The central motivations behind anti-Calvinism and Calvinism
Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Viewers will note two things thus far in this thread:
1. Heretics hunt in packs (they are like hyenas)
2. The following quote from the OP, is being fulfilled by the hyenas:
"The most striking characteristic of any debate between Calvinists and anti-Calvinists, consists of an omission. Specifically, the anti-Calvinist never asks the Calvinist how his doctrine accords with his personal experience."
Why is it being fulfilled? Well simply because a heretic is not going to be focussed on Christ.
So we see Ladies and Gentlemen, that rather than accept the sobre and responsible explanation of the Calvinist's motivation, the anti-Calvinist is solely focussed on defending his autonomy, and won't have a bar of true spirituality. We see that the ostensible requests from the anti-Calvinist to prove his position worthy, are empty: he's simply not really interested.
It is rare that a Calvinist is not born again. It is common that an anti-Calvinist is not only not born again, but whether knowingly or not, in league with anti-Christ.
We know this because the anti-Calvinist position is that which inherently seeks to limit the role of Christ to an auxiliary to be appended to the human being if and when the latter decides. Basically, Christ is a slave boy.
Hmmm...You seem to be doing what you claim "anti-calvinists" do. You ascribe pure motives to Calvinists, and impure motives to those who aren't. Your statement about which are born-again and which aren't is not only un-provable, but wrong in my experience and, of course, in my opinion.
The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Where does that enter into the "debate"?
If you go back and read the OP, you will find what you quote of me above to be consistent with the thread's progress so far, the basic reason for this being that the OP has not even been addressed properly by the anti-Calvinist, let alone refuted.
A major portion of the OP is dedicated to explaining the motivation of the Calvinist position. The anti-Calvinist always claims that the Calvinist's motivation is one of elitism, as though if it weren't, if it could be shown to be otherwise, the Calvinist position might hold some merit.
But we see such implication is disingenuous, for given a detailed explanation of the true Calvinist motivation, the anti-Calvinist shows no interest in it whatsoever.
This then reveals that the motivation of the anti-Calvinist is in fact not simply the idea put forward in the OP (that it would be unfair of God to love some, and also unfair of God to force people to be saved), but rather, that he doesn't like the idea of being under the control of God.
So the anti-Calvinist position is one which demands the right to return to one's former autonomy and therefore a position which never in fact surrenders one's autonomy in the first place: it's a "I decided to follow Jesus" idea.
And so I have covered the ostensible central ideas of the anti-Calvinist in the OP, but having also covered the central motivation of the Calvinist and yet received no interest in that motivation whatsoever from the anti-Calvinist, I have actually established that the actual motivation of the anti-Calvinist is not as he claims (that it would be unfair of God to love only certain people, or that it would be wrong of God to force salvation upon anyone) but rather a desire to not surrender to Christ.
So I have established through the back door that the anti-Calvinist's ostensible motives are not in fact his true motives, and also established that his position is in fact not a Christian position, but a humanist one. For there can only be one Christian position, not two.
In a nutshell, the anti-Calvinist has defeated himself by conspicuously avoiding the second portion of the OP.
Last edited by Colossians; May 8th, 2012 at 05:33 AM.
You believe that the rules of debate are what you claim they are and that you are the only one that can make those rules.
That explains why you have the mistaken belief that you always win debates.
Your post above is either to relate to us one of two things:
1. You're an aspiring comedian and think that others will think you funny
2. The Spirit of God told you to do the post.
Concerning (1), I doubt you would have gotten many laughs, even if the graphic had been successful. So whatever you do, don't give up your day job.
Concerning (2), God is rarely that frivolous. In fact, I don't think He's ever been that frivolous, even at birthday parties. So it is unlikely He told you to do the post, and therefore probably the case that you are not under His authority, but are one of the many self-considered 'theologian's with a self-considered message from God, on this site.
Regardless of whether it is a case of (1), (2), or both, it doesn't look good for you.
Time to repent Mr Paulos.
Which means that since you think yourself a good little Roman Catholic, it is off to the confession box for you.
Location: On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
Rep Power: 49725
Christian (Other)
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of your testimony; and love not your life unto death.
Reputation:
May 23rd, 2012, 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossians
Rather, the onus is not on the OP writer to prove his assertions, but on the responders to disprove them. Rules of debate.
Debate
Proof
A great deal has been written and said about the burden of proof, and certain misconceptions have arisen about the duty of the affirmative. The rule is simple:
Okay, since you consistantly refused to post the Rules of debate that apply to your statement, I posted the rule.
If you disagree with the rule or the source of the rules for debate, you are free to post the source you are relying on.
Until then, the Opening Post is presumptuously disproved due to it being nothing but bald assertions, and the Opening Poster has lost the debate, as well as losing face.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
Location: On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
Rep Power: 49725
Christian (Other)
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of your testimony; and love not your life unto death.
Reputation:
May 23rd, 2012, 03:57 PM
The central motivation behind anti-calvinism is that every action men do, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
The central motivation behind calvinism is to shut up the kingdom of heaven against men.
Your post above is either to relate to us one of two things:
1. You're an aspiring comedian and think that others will think you funny
2. The Spirit of God told you to do the post.
Concerning (1), I doubt you would have gotten many laughs, even if the graphic had been successful. So whatever you do, don't give up your day job.
Concerning (2), God is rarely that frivolous. In fact, I don't think He's ever been that frivolous, even at birthday parties. So it is unlikely He told you to do the post, and therefore probably the case that you are not under His authority, but are one of the many self-considered 'theologian's with a self-considered message from God, on this site.
Regardless of whether it is a case of (1), (2), or both, it doesn't look good for you.
Time to repent Mr Paulos.
Which means that since you think yourself a good little Roman Catholic, it is off to the confession box for you.
A friendly word of advice: Don't let all this forum arguing get you down, and try not to take yourself too seriously. Lighten up! A healthy sense of humor is a good thing.
Those of us who have a ministry, don't get sidetracked by a "healthy sense of humour", as you put it, and your perception of what is healthy is certainly no universal.
So spare us your patronising remarks: you have no idea of who I am, nor of my background.
Just concentrate on the OP of the thread. If you can't do that, we don't want to see your sense of humour instead.
The kingdom of God (as opposed to the kingdom of the RC Pope which you subscribe to) is a serious spiritual business: people are going to hell every day like flies. So you run away with your humour and join a circus, and let those of us who are in ministry concentrate on preaching what is important.
May 23rd, 2012, 04:15 AM
Linear Mode
