The No-Straw-Man Calvinism challenge.

[-V-]

Just because you deny the law of non-contradiction doesn't make it not true. So nothing I posted was contradictory.

Wow. I'd have to say you must be deliberately misrepresenting what I say, because it seems nearly impossible someone to misread what I said to the extent that you display.

Once again, the Calvinist dances around and avoids answering.

 

[Hammster]

Wow. I'd have to say you must be deliberately misrepresenting what I say, because it seems nearly impossible someone to misread what I said to the extent that you display.

Once again, the Calvinist dances around and avoids answering.

I answered in a short, easy to understand way.

515

So please stop saying that I'm not answering. It's disingenuous. Not cool.

 

[-V-]

With all of the anti-Calvin sentiment, and your providing of a welcome mat for all questions, discussions, and disagreements with Reformed Theology, this thread should be on fire with posts which comply with the OP.

I think this demonstrates that most people just have emotional reactions to straw men, not intellectual disagreements with the actual doctrines.

So, after comply with the OP rules and posted the Calvinist doctrine and disagreement with it (post #500), when Calvinists try to defend it, we're not allowed to point out fallacies in their attempted defense?? Interesting discussion rules you have. It's almost as if someone is attempting a carnival side show con game, attempting to stack the deck so Calvinism can't lose. How odd.

 

[-V-]

I answered in a short, easy to understand way.

515

So please stop saying that I'm not answering. It's disingenuous. Not cool.

Yes, and I pointed out how what you said in 515 contradicts what you said in 505. And ever since you've been dodging and dancing and doing anything possible to avoid explaining it.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, and I pointed out how what you said in 515 contradicts what you said in 505. And ever since you've been dodging and dancing and doing anything possible to avoid explaining it.

You stated that there was a contradiction. You didn't say why.

 

[-V-]

You stated that there was a contradiction. You didn't say why.

Yes I have, more than once now.

 

[TheSeabass]

As what usually happens in these threads, once Calvinism is mentioned, or someone who is Reformed posts something that seems Reformed, the arguments against Reformed Theology come out, and are usually emotionally driven straw man arguments.

This gets us nowhere because the Calvinists aren't really given the opportunity to defend what we believe, but have to spend time correcting the incorrect argument.

Appears to be a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" by presuming upfront, in trying to discredit any and every argument against Calvinism, by saying those arguments are all straw men.

 

[Hammster]

Appears to be a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" by presuming upfront, in trying to discredit any and every argument against Calvinism, by saying those arguments are all straw men.

Which is why the OP goes farther than you quoted.

 

[Hammster]

Yes I have, more than once now.

No, but you think you have, so there's no point in continuing until you get specific. I don't want to have to quote all of you posts where you claim a contradiction without proof.

 

[-V-]

No, but you think you have, so there's no point in continuing until you get specific.

Break out the hip waders, it's getting deep in here. I quoted the contradiction and gave the post #'s. How much more specific do you need??

I don't want to have to quote all of you posts where you claim a contradiction without proof.

Oh, of course. Why would anyone want to quote what would be no more than a couple posts to prove what they are saying? Yeah, that's way too much effort for anyone to put forth to back up what they claim. Just imagine all that dodging and dancing you'd have to give up. Yeah, that's totally unreasonable to expect that from you. Totally.

 

[Hammster]

Break out the hip waders, it's getting deep in here. I quoted the contradiction and gave the post #'s. How much more specific do you need??


Oh, of course. Why would anyone want to quote what would be no more than a couple posts to prove what they are saying? Yeah, that's way too much effort for anyone to put forth to back up what they claim. Just imagine all that dodging and dancing you'd have to give up. Yeah, that's totally unreasonable to expect that from you. Totally.

If quoting posts proves something, then by all means, quote the posts where you did more than just assert a contradiction.

 

[-V-]

If quoting posts proves something, then by all means, quote the posts where you did more than just assert a contradiction.

Post #505:
"In other words, you don't choose what you believe in."

Post #507:
"I never said we didn't have a choice."

Right there we have you first saying that we don't choose and then claiming you never said we don't have a choice. You can't have it both ways.

This was ALREADY pointed out by me in post #509.

