« W.A. Criswell and Calvinism…Again | Main | Six to 800 missionaries must come home apparently due to apathy of Southern Baptists »

2015.07.21

Comments

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

Scott Shaver

John:

Now that you've had your laugh, you might want to do some work on subject verb agreement so that you aren't being laughed at as well :)

Scott Shaver

Last salvo with Les:

After going back and looking at the 3 "agreed upon" statements per your worded......No I do not accept them either at face or inferred value.

Especially any statement about what God "could/can", "could not/would not" do.

Forget it.

Les Prouty

No problem here Scott. You are certainly free to bring in any non previously discussed item to a discussion, whether germane or not. And for the record, I don't really need a rat's rear end right now anyway. Even if you are giving one. :)

Have a blessed day brother.

peter lumpkins

One reason I've ignored rhutchin's contribution to this thread is because nothing he asserted addressed Piper's claim and my subsequent conclusion. Unfortunately, many Calvinists routinely have difficulties dealing with concrete implications of their theological premises and throw down a series of theoretical red herrings to get people thinking about theoretical issues rather than concrete examples. I understand why. How easy, for example, it is to speculate as to whether God must intervene in X than it is to actually deal with a concrete example of Calvinism's God who causes from all eternity the rape of a 12 year old girl by a man whom God caused from all eternity to carry out His decree. The former is easy because no real implications are necessary to go on and on and on about the theory of God's nature.

In short, strict Calvinism is long on theoretical speculation but falls far short in ever offering satisfying answers to life's biggest questions. Nor can Calvinism exegetically demonstrate its hardline premises from biblical revelation. Gullible young people may flock to it by the groves (and sadly, in many cases are). So be it. But we will continue to challenge--both biblically and theologically--Calvinism's premises on this site until I'm old and gray and can post no more.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Shaver

They (Calvinists like Les and rutchin) are more focused on talking noncalvinists into generic areas of loosely-worded agreement for thier own theological validation than they are concerned about validating the truth of Christ in the flesh. More focused on and more enamoured by pointless wranglings indeed.

Anathema

Les Prouty

Scott, I'm really glad this definition of anathema exists:

"In general usage, the word "anathema" means vehement disagreement with or dislike of something." So I get that you have vehement disagreement with or dislike of rhutchin's and my theology.

Because there's also this definition,

1. "a person or thing detested or loathed: that subject is anathema to him." Well if you're talking about loathing a theology, then that's ok. I'm sure you are not loathing rhutchin and me.

2. "a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction." Surely you're not invoking this one about us.

3. "a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication." Can't be this one since you are not an ecclesiastical body. Whew!

4. "any imprecation of divine punishment." Surely not this one since you wouldn't invoke this one on us.

Overall I'm happy it's the first one where you have vehement disagreement with or dislike with our theology.

Have a blessed day brother.

Lydia

"....and we've been over this from every imaginable angle, RUTCHIN is wrong because he begins with the misguided hunch that DETERMINISM is an accurate template for depicting the nature and attributes of HOLY GOD...despite the very conflict of that template with the words, example and teachings of GOD-MAN Jesus Christ of Nazareth."

Exactly. One must begin and end with determinism. And then play semantics with human volition.

Lydia

"Unfortunately, many Calvinists routinely have difficulties dealing with concrete implications of their theological premises and throw down a series of theoretical red herrings to get people thinking about theoretical issues rather than concrete examples. I understand why. How easy, for example, it is to speculate as to whether God must intervene in X than it is to actually deal with a concrete example of Calvinism's God who causes from all eternity the rape of a 12 year old girl by a man whom God caused from all eternity to carry out His decree. The former is easy because no real implications are necessary to go on and on and on about the theory of God's nature. "

the practical application is where the big problems come in. Let us hope they don't live as Calvinists. Most don't, ironically.

John Thomas

Remember that one time in Job when Satan asked permission from God to afflict Job which ended up killing his animals, servants, and children? Has anyone else read this story? How could God ever be good? <-- Of course this was all sarcasm.

Again, the initial post, along with the responses, are hilarious. Thanks for the laughs.

Lydia

"Unfortunately, many Calvinists routinely have difficulties dealing with concrete implications of their theological premises and throw down a series of theoretical red herrings to get people thinking about theoretical issues rather than concrete examples."

