The term is sovereign, and yes, I believe in the sovereignty of God.Clete said:
I suppose you might get exactly what you are looking for. A knee-jerk, emotionally driven reaction that will get some biblically uninformed Calvinist-leaning-folks to second guess what they have been taught. Some of them will actually go back and study what Calvin said in context, some of them will be driven back into their bibles to seek the answer to the questions that come up. Neither would be a bad approach. Then there will be some who will be lazy and just follow you - someone else who doesn't know anything about what Calvinism actually teaches - into an Open Theist understanding that is totally foreign to the scriptures and really is based on pagan Greek philosophy.Clete said:
Clete said:
The best thing that could ever happen to both of us is that we open the Book and begin looking at what the Bible says, but you won't, because you can't defend your attacks on monergism scripturally so you will run to a more familiar battleground which is ripping quotes out of context and lobbing them at Calvinists. The worst thing that could ever happen to you is that you run away from a biblical discussion, which you always do, and thereby prove that your position is nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack on Calvinists by trying to poison the well with out of context quotes from Calvin. I have no intention of letting you get away with that.
The last time you and I traded posts on this topic it was on Romans 9. You ran away from that serious discussion about God's word and instead decided to post cartoons.
Remember this post?
Your total lack of response is right here.
If you want to go back to discussing Romans 9, I'm happy to resume that dialog right where we left off.
Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you would rather take the approach of ripping quotes from dead theologians out of context so as to avoid discussing the truth from the living and active Word of God.
I think that's very telling, and very unfortunate.
If there were anything to be embarrassed about, I would think that running from God's word would be it.
Yeah, except no one really cares about the "game" you've tried to provoke here, Clete, and you think you've found a gotcha moment that doesn't really faze anybody. It's like playing wiffle ball and declaring every hit a grand slam.
And no one's disputed that.
So far...nobody. Again: What point do you think you've made?
See above. Like I asked earlier: Why would you actually expect Calvinists here to dispute the man's word?
That I'm aware there is no "Calvinist confession of faith," so I'm not sure what you have in mind or are referring to--at least not by that name. The Westminster Confession of Faith comes closest to a tried-and-true-blue reformed credo. Is that what you're talking about?
No, again. And again: What point are you trying to make? No one here disagrees with the quotes you copied and pasted. A few folks attempted to explain why they prefer "reformed" as a label over "Calvinist." They did so politely, honestly, and gave good reasons. Predictably, you blew your stack and reacted like a temperamental manchild. If you actually ever paid attention to what folks have to say for themselves and treated them decently you might learn a thing or two.
:smokie:
There are many things that are both worth stomping your feet over and that bear repeating!
Blaspheming God is in that category.
This comment was unresponsive and meaningless.
Saying it doesn't make it so. I quoted your post directly when I made the accusation. Not only that but you post (as well as mine) is still there for anyone who is interested to read for themselves. Deny it all you like! It's no skin off my nose.
Again, unresponsive meaningless stupidity. It is not necessary to exegete anything to know that God isn't righteous because He says so but because of what He does and who He is.
Now you're a liar to boot.
I'm not stupid and neither is anyone else who is capable of reading your posts WHICH ARE ALL STILL HERE IN THE THREAD FOR ANYONE TO READ YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!!!!!
YOU ARE A STUPID IDIOTIC FOOL!!!!
Words mean things and I am fully capable of reading. If you don't like me saying what on my mind after reading your posts then stop posting anything that I might read. There's little doubt that doing so would only lead to your blaspheming God further anyway,
Good bye!
Resting in Him,
Clete
They shouldn't.
Unquestionably true. That doesn't make me any less correct. Besides, if you're right God predestined me to say all this stuff that, according to you, no one should care anything about.
Because I'm right.
This is very very wrong!
Of course the Bible is the bottom line when it comes to matters of doctrine but that does not mean that what we think doesn't matter. It does matter - a lot! The bible itself tells us that those who teach will be held accountable for the things they teach and that faith comes by hearing the word of God but that the hearing of it comes by way of preachers. There will be millions - MILLIONS - of people who will go to Hell because of John Calvin and his blasphemous doctrine.
How have I failed to quote Calvin's own words directly from his own books? I suppose you could saying I'm quoting an English translation and so for that reason they are "source documents" but that, very frankly, would be silly. The implied argument would be that the translators got it wrong and where somehow intentionally misleading the whole English speaking world about what Calvin's doctrine was. An argument I know you wouldn't make. So how then are the quotations not from source documents?
