John Calvin said this....

[Clete]

clete



It is the Gospel !

What's really ridiculous is that one of the logical consequences of your doctrine is that you can't even tell for sure which of us is right and which of us is deceived.

 

[Granite]

You just used the law of identity and the law of contradiction in order to make that argument.

To be blunt, I have zero interest in parsing or debating any of these pet laws of yours. They're not set in stone, intrinsic, infallible, or any kind of authority.

Care to try again to make an argument against the veracity of reason?

Never did.

Anyway, flat out of time for now! Sorry about the truncated response!

No worries.

 

[beloved57]

What's really ridiculous is that one of the logical consequences of your doctrine is that you can't even tell for sure which of us is right and which of us is deceived.

I am telling you the truth! You are deceived!

 

[Clete]

I am telling you the truth! You are deceived!

According to you, I believe precisely what God predestined me to believe. In other words, if I'm deceived it's because God demands that I'm deceived, and there would be no way for me not to be deceived.

The problem is for you that the exact same thing is true of you. If God predestined you to be deceived then you would be deceived and you wouldn't be able to tell that you're deceived because not being able to tell is part of what it means to be deceived.

So the bottom line is this, if you're right then I'm deceived and I couldn't be anything other than deceived and, in addition to that, I've been predestined to not care. But by your own doctrine I may yet still going to heaven because if I've been predestined to go to heaven it doesn't have anything to do with anything other then God's arbitrary choice. But whether I am predestined go to heaven or to go to hell I can't do anything about it one where the other so again, I just simply don't care.

On the other hand, if I'm right, you are in big trouble because you've put your faith in the wrong God and believed a false gospel.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[beloved57]

According to you, I believe precisely what God predestined me to believe. In other words, if I'm deceived it's because God demands that I'm deceived, and there would be no way for me not to be deceived.

The problem is for you that the exact same thing is true of you. If God predestined you to be deceived then you would be deceived and you wouldn't be able to tell that you're deceived because not being able to tell is part of what it means to be deceived.

So the bottom line is this, if you're right then I'm deceived and I couldn't be anything other than deceived and, in addition to that, I've been predestined to not care. But by your own doctrine I may yet still going to heaven because if I've been predestined to go to heaven it doesn't have anything to do with anything other then God's arbitrary choice. But whether I am predestined go to heaven or to go to hell I can't do anything about it one where the other so again, I just simply don't care.

On the other hand, if I'm right, you are in big trouble because you've put your faith in the wrong God and believed a false gospel.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Looks like God predestinated you not to believe the Gospel!

 

[Clete]

To be blunt, I have zero interest in parsing or debating any of these pet laws of yours. They're not set in stone, intrinsic, infallible, or any kind of authority.

I don't believe you. I think you know full well that you cannot escape logic. I think that because you're very clearly not stupid and because I think I've done as good a job as anyone could of explaining it to you.

If you're not interested in debating this what exactly are you interested in debating? How would you suggest we proceed with any debate on any subject? If you get to make up the rules of rational discourse as you go, Then on what basis could you ever possibly lose a debate? On what grounds do you propose to try to convince a potential debate opponent that such a debate would be worth having?

Never did.

Of course you did.


I'll respond to the rest of your other post as soon as time allows you made some very interesting points that deserve a response.

 

[Clete]

Looks like God predestinated you not to believe the Gospel!

Then on what basis are you attempting to undo gods decree?

 

[beloved57]

Then on what basis are you attempting to undo gods decree?

No, contrary, I Can only do as God decreed !

 

[Granite]

I don't believe you.

If you think I'm lying let's just end this discussion and stop wasting our time.

I think you know full well that you cannot escape logic.

Don't believe I said so, and let's not go full Vulcan here.

If you're not interested in debating this what exactly are you interested in debating? How would you suggest we proceed with any debate on any subject? If you get to make up the rules of lashing out discourse as you go, Then on what basis could you ever possibly lose a debate?

