Why it is a Total Waste of Time Talking to Calvinists
Paul,
I saw that you challenged John Lofton to an online debate. I know that challenge was not made to me, but I would be happy to accept the challenge. Let the games begin.
Answer:
Ya, sounds good big guy. I have a conference coming up and will need time to prepare afterward. Pick a day in August. Bring it.
paul
Answer:
Great. I think we need to decide on a specific topic, a forum, a mutually acceptable moderator and a set of guidelines to govern the debate. Will the moderator pose questions, will we pose questions to each other, or will we take questions from spectators? All of this needs to be decided well in advance.
After all of that is agreed to, a date for August 8 is set, and then this from the challenger:
The following are the rules apart from which I will not debate:
1. The Scriptures are solely authoritative.
2. Each participant must be able to state his opponent’s position to his satisfaction before being able to comment on it.
3. Every assertion must be supported by direct quotations, in context, that indicate the veracity of the assertion. (For example, you may not assert that Calvinists believe that matter is inherently evil, or that justification is progressive unless you can quote a Calvinist who explicitly states such a belief. A title from Calvin’s institutes will not be sufficient to establish that he taught what is stated in the title).
4. Each participant must define the terms he is using according to some accepted standard.
5. Though not a rule, the debate needs to center as much as possible on presuppositions, not on conclusions, since faulty conclusions are based on faulty presuppositions.
Response from Paul:
NO. Let each state his own position to his own satisfaction as well as one’s perception of the other side and let the people decide. And NO, the logical conclusions from stated positions will not be excluded. If Calvin said a cat walked across the street, I will not be excluded from saying that the cat was on the other side of the street just because Calvin didn’t specifically say, “The cat that walked across the street was then on the other side of the street.”
Furthermore, I will not be excluded from my firm belief that words mean things and that conclusions cannot be drawn from titles. If you want to say that a title of a treatise doesn’t reflect the theses of the treatise, state it accordingly and we will let the people decide.
Likewise, be sure of it, I will clearly state that we are debating from two different realities: grammatical verses redemptive. I will call you out on the fact that “The Scriptures are solely authoritative” equals ALL reality being interpreted through a redemptive prism. I will then cite the first tenet of New Covenant Theology according to the Earth Stove Society to back that up. If that’s a bad citation—state your case accordingly. If you reject that, state your case and we will let the people decide.
Moreover, let the people decide in regard to citations and their weight for the case. You don’t decide that and neither do I.
Answer from challenger:
Forget it then. I refuse to debate with anyone who makes up his own interpretations and definitions as he goes along. I can’t defend a position neither I nor any Calvinist believes. If you can’t show we believe a doctrine from clear contextual quotations, then you have lost the debate already. The truth is, you are an arrogant, theologically ignorant and inept fool who refuses to acknowledge what another person states as his belief. Your response has only confirmed what I stated earlier–you are too stupid to understand truth. I refuse to answer a fool according to his folly.
Just so you know, grammatical-historical and redemptive-historical methods are not mutually exclusive. Still, that has nothing to do with the topic we were to have debated.
Answer from Paul:
Whimp.
Answer from Challenger:
Call me a whimp if you like, but you are the one who refuses to provide quotes. I don’t really care what someone who calls himself a Calvinists has written. People in all camps say and write stupid things. If you want to say “a Calvinist named __________________has written__________” that is one thing. To then state that Calvinists believe___________ is another thing altogether. If you are going to make such a statement, you need to show that this has historically been the Calvinists’ position. Prodigious generalities are never good. In any case, you need to actually quote the person. Let the reader decide whether the person is saying what you allege. You must stop simply assigning to people doctrines they don’t believe. You need to learn something about scholarship. Frankly, you are simply not worth my time.
Answer from Paul:
Same old – same old Calvinistic evil despotic communication: because “all of the elders do not agree on that point” you guys have deniability whenever you want it. Calvinism is a joke. The church needs a massive exodus out the Geneva city of spiritual whores.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
When reality is the standard, they CAN’T debate. That is his point. They have no frame of reference for a debate outside of fantasy land.
LikeLike
Argo,
That would be correct. Would a debate between Plato and John Locke be an apt example?
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
It is funny that these people want to debate at all, and they always seem to get miffed about something they don’t like. I am reminded that the Scriptures somewhere tell us not to bother getting involved in useless wrangling over words. I have had a long standing (self imposed) rule against arguing with anyone, and certain people always seem to get mad because of it.