Bull!!
There is no way to get the half of Calvinist doctrine by simply reading the text. I've made this same point hundreds of times before. Calvinism must be brought to the text. Its true every single time. There is simply zero in the scripture that teaches even one of the five tulip doctrines. There is zero in the bible about God be absolutely changeless. There is zero in the bible about God being timeless. There is zero in the bible on dozens of topics that are part and parcel of Calvinism. If you think otherwise it IS because you are reading your doctrine, whether consciously or otherwise, into the text.
Been there done that!
Calvinist, for the most part, do not have minds that function properly. Arguing with an educated Calvinist thinking your going to persuade them is a waste of time.
This is not so! How is quoting source documents poisoning the well?
There not even a single Calvinist who has yet denied a single syllable of even one of the quotes I've posted on this thread!
How is it possible to poison the well with the truth?
Okay! Try it!
I DARE YOU!!
I don't know who that is.
Is there any such thing as Pinnocism?
You've either massively missed the point or you are intentionally attempting to avoid it. I genuinely cannot tell which. What you are suggesting would in fact be poisoning the well but that is not what I am doing at all.
If you were to quote any Christian author whether Open Theist or otherwise, and I disagreed with the teaching contained within that quote, I would explain to you that I disagree with the author and explain why.
Which of the quotes of Calvin do you disagree with and why, Dialogos?
Which of the quotes of Calvin on this thread has ANY Calvinist disagreed with at all?
I didn't have to quote Calvin, I could just as easily quoted Pink, Piper or Van Til. I didn't even have to quote a famous author. I could just as easily have quoted AMR, Hilston, Dr. Lamerson or you. The result would have been similar except with less impact. The substance would have been identical as evidenced by the fact that not one single Calvinist on this site (or anywhere else where I've had this exact same conversation) has ever or would ever deny a single word of what I've quoted.
Not because he was an open theist! It would be a simple matter to disagree with a man on one issue while agreeing on another..
Which issue have I quoted from Calvin do you disagree with?
Any at all?
You'd be stupid to do so. It would backfire on you because doing so would be quite different than what I've done on this thread.
Try it if you like.
Tell that to Calvin not me! I've quoted Calvin talking about doctrines which have come to define what it means to be a Calvinist. I've not quoted Calvin saying something idiotic about the Jews or something stupid about how the government should be run or what should be done with unbelievers. I've quoted Calvin on Calvinism! If you want to quote some Open Theism author on Open Theism then we can debate whether what he said was right or wrong and whether it has anything to do with Open Theism.
I invite you to show me one word of what Calvin has been quoted as saying in this thread that is not Calvinism and that you deny believing.
Ah, a crusade fueled by hatred of people, that always works out well...
Psalms 139:21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.
I've never made any such claim!
I've yet to find one that denies anything I've quoted on this thread though!
Wishful thinking at best.
And irrelevant. I'm only concerned with what I've quoted. If you disagree with Calvin as quoted then please say so and explain why. My bet is that you don't disagree with any of it.
I have no doubt that such people exists. But the bulk of Calvinist distinctive are logically bound together. To reject one is to tacitly reject the entire system. But that's a matter for a different thread.
I've ripped nothing out of context. If you think otherwise, please point out which quote is removed from its context and how such removal alters the apparent meaning of what was quoted.
You won't be able to do that.
Yes you do and no it doesn't.
It would never occur to you to think even in that vernacular if not for Calvinism (or at the very least Augustinianism which is the essentially same thing when it comes to such issues).
That's my line.
It wasn't an argument and thus is not an Ad Hominem. Nor would it have been an ad hominem if had been an argument.
The fact that Calvinists have a mental disorder is merely on observation that I have made and that has been born out as true over many years of experience with Calvinists of all stripes.
How would you know what the term is without the use of the same reason you throw in the toilet in order to preserve the doctrine which it denotes?
AMEN!!!
