Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I couldn't have cared less about the accusation; I was concerned about debating the issues that you brought up about what Open Theism teaches. The Slick Jimmy remark was intended to be funny. You need to lighten up.
Sure, every conservative thinks it's a real hoot to be compared to Clinton. How could I miss that? Maybe that would be a good place for one of those smilies? Or should I rely on my psychic skills?
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
What do you mean what issues? I went through and answered your questions one by one, didn't I?
Yes, and you answered them well. There's was nothing left to discuss about the questions. What became the issue was the charge of being "unchristian" and "unfriendly," and having genuineness of my friendship questioned in public. And all that based on alleged and still unproven charge of misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I wasn't even addressing the issue of your hurt feelings, Jim.
It's not a matter of feelings, Clete. My hide is pretty thick. It's a matter of being charged with unchristian behavior on the basis of double standards.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The accusation arose out of your playing games in the first place.
Wrong, Clete. It started because Knight got a dose of his own emotional-argument medicine and didn't like it.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you would establish your points as you make them then such accusations would not be as easily forthcoming. Your own style of debate invites people to blow you off.
It's one thing to be blown off. I could care less. It's another thing to be called unchristian on the basis of the TOL double standard. Do you get that? I was originally responding to a statement by Knight. I didn't call him unchristian for his emotional argument. That's what started this whole thing. Are you aware of what he wrote?
Knight wrote:
How can you take comfort in thinking that God planned the rape and brutal murder of a 7 year old girl?
So I replied:
How can you have any comfort or trust believing in a God whose prophecies do not come true, who is surprised by His own creation, and who continues to sit idly by, unable to lift a finger, while hundreds of people He supposedly wants to save but cannot, plunge into hell on a daily basis?
I'm then accused of being unfriendly and unchristian and behaving contrary to what Knight expects of a friend. It's quite friendly and christian for you guys to say that "Calvinists make God out to be the author of evil ..." and that the Calvinist God plans the rape and brutal murder of 7-year-old girls, but it's not OK for your opponents to say that Open Theists make God out to be a Big Loser. How can you miss the double standard?
You even admit,
"I know that [Calvinists] themselves not only do not say such things but also do not consciously believe it. Nevertheless, that is the conclusion that their theology logically leads too whether they are aware of it or not."
DITTO, CLETE!!!!! Why is it friendly and christian for you to state what you see as the "conclusion that their theology logically leads" but it's unfriendly and unchristian if your opponents do it? Double. standard.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Want some cheese with that, Jim?
You really need to get over yourself. We are all here to debate theology; if you don't want to debate things then don't bring them up. Simple as that.
You're clueless. Everything I've said was in
response, Clete. I've started nothing here. My statements are being steered by you and Knight. If you don't like the direction they've gone, then you have your own psychic-tag-team selves to blame.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
How about the substance of my post? You asked questions and I answered them. Respond to my answers, that's all. Isn't that how debates are supposed to work?
I was satisfied with your answers. There was nothing else to say. It happens all the time, Clete. Check out some of the other threads I've started in this forum. Very short. I ask a question, I get my answer. Done. Not everything has to be 100 posts long.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The difference is Jim, that when we misrepresent something the way you do, we don't say that we didn't.
You missed the point again. We all misrepresent from time to time. Sometimes unintentionally. Sometimes deliberately for emotional argument. But the Open Theists are friendly and christian and get a pass when they do it; anti-Open Theists are labeled unfriendly and unchristian when they do it. It's no skin off my front personally. It's the double standard that is offensive to any rationally minded person.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
We understand the use of rhetoric and the impact of an emotional argument.
Right, but it's friendly and christian when you do it; it's unfriendly and unchristian when your opponents do it.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
For example, when I say that Calvinists make God out to be the author of evil, I know that they themselves not only do not say such things but also do not consciously believe it. Nevertheless, that is the conclusion that their theology logically leads too whether they are aware of it or not.
The difference is that when someone accuses me of attacking a straw man I don't start whining about double standards, ...
Wrong, Clete. It doesn't bother me to be accused of attacking a straw man. We all do it. What bothers any rationally minded person is convenient double standards. It should bother
you, Clete, as someone who claims to be rational. But because one of your own is guilty, he gets a pass.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I just prove what i've said is true (or at least I make an argument anyway). And that's exactly what you should have done. That's exactly what Knight would have wanted you or anyone else to do as well.