Post #515: (posted by you)
"We choose Him freely."

Again stating we have a choice, again contradicting what you first said in post #505

This second contradiction (between 505 & 515) was ALREADY pointed out by me in post #525.

You started out claiming we don't have a choice, and then contradict it twice saying we DO have a choice. And both contradictions have been specifically cited, quoted, and pointed out prior to this post. So now we have THREE TIMES your contradictions have been clearly cited.

 

[RisenInJesus]

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (I would have used the Westminster Confession, but I'm Baptist )

Canons of Dordt

Heidelberg Catechism

Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Christian Classics Books, Bible Study

I am just curious, if you count together all of the above documents you have listed...how many pages of reading material does it amount to?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I am just curious, if you count together all of the above documents you have listed...how many pages of reading material does it amount to?

Have you even clicked one of the links?

 

[EmSw]

As what usually happens in these threads, once Calvinism is mentioned, or someone who is Reformed posts something that seems Reformed, the arguments against Reformed Theology come out, and are usually emotionally driven straw man arguments.

This gets us nowhere because the Calvinists aren't really given the opportunity to defend what we believe, but have to spend time correcting the incorrect argument.

So here's the challenge. Below you will find links to some various documents that those who hold to Reformed Theology will agree on, at least soteriologically. The challenge to to quote from one of them, and then state why you believe it is incorrect. This will hopefully lead to a reasoned discussion. Any argument that does not start this way will be considered off topic. You are, however, free to start your own thread on that matter.

Here are your links.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (I would have used the Westminster Confession, but I'm Baptist )

Canons of Dordt

Heidelberg Catechism

Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Christian Classics Books, Bible Study

Why do we need to challenge extra-biblical literature? If I wanted you to read and challenge all the apocrypha which proves Calvinism is wrong, would you do it?

 

[Hammster]

Post #505:
"In other words, you don't choose what you believe in."

Post #507:
"I never said we didn't have a choice."

Right there we have you first saying that we don't choose and then claiming you never said we don't have a choice. You can't have it both ways.

This was ALREADY pointed out by me in post #509.

Post #515: (posted by you)
"We choose Him freely."

Again stating we have a choice, again contradicting what you first said in post #505

This second contradiction (between 505 & 515) was ALREADY pointed out by me in post #525.

You started out claiming we don't have a choice, and then contradict it twice saying we DO have a choice. And both contradictions have been specifically cited, quoted, and pointed out prior to this post. So now we have THREE TIMES your contradictions have been clearly cited.

Those aren't contradicting. If I had said that we don't choose God and we do choose God, that would be a contradiction if there were no further context. But looking at the quotes you provided, that's not what said.

If you'd like to have a discussion about what I did say, I'm more than willing. But if you just want to continue to post unsubstantiated accusations, then I see no point.

 

[Hammster]

I am just curious, if you count together all of the above documents you have listed...how many pages of reading material does it amount to?

Not sure. Not as much as it looks, though.

 

[Hammster]

Why do we need to challenge extra-biblical literature? If I wanted you to read and challenge all the apocrypha which proves Calvinism is wrong, would you do it?

You do not need to challenge it. You don't need to respond here at all. In fact, I'm not even asking you to challenge Calvinism. What I'm asking is that if you do, have integrity and challenge what we actually believe and not use the standard straw man arguments.

 

[-V-]

Those aren't contradicting. If I had said that we don't choose God and we do choose God, that would be a contradiction if there were no further context. But looking at the quotes you provided, that's not what said.

If you'd like to have a discussion about what I did say, I'm more than willing. But if you just want to continue to post unsubstantiated accusations, then I see no point.

I've already asked for an explanation at least four times now (512, 514, 516, 519), and now here's the fifth. And you just keep dancing and dodging. I've also posted the substantiation of my accusations numerous times, and you still keep dancing and dodging, refusing to actually explain otherwise.

 

[Hammster]

I've already asked for an explanation at least four times now (512, 514, 516, 519), and now here's the fifth. And you just keep dancing and dodging. I've also posted the substantiation of my accusations numerous times, and you still keep dancing and dodging, refusing to actually explain otherwise.

I have explained twice. Here's the third.

515