I don't see TOL as a coliseum or formalized, proper sparring ground. Sometimes folks take this place way, way too seriously.

Of course you did.

Wrong again. If you insist otherwise I'll just bow out and leave this thread to the Christian-on-Christian "uh-huh" "nuh-uh" line of argument.

 

[Clete]

If you think I'm lying let's just end this discussion and stop wasting our time.

"Lying" is too harsh a word, by far! I don't think you're trying to deceive me, I think you're misunderstanding something. A light bulb will kick on here eventually and you'll wonder what there was to disagree about.

I don't see TOL as a coliseum or formalized, proper sparring ground. Sometimes folks take this place way, way too seriously.

Well I agree with this sentiment entirely but still, no meaningful discourse can take place outside of the rules of reason. Even if someone is breaking those rules, its the very act of breaking them that allows someone else to show that they're wrong and why.

If you tell someone that idea A is wrong because of B (fill in any sort of phrasing you want for both A and B), all you're doing is making a rational argument even if very informally. You are essentially saying that B is true, A contradicts B, therefore A is false. That's the law of contradiction and people use it all the time without ever having heard of the law of contradiction before.

This is what I meant when I said that Aristotle didn't invent these laws. He simply looked very closely at the nature of argumentation and of meaningful discourse and pointed out the things that various forms of argument have in common and what they boil down to. It is the singular most important contribution to philosophy that any mere human has ever made!

Wrong again. If you insist otherwise I'll just bow out and leave this thread to the Christian-on-Christian "uh-huh" "nuh-uh" line of argument.

I said that. "The three laws cannot be debated because the three laws are what make debate possible in the first place. "

In response you said, "They can and they are."

A correct observation to which I clarified my point by saying that, "I don't deny that people argue about the veracity of the three laws of reason, you're doing it right now! That's not the point. The point is that it cannot be done without contradicting yourself BY MAKING THE ARGUMENT."

I don't understand what there is there to disagree with?

I said they can't be argued, you say that they can be because they are.

A completely valid argument which forced me to modify my statement to be more precise with my meaning. An argument that was complete "informal" but still well withing the bounds or rational discourse and therefore the laws of reason. In this case, you presented the fact that there are counter examples to my supposition. If people do in fact argue them, then my supposition to the contrary must be false. That's the law of contradiction!


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Fair enough, though I'd say the definition of "absolute truth" would probably differ considerably given who you asked.

The definition of "absolute truth" is not a matter of opinion.

Let's step back and say these laws you're recently fond of are in fact immutable and true. By that basis, every philosopher out there who's used those laws to build a belief system or argument contrary to Christianity is still onto something, so to speak. Would you agree with that statement?

Yes, Absolutely! The alternative would be for me to tacitly accept that Christianity is irrational.

Ayn Rand is just such a philosopher as you suggest. She made terrible errors but because rationality was her aim she was "onto something" as you put it.

Rand's conclusions about ethics and politics are almost entirely correct because she proceeded logically from a premise that she got accidentally correct.

If not, on what basis. If so, on what basis do you reject a philosopher who proceeds by these three laws yet veers from your belief system?

On the basis of reason! Just because someone argues rationally doesn't mean they never make a mistake. If a person begins from a faulty premise and proceeds with perfectly sound reason, their conclusion will still likely be false. Conversely, if they begin with a correct premise but their reasoning isn't sound then again, the conclusion is in question. But if they begin from a correct premise and proceed with sound reasoning their conclusion is correct. And it doesn't matter if they used the laws of reason on purpose and it doesn't have to take the form of a formal argument or syllogism. The simple reality of it is, all arguments that actually work follow these rules. It isn't necessary for anyone to adopt them any more than a person has to adopt the law of gravity in order to be subject to it. So if someone makes an argument against my theology (regardless of the specific topic) my job is to show how either their premises are false or that their logic doesn't follow. I have to. Either that or I'm not responding to the argument. Those are the only two alternatives that reality presents.