Then why did he question the christianity of his opponent? Why question his friendship? Knight did not want or care to hear the proof. He's heard it before, as have you. You don't even understand the issue, so don't tell me what I should have done. You don't even acknowledge Knight's offense against reason, so don't tell me what Knight would have wanted.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Can you not read? I swear it's as if you are on another planet or something! I explained very clearly how I DO NOT AGREE with you characterization.
On the contrary. You affirmed everything I said, for which I was satisfied. You even added clarification, for which I was grateful.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Okay Jim, I know you must know this already but I'll walk you through this anyway (it's a short trip). You are on a public debate forum. What you and one other participant may or may not have discussed on the phone is of exactly zero value in such a venue.
Thanks for the lecture, Clete. But on the contrary. Here is the value: The person to whom I was speaking is major proponent of Open Theism in this forum, yet he somehow forgets our discussion about one of the primary planks of the Open View (God's repentance). Furthermore, other proponents of this theology have read my statements about the figure, yet somehow continue to express an inability to understand how figures can mean the opposite of what they say. Further still, there are readily available writings on the subject that provide clear and logically sound explanations for the figures. But I have yet to meet or encounter a single Open Theist who cares enough to lift a finger to discover it for himself. That says a lot. When I point out to an Open Theist that there is a misunderstanding about a doctrinal tenet, they don't say, "Really? Please explain." Instead, I get resistance and defiance. Open Theists are so arrogant that it doesn't matter to them whether or not they properly understand an opposing viewpoint. It is anti-intellectual. Anti-knowledge. It is provincial, puerile and small-minded.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Further, points or counter points that you may or may not have made on completely separate threads are perhaps findable, but who wants to do all that? If you want to make a similar point to one you've made in the past and don't want to reestablish that point then either don't make the point or link or repost what you said about in the past yourself. It is not laziness on my part if you are too lazy to copy and paste something you said before, and I can assure you that I, for one, have no interest in memorizing your theology, or the arguments used to support that theology.
Forget me. Forget my theology. Think of your own understanding. Think of your own acquisition of knowledge. If you truly cared about what determinists believe and how they treat anthropopathic language and passages, you wouldn't need me to chide you about it. You would go find out on your own intitiative. If I were convinced you cared one whit about it, I would happily oblige. It's clear to me that you don't; neither does Knight. He just wants to know if Swordsman personally has an explanation.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, with that having been said, I understand that not every point has to be fully established every time you make it, especially if the one your conversation with is familiar with your position. However, if you are specifically asked to do so, then to refuse is not only unfriendly but it's down right silly! After all, what are you here for if not to debate the theology you've come to embrace? It just doesn't make any sense!
My goal is accomplished. I pointed out Knight's selective memory. I exposed his double standard. Part of debating theology is exposing the fallacious reasoning of the opponent.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
They might be intended to do that, but you never explain yourself or the logic behind the conclusion you claim are so obvious! You just say things and expect people to accept it on the basis of your magnetic personality, I guess! The fact is Jim, people cannot read your mind and that fact has nothing to do with how smart you are or how stupid they are. It is your responsibility to communicate your own point in a manner that those you are communicating with can understand it. If you aren't willing to do that then keep your point to yourself.
If you only knew how often I do this, you would thank me.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Again, it is not my responsibility to translate your responses into something coherent. It has been my repeated experience that you answer questions with questions about as often as you don't. You would much rather have someone "figure it out" than for you to explain it to them. Care to attempt to find someone who disagrees with me on that?
It's called Socratic Irony. It's how I learn. It's a perfectly legitimate form of discourse. Jesus and Paul used the method. It's quite effective.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
:darwinsm:
I told you that I was imitating you Jim! I didn't actually think you were teaching universalism; I just pulled something out of thin air, stated it with no explanation and left you to deal with it by reading my mind. It's not too easy to do, is it?
It only further shows that you're having a hard time keeping up, Clete. You can't even mock me accurately.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
"3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,"
It means just what it says, just what it seems to say by a simply reading of the text.