The former will confirm the veracity of my quotations and the later will prove fruitless for most. The problem isn't a reading problem its a paradigm problem. The same thing that makes you think you read Calvinism in the Bible is the same thing that would blind the average lay person. They minds are not working properly. They think the bible is magic and that all they have to do is open it and enlightenment will automatically happen. That's not the way it works.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
This same idiotic accusation has been leveled at me before. It was as baseless then as it is now. Calvinism, on the other hand, has very clear historical ties, that are easy to document and that are not even disputed by Calvinists, to Plato's doctrine of divine immutability.
Don't talk to me about what I will and will not do!
I've been posting and have posted every argument against Calvinism, biblical and otherwise that exists on this website for DECADES!! Most all of which still exist and are available for anyone who searches for them to both find and read.
There are as many tactics I can utilize in my war against Calvinism as there are Calvinists who care to engage me on the topic. Some are biblical some are philosophical some are historical others are doctrinal or whatever. Most are a combination of several of those things. This thread is a mixture of doctrine and history and its absolutely valid and enormously effective, as evidenced by how irritated Calvinists get by my use of it.
Liar.
FINE!
DON'T LET ME GET AWAY WITH IT!!
SHOW ME!
Where is the quote that isn't Calvinism?
Which quote do YOU even disagree with?
How have I poison the well of Calvinism with Calvinism?!!!
SHOW ME OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT!!!
or else go away and shut up!
I did not run away! Good grief you Calvinist are impossible to please. If I respond I'm reading into the text of your post or something similar and if I choose to simply let your post stand and let people make their own mind up as to who made the better argument then I'm running away.
Your brain doesn't work!
Not a chance!
Your post is perfect!
There's nothing else that needs said. Those who already agree with you won't see it but I don't care about that. That is perhaps where you don't understand me. I do not care if you or any other Calvinist ever agrees with me. That isn't my audience. It's those who either already agree with me or those who are undecided that I'm aiming at.
As many times as you make this accusation I will remind those reading this that not one person, including you, who calls themselves a Calvinist has denied believing one word of what I've quoted. In fact its been quite the contrary!
I doubt that you've thought about it much at all.
I've made more biblical arguments against Calvinism than you've made posts. It's not the only tactic that I'm capable of nor is it the only one allowed. You want me to change tactics because this one works! Whether you like it to be pointed out or not, the Calvinism of Calvin is Calvinism.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Clete, whether you like it or not, a case for Calvinism can be made--otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. (Whether one agrees with the case made's a completely different issue.) Frankly, I still can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish. You quoted Calvin, dared Calvinists to disagree with him, and seem to think that since they don't, you've somehow proved something.
It was just an analogy, first of all and I think you're wrong. Whether you refer to it as a game or a war or a debate or a conversation, there's a whole lot of people who care a whole lot about it. I have no doubt at all that you're one of them, as am I.
Dialogos has and done so repeatedly.
Out of context this and cherry picked that, blah blah blah.
I think you know full well what point I've made. If not, so much the better. Please, by all means keep defending such things!
I've met many who did without knowing that's what they were doing. Its almost always what I refer to as "lay people" meaning only that they are regular folks who don't debate theological issues as a hobby or study them as a vocation. It is rare to find a Calvinist that will dispute anything if they know its from Calvin but its not unheard of. If they do, they almost always try to explain how what I've quoted isn't what Calvinism actually teaches but they're always wrong.
There are several such documents, the WC is probably the most prominent but there are others.
Hey! Its you that's talking as if I'm presenting Calvinism in a way that is inaccurate or somehow misleading. If I am then tell us which quote is the inaccurate one. Which of them presents a doctrine that is not widely, if not universally held by virtually every Calvinist you can think of?
You made the comment that Calvinists are" sick of explaining [that]they follow the man's teachings, not the man." so where have I misrepresented the man's teachings?
Politely explained why they wanted to distance themselves from Calvin, you mean. The whole point of the thread is to make you Calvinists wear Calvin like a the lead balloon he and his teachings are.
Where did I blow my stack? You Calvinists are about thin skinned as 8 year old girls! He suggested that I wouldn't mind him using a term other than Calvinism and I said that I would not be party to his muddying the water.
Wow! How scary! :noway:
There is nothing a Calvinist could say to me that I haven't heard a hundred times.
Besides, where do you come off chiding me for what you believe God predestined me to do anyway?
If you're offended by me its because God predestined that you be the offendee and that I be the offender. Get over it! There's nothing I could have done differently and there's no way for you to have reacted differently to it.