I wonder why the Calvinists don’t just form their own enclaves and leave the rest of the world alone. (I guess the last one didn’t work out so well, with all of those murders and all that other nasty stuff they did.) If it’s all predetermined, what is the point anyway? Isn’t even the rejection of that guy’s rules predetermined in their mind? Isn’t the rejection of their doctrine by all of us “lost folks” predetermined? If I can’t decide for myself, what is the point of talking to me? And what is the point of name calling and such? But wait, they were predestined to that as well I suppose.
I am so glad that I have a predetermined nap coming up shortly… Yawn…
BD
LikeLike
BD,
Just like communism. The free have never had a problem with them per se, but they always have to invade other countries unless there is an America around that won’t stand for it because we figure we are next.
LikeLike
Ha ha…yes, it would.
BD,
I think the point is tht they DON’T really want to debate.
LikeLike
Hi Argo,
So the debate is merely a ruse? What do they want then? I mean, it’s not like they can control anyone over the internet. Is it some form of self validation they seek?
BD
LikeLike
I laughed out loud when Paul suggested a debate. I knew Paul would not be taken up on his offer. This guy is afraid to debate Paul because he’s worried about the outcome. Otherwise, why not? Nothing to lose against a “Rabid Anti-Calvinist” who he called “REALLY stupid”, right? Maybe they are afraid of looking like the stupid ones in a debate with Paul? Do I smell an idol of the heart, pride maybe?
Nice try, Paul. You’re put down and called all sorts of names, but they run and hide from debating you! Now this is hilarious! LOL Paul just peeled another layer off these Calvinists, to expose who they truly are.
Calvin-followers: Hasn’t the end result already been predetermined, anyway? So why all the excuses, ahhem, rules? Your list of stipulations remind me of your membership agreements. Get on with the debate already. LOL 🙂
LikeLike
In saying they want a debate, NCers have a pretense of being open-minded intellectuallist. In actaulity they are cowards because none of their arguments can withstand close scrutiny, thus they try to control the debate by setting ground rules for what arguments can be presented. Their philosophies then have the appearance of being no different than those who would challenge them. They can say, “See, we believe the same things you do! We’re really not all that different.” When pressed on a matter that’s difficult for them to defend, they resort to the tired old routine of “well, you just don’t really understand Calvinism,” meaning that we are not enlightedned enough to understand it. The truth is, we understand it better than they do.
I think most who hold to Calvinism have so much invested in it for so much of their lives. They were taught it in semenary or grew up with it in their church. It is a place of security. For one to be told that their entire system of beliefs is wrong is frightening. How can we expect them to respond any other way? The way I see it, [new] Calvinists themselves don’t fully understand all that Calvin was and taught, and/or they are willfully pushing aside the blatant truth. There is no excuse for either!
LikeLike
Andy,
Yep, all that you have stated is becoming more and more obvious. Bottom line: we know that there are ministries who know what we are teaching is the truth, but they are staying silent because they have been invested for years in Calvinism without knowing what the Reformers really believed.
LikeLike
Also, many will not leave the movement because there is nothing to replace it with. That needs to change as well.
LikeLike
Just read this this morning. I think it’s appropriate:
“From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY, NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.” ~ 1 Timothy 1:6-7
LikeLike
“If Calvin said a cat walked across the street, I will not be excluded from saying that the cat was on the other side of the street just because Calvin didn’t specifically say, ‘The cat that walked across the street was then on the other side of the street.'”
I could have so much fun with this statement!
For example, it I were a NCist, I could arbitrarilly change the text and claim that my “translation” of Calvin says that the cat “is walking” across the street. Since this is present tense it is a continuous action of walking, therefore the action of walking across the street is a progressive process. If said cat at any time stopped his walking, the result could be disastrous (maybe like being run over by a truck), in which case we could say that the cat’s commitment to crossing the street wasn’t really genuine in the first place. So it is necessary for that cat to persevere in his walking and crossing. Of course, this is a totally depraved cat, so someone else must really do the walking and crossing of the street for him. And, really, what does a cat walking across the street “look like” anyway? That’s really the right question to ask. And how does this bring glory to the cat’s maker? This cat must realize that he cannot walk across the street on his own!
LikeLike
Andy,
I will be dealing with that cat this Sunday. Can justification be tied together with perseverance? In what context should perseverance be understood?
LikeLike
As far as justification is concerned, the cat is already on the other side of the street!
LikeLike
Right, one of the big jokes is that Calvinists don’t even believe in election to begin with.
LikeLike