The possible argument would be that they'd simply strayed from the right path while wandering down it for a ways, but how does that leave them in a better situation than someone who questions these "laws" or at least thinks they're not set in stone?

They're better off because with reason, they are able to see and potentially correct their error. Without reason, you'd not even be able to tell that you made a mistake and would be even less equipped to solve the problem if were to somehow stumble upon it.

Reason is the only tool your mind has to determine truth from error. You might object and appeal to divine revelation but you'd do so in error because not even revelation can be communicated or understood without the application of reason nor would you be able to tell divine revelation from demonic revelation without the application of reason. (Gal. 1:6-9)

I'm a little hazy on my Aristotle. If I remember correctly he was bigger on logic, and he certainly wasn't infallible.

He was very fallible indeed! But if the world got nothing else at all from Aristotle other than the laws of reason, his contribution to the advancement of philosophy would be unmatched by any other single human being. The next nine most influential thinkers put together do not equal the accomplishment of this one feat of human intellect.

I should point out again that Aristotle did not invent the laws of reason, he merely observed them and wrote them down. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I hold Aristotle in higher esteem than is appropriate. We only give him credit for the laws of reason because he was the first to write them down - that we know of.

Let me ask it this way: Would you agree something be situationally true, or even partially true, without necessarily excluding another situational possibility?

The situation is part and parcel of the truth claim. Thus, two truth claims that are in contradiction to each other cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.

Context is everything!

What I suggested's that you and your reformed brethren may be tripping over the same elephant in the same dark room. You see the actor on stage; your focus is on the brilliance of the performance. A Calvinist would marvel at the script and the direction.

Perhaps a good way to look at this is to imagine me following two critics for two newspapers out to the sidewalk following opening night on Broadway. Jake and John have both seen the same play, seen the same performance, and both been enthralled. What I overhear is a difference in opinion and emphasis: Jake is stunned by the power brought to the role by the thespian, while John insists the true beauty comes from the playwright's words and the wisdom of the director's vision. Is either man wrong? Absolutely not. Did they see the same play? Absolutely. Am I listening to an argument without a foreseeable or satisfactory conclusion for either art critic? You bet.

I understood you before.

They aren't the same - at all.

Elephants and kites both have tails and with some effort both can led around by a tether. That doesn't make them similar things.

Not quite. I suggested leaning on those laws of reason you introduced aren't a shortcut or even a magic wand.

They certainly aren't magic. They are, however, the only tools your mind has with which to communicate.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Neopatriarch]

Preconditions of Justice

Preconditions of Justice

How can you believe that your god is just?

.
It's even worse than that. Calvinism as a worldview lacks the necessary preconditions for justice. Law and free creatures to obey or disobey. Without justice, mercy and grace are meaningless, and Calvin's gospel is a pointless play, signifying nothing.

 

[Neopatriarch]

Calvin's god

Calvin's god

You are judging God based on your own sense of justice.

No, he did not judge God. He assessed the teachings of Calvin. Which is clear in his text.

One should not elevate Calvin to godhood. Nor confuse his god with the one taught in the Bible.

 

[moparguy]

There are many things that are both worth stomping your feet over and that bear repeating!

Blaspheming God is in that category.

I see. So, you're going to refuse to interact so that you can prove the validity of your point.

This comment was unresponsive and meaningless.

:chuckle:
As if you don't know who the bereans were and why they were praised.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Unless it's you doing the saying, right? You repeatedly make your claims, and refuse to justify them.

I quoted your post directly when I made the accusation. Not only that but you post (as well as mine) is still there for anyone who is interested to read for themselves. Deny it all you like! It's no skin off my nose.

Of course you quoted my post, in which I did not say nor mean God created evil. Your repetitive saying that I did doesn't (oh, the irony) make it so.

Are you capable of doing more than repeating a claim?

Again, unresponsive meaningless stupidity. It is not necessary to exegete anything to know that God isn't righteous because He says so but because of what He does and who He is.

