« Who's Drinking What at Southeastern? by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Who's Coming Over for Breakfast? by Peter Lumpkins »

2009.09.14

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Luke

"Neo-manicheans huh"? Surely Triablogue must be operating with a gnosis revealed only to the elect. Oh wait. That would make them "Neo-manicheans" too wouldn't it? I wonder if the "light" came on for them?

All this extra gnosis. I sure wish someone would write it all down and bring it into the "light" so that the rest of us in "darkness" could read it but I guess that we "non-elect" would not be able to understand it. It is better that they keep it secret unless they want to continue to give me a good chuckle every now and then.

Thanks for this Peter.

Calvinator

Oh, how Peter longs for the days when on the internet- when accusations were made without the opportunity to respond. Who were the piranha looking for the chunk'o beef back then? But those guys got shut down. Open debate normally has that effect. Many reformed blogs has been a stark contrast to that kind of behavior. At least most of them have the guts to allow you to challenge what they are saying.

Look at this for a reflection of how it used to be: http://www.founders.org/blog/2005/07/baptist-fire-who-are-these-people-and.html

peter lumpkins

Calvinator,

Did I say 'longed' for something? Instead I encouraged folk to get their Calvinism from mainstream Calvinistic authors. If you have a problem with that, be my guest.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

You're most welcome Luke.

With that, I am...
Peter

chadwickivester

Peter,

I thought your primary reason to enter the blogosphere was to expose the fallacies of "Burlesonism"! :D

--chadwick

chadwickivester

Peter,

Can you delete my email address from my first comment?. . . my computer got trigger happy on the filling information.

peter lumpkins

cwiv

Why certainly. And, no, our Enid friend unfortunately became a side-issue for me ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

Steve G

well said Peter.

Byroniac

Peter, a commenter named Bob Anderson seems to raise your same objection by stating, "This is an exercise in historical comparison...Therefore, you must have done historical research to do such a comparison. So, what are your sources?"

He received two replies as of right now. Turretinfan said, "Logic connection, Bob, not historical connection." And Steve said, "It compares ideas, using historical illustrations. That's not the same thing as claiming that one idea is derived from another–by some historical process..."

This I think forms part of the answer to your complaint that the blog post's thesis is "too historically ignorant for words."

I personally would be interested in reading your interaction with their comments over there.

peter lumpkins

Steve

Thanks my brother & friend...

Byron,

I possess no interest in dealing with nonsense, Byron.  The Apostle warns against entertaining 'vain philosophy.' If you do not grasp I consider the post under question fitting nicely into Paul's category, so be it.

I admire honest, studied Calvinism and always will. I admire neither ignorant Calvinism nor ignorant non-Calvinism. 

Moreover, I admire originality in the history of ideas.  But I can never admire originality for originality's sake.  Originality must ultimately exist outside Alice's backyard. 

Finally, the thread's asserting it being about logical connections not historical connections is even more absurd. No amount of syllogistic sophistry will make all theistic, Non-Calvinists reduce to Manicheanism. This is too incredible for words.

I encourage you, Byron, to stick to mainstream Calvinist thinkers and swear off the trashy side of Calvinism.  I promise you I'll steer clear of the trashy side of non-Calvinism.

With that, I am...
Peter

By the way, there are some worthy responses to Hays. Hence, I'd only be redundant anyway.  For example check out Billy Birch's fine response.    Martin Glynn at the Society of Evangelical Arminians also posted a lament (//link).

Byroniac

Peter, thank you. I disagree, of course. But thanks for the links, too. I'll check them out soon.

peter lumpkins

I would be confused if you didn't disagree, Byron.
With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.