So, if you're right I couldn't have done otherwise and if you're wrong I've done rightly! Either way, you're problem is with God, not me!
Resting in Him,
Clete
A case for the virtues of bestiality can be made, Granite. The fact that it can be made doesn't mean the case makes any sense!
I don't believe you.
Only to those whose minds still work.
There isn't one quote of Calvin's that I've posted on this thread that isn't blatantly blasphemous and obviously so to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated. My goal isn't simply to discredit Calvin but to discredit the whole of Calvinism. The virtual unanimous support of Calvin by Calvinists on this thread only serves to lend credence to my implied argument and helps push the ball toward my goal line.
Resting in Him,
Clete
There's a first.:chuckle:
Nope, your mission here's still opaque.
Put another way: You're saying you're never wrong. Plenty of folks who identify as Calvinists are uncomfortable with his treatment of Servetus, for example. But this is the kicker: You seem to be consistently amazed that people who identify as Calvinistic in their beliefs don't dispute much of what the man said.
See above. Put another way: You're basically saying "Newsflash! Calvinists Agree With Calvin!"
The distinction's made by folks tired of people like you a) assuming they'll defend the man's person tooth and nail, or b) by people who are berated by people like you for idolizing Calvin, or something to that effect. The other potential end of this barb--that Arminians worship at the feet of Arminius, or something--is rarely (if ever) used, simply because Calvin's a far more polarizing figure individually.
See above. If you went around accusing Lutherans, for example, of all being beer-loving anti-semitic nutters, well, they'd probably get sick of explaining themselves too.
:rotfl: :reals:
Oh, man...
Did you forget who you were talking to?:AMR:
And nothing they haven't heard seventy times seven.
Yeah, you forgot...
And Calvinism does not--ever--rule out the concept or practice of responsibility or accountability. It's easy to mix it up with fatalism, but it's also a mistake.
I've seen crazier things!
I know otherwise from long experience.
Run an experiment. Pick someone at your work at random and ask them if they knew that many, if not most, churches teach that God predestined every single thing that happens including murders and rapes.
They won't believe you. I've asked similar questions to dozens of people. Occasionally, you'll run into a Catholic or a Calvinist that will respond with an "Of course!" but that is the rare exception. Almost every time you're looked at like your crazy and you have to expend some effort to convince them that you aren't making it up. I had a group of people refuse to believe me even when we were sitting in a Sunday School class where the teacher was overtly teaching Calvinism! When one of them asked the teacher and got a surprisingly honest answer, he and everyone who heard our conversation was stunned. (I was asked not to come back after that because Calvinism was "a church position".)
So there's no convincing me that this stuff isn't damning as can be! EVERYONE knows its blasphemy - everyone whose mind still works.
Resting in Him,
Clete
:chuckle:
Well we both know Calvinists are very much a minority in this country. In general, the concept of predestination--certainly the every sparrow, every hair of your head kind you're describing--is pretty rarely embraced by Christians in America or elsewhere.
They shouldn't.
You shouldn't.
So the question's more of a "psyche!" kind of thing?
Except...you are.
Haven't been yet! Not on this point.
Which has nothing to do with Calvinist doctrine which is why I have never quoted Calvin about that!
I am ALWAYS amazed by people who are willing to believe and to defend a doctrine that makes God unjust. It is blasphemy! Woe is me if I ever stop being amazed by that!
Most people wouldn't know a quote from Calvin from a quote from Jimmy Carter.
And the quotes serve two primary goals.
1. To educate those who wouldn't otherwise know what Calvinism teaches.
2. To shut the mouths of Calvinist who so often insist that I and other Open Theists (or any non-Calvinist) misrepresent what Calvinism teaches.
I've quoted his teachings, not appealed to his personality or even his flawed personal character.
And rightly so!
I enjoy how you so willingly liken what I've done here by simply quoting Calvin on Calvinism to "being beer-loving anti-semitic nutters"! As for me, Calvin's doctrine and Luther's attitudes toward beer drinking and antisemitism are on a par with each other from a moral perspective. However, I would point out that it is you who have drawn the parallel not me. I've never even suggested such an argument nor would I.
I forgotten nothing. Calvinist obviously give lip service to responsibility and accountability. There's whole books written on the topic by nearly every prominent Calvinist that has ever existed. But never without contradicting their CORE doctrines and ALWAYS by redefining what really simple words mean. Words like "will", "responsibility", "just", "choose", etc, etc. They twist whatever they have to twist, contort into any shape of pretzel that they have to in order to preserve their core doctrines of predestination and absolute immutability and total control of everything that happens.
