TaylorSexton
1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
- Jan 16, 2014
- 1,065
- 423
- 32
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
Guilty.
I just felt left out from the game you all were playing earlier.
Upvote
0
Guilty.
The problem with Oz's insistence on our sticking to rules for formal debate is that this isn't formal debate. It's informal discussion.
Don't get hung up on labels. It isn't about what theological doctrine a church identifies with, but whether or not it identifies with Christ. Christ was not a Calvinist, or an Arminian, or any other kind of theologian. Christ was and is God, and He is who matters.
Besides, the teachings of Calvin, Arminius and other of their contemporaries and heirs to Christian theology have become so muddled by argument, agenda and outright prevarication that what passes for any of their teachings today is suspect.
Right, now there are also hyper-Calvinists and hyper-Arminians. I know when Calvinism is debated, most of the arguments are from hyper Calvinists. But I left that site, so don't know about here.
People are often very confused as to the distinction between Calvinism and so-call "hyper-Calvinism." I was just telling my pastor yesterday that the term "hyper-Calvinism" is very unfortunate nomenclature, as if "hyper-Calvinism" is just a stronger form of Calvinism. It isn't. There is no Reformed confession in all of Protestant history that gives any sort of credence whatsoever to the doctrines of what we call "hyper-Calvinism."
In fact, when most Arminians argue against Calvinism, they are actually arguing against "hyper-Calvinism." For example, when they accuse us of having no desire to evangelize, they have left the realm of Reformed theology altogether and ventured into that of "hyper-Calvinism."
It doesn't, and you don't. You derail. Over 99% of the discussions on here go along just fine. So your assertion is false.
Question begging fallacy
Ad hominem fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Spelling error fallacy
People are often very confused as to the distinction between Calvinism and so-call "hyper-Calvinism." I was just telling my pastor yesterday that the term "hyper-Calvinism" is very unfortunate nomenclature, as if "hyper-Calvinism" is just a stronger form of Calvinism. It isn't. There is no Reformed confession in all of Protestant history that gives any sort of credence whatsoever to the doctrines of what we call "hyper-Calvinism."
In fact, when most Arminians argue against Calvinism, they are actually arguing against "hyper-Calvinism." For example, when they accuse us of having no desire to evangelize, they have left the realm of Reformed theology altogether and ventured into that of "hyper-Calvinism."
And in this post you have made an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.
Taylor,
What are the main doctrines of hyper-Calvinism?
Did John Calvin teach any of them?
Oz
No I haven't. I'm not even making an argument. One has to be making an argument to commit a fallacy, a concept you clearly haven't grasped. Until you can put what I did into a syllogism, this comment stands to be as asinine as the rest.
Look it up yourself. You're a smart guy.
Look it up yourself. You're a smart guy.
Taylor,
You were the one who raised the issue of hyper-Calvinism on this forum. Then I asked you what the doctrines are of this theology and you have the audacity to respond:
This is a forum, not a place to make smart alec comments.
Oz
You accused someone else of making a drove of logical fallacies and it was tongue in cheek, designed to ridicule me in my raising logical fallacies.
You were the one who raised the issue of hyper-Calvinism on this forum.
This is a forum, not a place to make smart alec comments.
Yes, made in the context of no argument whatsoever. So, until you can demonstrate to me the fallacious argument by giving me my statements in syllogism (argument) form, then your comment remains what I said it was: asinine.
Most Calvinists don't agree with, or even like being in the company of, "hyper-Calvinists". On top of that, Calvinists (leaving out hypers) have some variation in their thought. That's why I prefer to not use the term, "Calvinist" because I don't walk in lockstep with him. In fact, I can't even say that I fully know everything he ever wrote or said.
Hopefully this website will be helpful to you: Types of Calvinism – A Comprehensive List
Is John Piper a hyper-Calvinist?
Appeal to ridicule again.
The syllogism is:
Oz
- Taylor claims that Oz's labelling of fallacious arguments needs to by made as a syllogism to be true.
- Taylor makes the fallacious argument look ridiculous by misrepresenting it as asinine.
- Therefore, Oz's claim about a logical fallacy is false.
Try every few seconds. (at least the congregation I grew up in)And hyper-Arminians supposedly repent everyday or they lose their salvation.
Not being a calvinist of any stripe, could you please explain the difference to me?In fact, when most Arminians argue against Calvinism, they are actually arguing against "hyper-Calvinism." For example, when they accuse us of having no desire to evangelize, they have left the realm of Reformed theology altogether and ventured into that of "hyper-Calvinism."