Not necessary to exegete?

Do you even know what the word "exegete" means? It means to bring out the meaning of a text; it's opposite is eisegesis, to shove a meaning into a text that it doesn't contain.

Now you're a liar to boot.

I'm not stupid and neither is anyone else who is capable of reading your posts WHICH ARE ALL STILL HERE IN THE THREAD FOR ANYONE TO READ YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!!!!!

Ah, now I'm a liar if I don't say my posts meant something they didn't mean; a meaning that you could in no non-false way show was there.

Of course my posts are still in this thread; everyone can read them and see quite clearly that your conclusion is baseless.

YOU ARE A STUPID IDIOTIC FOOL!!!!

Great way to exhibit the love of Christ to a watching world.

Words mean things and I am fully capable of reading. If you don't like me saying what on my mind after reading your posts then stop posting anything that I might read. There's little doubt that doing so would only lead to your blaspheming God further anyway,

If you think you don't need to exegete (as you said above) to find out what God means, you aren't fully capable of reading. As for your reading ability otherwise; the language in my post in no way means that I was upset. You simply inserted that into my post when it wasn't there.

Sad that you presume I'll blaspheme when you have yet to give anyone a good reason to believe that anything I posted was blasphemy.

You can and should do better for your position that text screaming and refusing to explain why your position is right.

As someone claiming the name of Christ, you should also care for those you are engaging in polemics with, too. You've given multiple evidences that you don't, in my case. You certainly haven't bothered to try and explain what you think is truth in relation to the gospel, even after I extended you an invitation to do so.

 

[Granite]

The definition of "absolute truth" is not a matter of opinion.

The only way you can say this with a straight face is because of your presuppositions, and even then it's a stretch. Many a Christian would admit a non-believer's definition of absolute truth might be greatly different than their own and is of course a matter of opinion. (This same Christian would of course disagree with the definition but not seriously dispute the importance of opinion.) You're not seriously entering into an honest discussion with anyone the instant you assume they must in error--or that you must absolutely be right. But this presuppositionalism does go a long way towards explaining your approach throughout this thread.

Rand's conclusions about ethics and politics are almost entirely correct because she proceeded logically from a premise that she got accidentally correct.

If you consider Rand's philosophy just how do you have such an issue with Calvinism?:chuckle:

On the basis of reason! Just because someone argues rationally doesn't mean they never make a mistake. If a person begins from a faulty premise and proceeds with perfectly sound reason, their conclusion will still likely be false.

With you on that one.

Conversely, if they begin with a correct premise but their reasoning isn't sound then again, the conclusion is in question. But if they begin from a correct premise and proceed with sound reasoning their conclusion is correct.

True enough.

So if someone makes an argument against my theology (regardless of the specific topic) my job is to show how either their premises are false or that their logic doesn't follow. I have to. Either that or I'm not responding to the argument. Those are the only two alternatives that reality presents.

Well, not exactly. The third possibility--that you're wrong, and should reconsider your position--doesn't appear to ever occur to you. Again, your ego is kind of out of control here.

Reason is the only tool your mind has to determine truth from error. You might object and appeal to divine revelation but you'd do so in error because not even revelation can be communicated or understood without the application of reason nor would you be able to tell divine revelation from demonic revelation without the application of reason.

Question--do you consider common sense, or even intuition, to fall under the umbrella of reason?

He was very fallible indeed! But if the world got nothing else at all from Aristotle other than the laws of reason, his contribution to the advancement of philosophy would be unmatched by any other single human being.

And plenty would disagree with you. Again, you're being incredibly dogmatic (by a layman's standards) about issues and individuals who are fiercely debated and discussed to this day.

The next nine most influential thinkers put together do not equal the accomplishment of this one feat of human intellect.

See above...

I understood you before. They aren't the same - at all.

Seriously, this seems to be the extent of your argument and literally the best you've got: "I'm right, you're wrong."

 

[intojoy]

Predestination and election are biblical but they are milk doctrines.