In other words, every Christian whether they are Calvinist or not knows that we are responsible for what we do. It is understood intuitively and as such it is not a Calvinist distinctive but rather it is just another doctrine that must be made to fit the Neo-Platonic world view of Augustine and Calvin.
The fact that you hold to self-contradictory doctrines is only so much more proof that your doctrine is at least partially false.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You're mistaken.
No I'm not.
Virtually every church in existence is either Catholic and overtly Augustinian or find their roots in the Reformation making them either Calvinist or Arminian or a flavor variant of the two and both believe that God exists outside of time and knows everything in advance and cannot rationally explain how either of those things are compatible with the concept of a will or of God's justice nor do they typically even try. They typically call it a mystery and leave it unexplained.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Dealing with somebody convinced they can't be wrong's usually a losing proposition. That's why I think I should bow out of here sooner rather than later. It is interesting, though.
Right, and this is the heart of your argument: You're stunned people have the audacity to disagree with you. That's pure ego, pal.
Which while interesting don't prove much.
Quoting or reading something doesn't mean you understand it.
Not what I did--if anything I was making the point that what you were attempting to do would be as wrong-headed as the hypothetical anti-Lutheran example I posed.
Yep. Go you.
Really simple words have an interesting habit of getting interpreted, applied, and redefined all the time--doesn't matter what the issue happens to be. Sometimes the truth is plain as day. And sometimes it's not as simple as some folks insist it to be.
Attacking a semantic approach isn't really an argument against substance so much as it is an argument against style. Fundamentally, your beef is with what Calvinists mean by what they say, which so happens to be at odds with your conclusions. A Calvinist could as easily dismiss his opponent as misguided or incorrect in their exegesis using your exact argument.
Take a word as simple as "will." If scripture spoke as plainly and openly on the subject as you believe it does, Luther never would've written a word on the subject and would've let scripture speak for itself.
Questioning Calvinism's all well and good. Critiquing any belief system has its place. To eye it skeptically because a given system happens to be complex is a mistake. Complexity and subtly don't necessarily speak to a sandy foundation.
On that we agree.
I'd be remiss if I didn't remind you I'm no longer a Christian, haven't been for just over a decade, but was a five-pointer while in the faith.
Especially when they're trying to preserve a pet doctrine.
While words have various meanings depending on the context in which they are used that does not mean that the definition of words is a mere matter of opinion. You simply don't get to readjust the definition of words to suit your needs when you run into what would otherwise be a glaring contradiction. If that were valid then how could any proposition ever to disproved!
A Calvinist who gets stopped by a cop for running a stop sign...
"Oh officer! I didn't did anything wrong! That big red sign over there says the word "STOP" but 'stop' doesn't really mean "end all forward progress" as most would suppose. It's just a figure of speech that really means, "keep going if you feel like it".
"Oh! Well in that case," the officer responds, "have a nice day and stop driving dangerously! Wait! I don't mean "stop" like you're talking about! I mean "STOP" as is do not drive dangerously even if you feel like it! Here's your ticket!"
"Oh! Well in that case," the officer responds, "have a nice day and stop driving dangerously! Wait! I don't mean "stop" like you're talking about! I mean "STOP" as is do not drive dangerously even if you feel like it! Here's your ticket!"
Excuse me?
Are you the one who just said that?
So you're saying that all doctrine is a matter of opinion?
There are three options and only three.
1. Calvinism is true and my doctrine is false.
2. My doctrine is false and Calvinism of true.
3. Both Calvinism and my doctrine is false.
There is no fourth option. It is not a matter of opinion. One of us is right or both of us are wrong - period.
Which is precisely what he should have done and probably would have done had he not been an Augustinian monk who was so convinced that God is incapable of any change whatsoever!
For "complex" and "subtle" read "irrational" and "confusing".
Calvinist reject reason itself in favor of their doctrines! How, oh how do you propose such a critique might take place?
I honestly had no idea.
Two observations...
I couldn't tell the difference between your arguments and those of your typical Calvinist.
Your rejection of "Christianity" was a rejection of Calvinism - not the same thing.
Resting in Him,
Clete