So true.

Another reason it is a mistake to communicate by their rules as they have to frame the debate to prop up the theory.

John Thomas

Oh come now, Scotty. Don't you know that all Calvinists are uneducated morons?

S. Craig

These anti-Calvinists are becoming the laughing stock of Evangelicalism...

Scott Shaver

If Craig and Thomas represent "Evangelicalism"...who wants to be a part of it?.. being the object of their jokes/cynicism is a badge of honor.

Not all full blown Calvinists are uneducated, John, but 98.7 percent are JERKS.

Scott Shaver

Take definintion #1 Les, or all 4 if you like.

We'll chalk any of the four definitions your uncomfortable with up to the "Foreknowledge of God" and you can take up your discussion of strident terminology useage with Him :)

Scott Shaver

Les says "I'm really glad the definition of anathema exists"

Shaver says: And what if the softer definition did not exist?

peter lumpkins

All,

I wouldn't pay too much attention to "John Thomas" or whoever he (she) actually is in real life. It's fairly reasonable to assume that the "John Thomas" who's logged onto the present thread is the same person who's also logged onto other posts for several years now as "Jonathan," "Brent," "John, "'Lydias'" of the World," "Member of CABC," "Joshua Thomas," Co-Conspirator," and "SL," among others.  So, while he (she) thinks our posts here exist for his (her) humorous laughter, I think the real humor--not to mention disturbing habits--exists in "John et al"'s social media behavior. He (she) sneaks in and lobs literary Molotov cocktails to stir up strife while displaying no real intent in contributing to a discussion.

And we also know, from his (her) IP address, that our little reformed advocate is and/or was a student at SBTS. Well bust my britches!   We've got a profile of at least some of the caliber of students SBTS--the Ground Zero for the young, restless, and reformed--draws to her campus.

Question: Does anyone view "John Thomas'" behavior befitting graduate students from Southern Baptists' flagship seminary? I trust not.


What a Georgia hoot!


With that, I am...


Peter 

Les Prouty

Thanks Scott. I'll go with that you meant this, "In general usage, the word "anathema" means vehement disagreement with or dislike of something." So I get that you have vehement disagreement with or dislike of rhutchin's and my theology." I really want to think the best.

Have a blessed day brother.

Scott Shaver

Got not problem with that manner of discourse Les. Likewise to you, have a nice day.

Scott Shaver

As usual from Bro. Pete:

Little bit of internet analysis/research speaks volumes to the level of theological schizophrenia we're dealing with on non-calvinist baptist blog sites.

A disciple of Mohler for sure. Thanks Peter.

Scott Shaver

At least our "little reformed advocate" has studied the playbook of his mentor/mentors. Smacks of the "Southern Baptist Advocate" during the days that Mohler was "insvestigator, inquisitor and Chief.

Scott Shaver

There was a line from "Slapstick" with Paul Newman that reminds me of Mohler and his prodigy.

The Hansons had taken the ice for the first time and the chiseled, old veteran wing man on the bench said with a smile on his face: "These guys are a disgrace".

peter lumpkins

You're welcome, Scott. The level of irritation, anger, and/or hatred some of these guys have for any view, and in this case, person(s) UNreformed remains incredible. There is little mystery why their brand of Calvinism and/or Calvinistic convictions must be imposed from top-down measures rather than through more normal means--biblical means--of persuasion and patience.

Scott Shaver

LOL....you're right.

And as long as they're ghosts in cyberspace and not physically "in one's face".....no need to resort to....less than biblical remedies?

Lydia

"Oh come now, Scotty. Don't you know that all Calvinists are uneducated morons?"

"Indoctrinated" is more apt. The YRR remind me of my cousin who came home from her first year of college and explained to her parents (who fought in WW2) that the Sandinistas were freedom fighters. :o)

Lydia

"There is little mystery why their brand of Calvinism and/or Calvinistic convictions must be imposed from top-down measures rather than through more normal means--biblical means--of persuasion and patience."

The deterministic Islam has to be forced, too. Living at ground zero, I thank God daily I don't live in 16th Century Geneva.

The comments to this entry are closed.