Are all Baptists Calvinists?

[TaylorSexton]

Guilty.

I just felt left out from the game you all were playing earlier.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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.

 

[TaylorSexton]

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.

Begging the question fallacy, again, Jimmy! You are begging the question as to whether everything he has said is a fallacy is actually a fallacy. I've pointed out at at least a couple that were patently obvious, and that was only a cursory observation on my part, not in-depth investigation.

 

[1stcenturylady]

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.

And there are even levels of extremes, like I remember one guy who said God is in complete control. He has no will of his own. So even his sins are God's will!

 

[TaylorSexton]

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."

 

[1stcenturylady]

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 hyper-Arminians supposedly repent everyday or they lose their salvation.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Hammster,

"Being able to identify errors in reasoning, known as logical fallacies, is a way that you can do your part to bring more truth back into our 'post-truth world'" (Bo Bennett, Preface, Logically Fallacious)

A red herring fallacy is "attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument". Bennett uses and example and provided this "Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality" (Bo Bennett, Red Herring, Logically Fallacious, emphasis added).

"Being able to detect and avoid fallacies has been viewed as a supplement to criteria of good reasoning. The knowledge of them is needed to arm us against the most enticing missteps we might take with argument" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Question begging fallacy

Ad hominem fallacy

Hasty generalization fallacy

Spelling error fallacy

And in this post you have made an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

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."

Taylor,

What are the main doctrines of hyper-Calvinism?

Did John Calvin teach any of them?

Oz

 

[TaylorSexton]

And in this post you have made an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.

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.

Taylor,

What are the main doctrines of hyper-Calvinism?

Did John Calvin teach any of them?

Oz

Look it up yourself. You're a smart guy.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

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.

I didn't come down in the last shower.

 

[OzSpen]

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:

Look it up yourself. You're a smart guy.

This is a forum, not a place to make smart alec comments.

Oz

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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

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

 

[TaylorSexton]

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.

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. With every further comment you make, you are making me more sure that I was right about you: You have no interest in discussion, but merely getting on people's nerves. You've presented me with nothing else to believe.

You were the one who raised the issue of hyper-Calvinism on this forum.

Have you read this thread at all?

This is a forum, not a place to make smart alec comments.

Perhaps you would do well to take your own advice. I'll give you another piece: Read the comments posted since you last posted before commenting further.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Appeal to ridicule again.

The syllogism is:

• Taylor claims that Oz's labelling of fallacious arguments needs to be 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.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Is John Piper a hyper-Calvinist?

I don't know him or his teaching well enough to answer that question.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Appeal to ridicule again.

The syllogism is:

• 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.

Oz

Now you're just being obnoxious.

I can see why others have given up trying to have reasonable discussions with you.

 

[Dave-W]

And hyper-Arminians supposedly repent everyday or they lose their salvation.

Try every few seconds. (at least the congregation I grew up in)

From a message I heard - somewhere about age 13:
(not word for word - but as close as I can remember it)

You can come down here to this altar tonight and get everything right with God. Then you can get up, grab your coat, go across the street to get to your car, get hit, die, and go STRAIGHT TO HELL because there were already 20 sins you committed that you know nothing about before you ever hit that door.​

A few weeks later the pastor half joked about having a 6-gun and shooting people while they were still on their knees, as it was the only way he saw to guarantee people making it to heaven.

While I grew up with that theology, I no longer hold to that hyper-arminian stance. Indeed, I see it as quite destructive.

 

[Dave-W]

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."

Not being a calvinist of any stripe, could you please explain the difference to me?