Didn't you say earlier that it is an "overstatement" to say that God wants everyone to be saved? It's an "all-or-not-all" proposition, Clete.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It has to have been a misrepresentation of one kind or another Jim. You said it [that God cannot save everyone] as though it was a bad thing to believe and yet you believe it yourself, you must! Even if your theology is correct God doesn't save anyone in violation of His stipulated requirements.
Once again, you've missed the point. The Open Theist God has a problem. God
wants to save more than He
can, because of His stipulated standards. The determinist view has no such problem. God
wants to save, and
will save, exactly and only those whom He has chosen to save. No more. No less. Yes, we both believe God cannot save everyone, but my view doesn't put that desire on God, as yours does. Or does it? You're still waffling on that point. Is it an overstatement or not?
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Okay, and the point is? Why did you ask the question in the first place? Was it pop quiz time or what?
I was establishing that I had correctly represented your view, remember? Your answer was sufficient to establish it.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It's not your words that misrepresents our view but the implication that God is somehow weak because He can't make somebody love Him.
It's not weakness I'm implying. It is incoherence. How could a God who wants all men to be saved and to come to the saving knowledge of Christ sit by and watch scores of people plummet into hell? Statistically, He is losing big-time (hence the term, Big Loser), and any economist, statistician or gambler would suggest He cut His losses and end it all right now. The "God Who Risks" is betting against the house, and He loses big every single day.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You do believe that hundreds of people go to Hell each day right? So it’s misleading because you say something as though it is a negative when you affirm it yourself.
It's not misleading. You just keep forgetting the difference. The difference is this: Your view cannot coherently sustain the premise; mine can.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Pour the normal meanings of these words back into them and this is a correct statement. In other words, read this statement without the Calvinistic idea of "unconditional election" in your head and suddenly you have Biblical truth.
You have it backward. Pour the biblical meanings of these words into them and it is a correct statement. In other words, read this statement without the Open Theistic spectacles cemented to your face and without the inane ideas of non-individual "corporate election" and non-salvific "choosing-for-a-task" in your head and suddenly you have Biblical truth.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, I don't care if anything else you've said is a mischaracterization of the Open View or not, this definitely is. Or do you think that I believe God to be a "Big Loser" (capital B, capital L).
No, that's an example of an emotional argument, intended to be provocative.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
This is also a terrific example of being unfriendly, but I'm not really concerned about that so much.
You forgot "unchristian." Of course, that's not what
you're doing when you say the determinist God is the author of evil. No, you're being friendly and christian (or "funny" -- it's hard to tell. Probably cuz I'm too uptight).
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Not that it's not important, it's just that little jabs like this is what make this forum more fun and more real than any other that I've seen. But call it what it is, it is a mischaracterization, an intentional one at that.
You're so honest! Wow, you admit to making a mischaracterization! What an amazing person you must be. Friendly and christian, too, that is, unless you're an anti-Open Theist. In which case, it's unfriendly and unchristian. Go figger.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Well I really do want to know, but I am not going to PM you for it.
Based on your track record, and that of other Open Theists, perhaps you'll pardon me if I'm not convinced. Perhaps not. I don't care.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The topic is hot right here, right now, and I, for one, have never (or at least I do not remember having ever) heard you or anyone who calls the word "repent" a figure of speech explain what the figure means in any way that makes any sense at all. Typically, what most people get from a verse that clearly says that God changed His mind is that He didn't change His mind. It's totally contrary to the obvious meaning of the text.
That's what figures do. They mean something different, sometimes opposite, to what the words suggest. If you've never found anything that explains it, then you haven't looked hard enough.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You know what I think? I think that you know that this is not so.
I already knew that is what you think. It's Open View arrogance. I've seen it before. Open Theists just can't fathom the possibility that their view could be wrong, so they blithely dismiss it. If you really thought it was possible to be wrong, you'd stop at nothing to find out, much like I've stopped at nothing to investigate Open Theism. But you don't really care, do you?
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I think that you just don't want to debate it. You're more interested in pointing out supposed flaws in Knight’s and my character than in discussing the issue rationally and unemotionally.
Your character? Sheesh. Get over yourselves. I'm not the one going around hypocritically calling people "unfriendly" and "unchristian".
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I'm not impressed Jim!
