Paul's Passing Thoughts

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.