 

[Clete]

Predestination and election are biblical but they are milk doctrines.

The predestination and election of groups is biblical. The predestination and election of Augustinian theological systems is anything but biblical.

 

[Clete]

I see. So, you're going to refuse to interact so that you can prove the validity of your point.


:chuckle:
As if you don't know who the bereans were and why they were praised.



Unless it's you doing the saying, right? You repeatedly make your claims, and refuse to justify them.



Of course you quoted my post, in which I did not say nor mean God created evil. Your repetitive saying that I did doesn't (oh, the irony) make it so.

Are you capable of doing more than repeating a claim?



Not necessary to exegete?

Do you even know what the word "exegete" means? It means to bring out the meaning of a text; it's opposite is eisegesis, to shove a meaning into a text that it doesn't contain.



Ah, now I'm a liar if I don't say my posts meant something they didn't mean; a meaning that you could in no non-false way show was there.

Of course my posts are still in this thread; everyone can read them and see quite clearly that your conclusion is baseless.



Great way to exhibit the love of Christ to a watching world.



If you think you don't need to exegete (as you said above) to find out what God means, you aren't fully capable of reading. As for your reading ability otherwise; the language in my post in no way means that I was upset. You simply inserted that into my post when it wasn't there.

Sad that you presume I'll blaspheme when you have yet to give anyone a good reason to believe that anything I posted was blasphemy.

You can and should do better for your position that text screaming and refusing to explain why your position is right.

As someone claiming the name of Christ, you should also care for those you are engaging in polemics with, too. You've given multiple evidences that you don't, in my case. You certainly haven't bothered to try and explain what you think is truth in relation to the gospel, even after I extended you an invitation to do so.

You have lost your mind. I don't know what the hell you're even talking about. How do you "text scream"? What are you 12?

I never suggested that exegesis was a waste of time or that it wasn't necessary or any of the stupidity contained within this post. I didn't. If you think I did, you have to explain it to me. And no, I will not go back through this thread to try and figure it out. I know full well what I am in the habit of doing in my posts as is everyone else on this entire website and feel exactly zero need to defend myself to the likes of you. So far as I can tell, based on this post, you're a lunatic that cannot be reasoned with but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that point.

You therefore have two options.

1. You can try again and explain what in the world you're even talking about with respect and stop the stupidity.

2. You can ignore this opportunity and land yourself on my ignore list.

You pick one. I do not care which.

 

[Clete]

Granite,

I have actually typed a response to your last post twice. The first one got wiped out when my power went off, the second one I'd swear I posted but seems to have not made it somehow. Its not impossible that I posted it to the wrong thread but I doubt it.

One way or another, I gotta type up a response a third time which requires me to overcome a lot of emotional inertia. I'll try to do it this evening. Sorry about the wait.

Clete

 

[moparguy]

You have lost your mind. I don't know what the hell you're even talking about. How do you "text scream"? What are you 12?

Usage of all caps -

...YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!!!!!


YOU ARE A STUPID IDIOTIC FOOL!!!!

Like you did here; as you were "exhibiting the love of Christ."

I never suggested that exegesis was a waste of time or that it wasn't necessary...

Again, unresponsive meaningless stupidity. It is not necessary to exegete anything to know that God isn't righteous because He says so but because of what He does and who He is.

You said it wasn't necessary to exegete to know God isn't righteousness because he says he is. The only other option is non-exegesis. If God had not revealed to us in his word (said he is) righteousness, we wouldn't know it. Furthermore, if God's word doesn't establish a thing in fact, I wonder at what to do with genesis chapter one. It's not as if God is a liar who's word can somehow contradict his own nature.

I know full well what I am in the habit of doing in my posts as is everyone else on this entire website and feel exactly zero need to defend myself to the likes of you.

Who cares if you feel the need? The question is, can you defend your position without resorting unerhanded tactics or other falsehoods; from the biblical texts as the final authority?

If you can't, why should YOU even believe it?