I don't care. It wasn't my intent to impress you, but to shame you and to show that you really don't give a hoot. If you did, you wouldn't waste so much time rehashing things that have long been established.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You know why? Because you not any different than I am at all in this respect.
Really? What have you read of Calvin or his cronies? What have you read of about the figure of anthropopathism? List the titles and authors.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I like you, have read and read and read book after book after book, listened to sermon after sermon, teaching after teaching ...
Really? Yet you
still go around with a distorted definition of total depravity and immutability? If that's true, then the destructive effect of Open Theism on the mind is worse than I thought.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The fact is, that your intellectual honesty is precisely the reason why I find our inability to agree on virtually anything so frustrating.
We agree that God cannot save everyone, but for different reasons. We agree that the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible word, right? We agree that Jesus is God incarnate, right? I'm sure we could find a whole host of other things.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
In other words, I can tell that we aren't talking past one another because you are trying to be difficult or dishonest. On the contrary, it's perfectly clear that the points you make seem to you to be perfectly obvious as are the points that I make to me. It's clear that we are both interested in determining the genuine truth and yet something just doesn't connect, at the risk of being repetitive, it truly is as frustrating as anything I can think of at the moment.
I wish that weren't the case, Clete. Perhaps we should have a phone conversation, just to get to know better how we each communicate. Maybe there is a disconnect and I'm reading something into your words that isn't there, or vice versa.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
No you don't but you don't explain yourself either. It's not enough to simply say, "That's not an accurate rendering of Calvinist doctrine." and then leave it for everyone to believe or be stupid. You act as if I and Knight are supposed to stop everything and put our whole theology in limbo based on the strength of the simple fact that you've made a claim that we don't know what we are talking about.
Again, the point is that no one here seems to care. I've posted excerpts of Calvin and Augustine. I might as well have posted excerpts from the Book of Mormon or the Upanishads. Open. Theists. don't. care.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
What you aught to say is "That is an inaccurate rendering of Calvinist doctrine. A more accurate rendering of the Calvinist position would be such and such because this or that person who is an authority because of this or that qualification said this or that statement concerning this issue which is relevant because etc, etc." It's called fleshing out a point and making an argument.
Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. No. One. Cares.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Reading minds doesn't work. If you know something that the rest of us are apparently ignorant of then speak up and teach us something. But if you bring it up it is not up to us to figure out why you are right, it’s up to you to prove your own position. A point with which I know you agree but it just seems that you often forget.
BT.DT.GTTS.N.O.C.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I have given you zero reason to rationally make such a statement. I have been a touch on the sarcastic side perhaps but I have not been disrespectful toward you in any way.
I didn't claim you've been disrespectful toward me. You seem (
seem -- I don't
know -- I'm just guessing based on observation) to not respect the debate. Someone once said, "Our enemies make us scholars." Those words are meaningful to those who respect debate. They go out and study their enemy. They more thoroughly study their own positions. They change and refine and hone their arguments. Here, it's just the same ol' song, different thread. Same distorted assumptions, different forum. If I ever saw an Open Theist say, "Based on those quotes, I've been making a wrong assumption about the doctrine of total depravity. I'm going to stop that," then I would say, "There's a person who
seems to respect the debate."
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
On the contrary, you are the only one here that I disagree with, that I actively desire responses from. (Z Man had that honor along with you but lost it a few days ago.) That is true precisely because I do respect both you and the debate. There are those here who are playing games and I sometimes like to have some fun with people and play around also, but I think, more so than most, I take this stuff very, very seriously. Ask Z Man if you doubt that this is the case.
While appreciate your kind remarks, and I sincerely desire to have a cordial and respectful discussion with you, your exit interview with Zman made me re-think even wanting to talk to you on the phone. Something told me that I was seeing my future.
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Well as I said, I have no intention of PMing you for the argument. The issue is on the table right here, right now. Link to a previous post of yours if you like or if you don't even want to do that then I submit that you shouldn't have engaged the discussion in the first place.
I didn't "engage" the debate. I made an observation and expressed it in similar terms as Knight. I pointed out the disingenuous nature of Knight's question and his selective memory. For that I was vilified as unfriendly and unchristian. And now I've exposed the double standard. Mission accomplished. There's no debate to engage.
And by the way, it's fitting that the discussion has come to this, given the title of this thread.
