John Calvin said this....

[Granite]

Especially when they're trying to preserve a pet doctrine.

That cuts both ways.

While words have various meanings depending on the context in which they are used that does not mean that the definition of words is a mere matter of opinion.

No, but usage is.

You simply don't get to readjust the definition of words to suit your needs when you run into what would otherwise be a glaring contradiction. If that were valid then how could any proposition ever to disproved!

Francis Schaeffer observed that the particulars do matter. But so does the application. If two fellows understand the concept of "will" but approach it differently their definition may well agree even if their own understanding doesn't.

Let's put it another way: One guy picks up a claw hammer and uses it to rip nails from a wall; the other picks up the same kind of hammer and uses it to punch nails into the wall. Neither is wrong until they insist the other fellow's not using the hammer properly, or doesn't understand what hammers are for, and is completely confused as to the nature and intention of hammers.

A Calvinist who gets stopped by a cop for running a stop sign...

Or two guys walk into a bar. And so on.

Are you the one who just said that?

You talkin' to me? Well I'm the only one here.:chuckle:

So you're saying that all doctrine is a matter of opinion?

I'd say that's pretty obvious. When doctrine is agreed upon by enough people it's known as "truth." When it's old enough it's called "divine" in some circles. Sort of the way history's written by winners.

1. Calvinism is true and my doctrine is false.
2. My doctrine is false and Calvinism of true.
3. Both Calvinism and my doctrine is false.

Or both you and your Calvinist counterparts have stumbled on different ends of the same story and have your understandings both right and wrong to a greater or lesser degree. Hammers.

I find this subject interesting for a few reasons: One, I was brought up in and spent most of my life as a Calvinist--or a Christian who believed in TULIP; whatever--and it's a subject that hits on a personal level. For another, the concepts of free will, fate, and our role in the universe are all remarkable and remain of interest. Calvinism speaks to an inexorable destiny you can't ultimately fight; virtually all other Christian belief systems to one extent or another disagree, some strongly, others more diffidently, with some even claiming the almighty himself does not know all things pertaining to the future.

Is there an underlying fate woven into our lives that's inexplicable or are we "free" to operate as agents? Great stuff. Even (or especially) from a secular perspective. I popped in this sidebar in case you or someone naturally asks: "So what's this [INSERT PEJORATIVE] doing mucking around on this thread, anyway?"

There is no fourth option. It is not a matter of opinion. One of us is right or both of us are wrong - period.

See above. Is it a dessert? Is it a floor topping? No--you're both right.:sinapisN:

Which is precisely what he should have done and probably would have done had he not been an Augustinian monk who was so convinced that God is incapable of any change whatsoever!

I'm fairly happy he came along and at least broke up the mother church. Big victory for free thinkers everywhere.

Calvinist reject reason itself in favor of their doctrines! How, oh how do you propose such a critique might take place?

Again, a matter of opinion.

I honestly had no idea.

Ah. Sorry you're late to the party--we had balloons and everything.:juggle:

I couldn't tell the difference between your arguments and those of your typical Calvinist.

Hey, hey: I wasn't a "typical" five-pointer, I was an exceptional one.:chuckle:

Your rejection of "Christianity" was a rejection of Calvinism - not the same thing.

Sorry, that's plain wrong.

 

[Clete]

Granite,

In response to the main thrust of your post, let me just ask you a question.

Is there any such thing as two concepts that are mutually exclusive or does the attitude your espousing toward Christian doctrine extend to all truth claims?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

Granite,

In response to the main thrust of your post, let me just ask you a question.

Is there any such thing as two concepts that are mutually exclusive or does the attitude your espousing toward Christian doctrine extend to all truth claims?

Resting in Him,
Clete

:think:

I'd have to take that on a case by case basis.

 

[Clete]

:think:

I'd have to take that on a case by case basis.

Have you ever heard of the following...

The Law of Identity - Something is what it is. A is A

The Law of Contradiction - Two contradictory truth claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

The Law of Excluded Middle - Any truth claim is either true or it is false (the context being part and parcel of the truth claim).


Everything you know or can know is predicated on those three laws. Without them learning in not possible, communication is not possible, knowledge itself is not possible. Even people who have never heard of them before, use them every time they speak or even form the thoughts in the minds required to speak.

It is the second of these laws that you seem willing to break on a case by case basis. You don't get to do that and call yourself a rational human being. The Law of Contradiction says that there are such things as mutually exclusive truth claims and it is what makes it possible to say something is false. Without it (or either of the other two laws) there is no way to know whether any truth claim, no matter how bizarre or outrageous, is true or false. Thus, without these laws no knowledge is possible at all.

So, God either predestined everything that happens or He did not. There is no third option. You might object and say that perhaps God predestined some things and not others. To which I would respond, thank you conceding the debate, welcome to Open Theism. The point being that Calvin and Calvinists teach dogmatically that God predestined every single event that has ever taken place or that will take place. That truth claim or either true or Calvinism itself is false. There is simply no third option, no middle ground. And predestination isn't the only such doctrine upon which Calvinism stands or falls. There are several but the cardinal doctrine, the one upon which all the others are logically derived is the doctrine of the absolute immutability of God

- BUT that's a topic for another thread. The point here is simply this...

Your notion that Calvinist and I are on opposite sides of the same coin or polar ends of the same magnet (or whatever the appropriate analogy would be :idunno is flatly impossible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

The Law of Identity - Something is what it is. A is A

Dog is dog, carafe is carafe. With you so far.

The Law of Contradiction - Two contradictory truth claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

Rain is coffee, coffee is glass. Yup.

The Law of Excluded Middle - Any truth claim is either true or it is false (the context being part and parcel of the truth claim).

This is where things can and do get trickier.

It is the second of these laws that you seem willing to break on a case by case basis. You don't get to do that and call yourself a rational human being.

Sure I do. And you're no arbiter of who or what I am, thankfully.

The Law of Contradiction says that there are such things as mutually exclusive truth claims and it is what makes it possible to say something is false.

I would say this is often the case, yes. But I'd hesitate to be dogmatic on this issue.

Without it (or either of the other two laws) there is no way to know whether any truth claim, no matter how bizarre or outrageous, is true or false.

Well, no--I'd say we'd have to take reason, scientific inquiry, common sense, and the like. Sometimes these factors operate quickly, making such "case by case" instances seem instantaneous (if I see a cat I don't even notice the process by which I recognize, acknowledge, and accept the reality that it is indeed a cat and not a hamster). Given the complexity of a given question or issue, the process can sometimes be a little more involved.

It's a windy way of saying "It depends" and not sticking a sword in the ground.

So, God either predestined everything that happens or He did not.

Simply not so; plenty of theologians have tried to split the difference over the years. Some of the big events--second coming, etc.--are predicted with varying degrees of specificity. Others are left up to our own devices. And of course some minds insist every little thing is indeed written and pre-ordained. Making this an either-or proposition simplifies things but it's not necessary the only correct reading.

There is no third option.

See above.

You might object and say that perhaps God predestined some things and not others.

Lady Cleo's got nothin' on you.:chuckle:

To which I would respond, thank you conceding the debate, welcome to Open Theism.

But that's a third rail that dispatches your initial argument.

The point being that Calvin and Calvinists teach dogmatically that God predestined every single event that has ever taken place or that will take place.

Yep, no argument there.

That truth claim or either true or Calvinism itself is false.

Correct. I'd say this is a situation where one can comfortably reject Calvinism or accept it, keeping in mind it's woven into the tapestry of an even larger overall belief system that can also be rejected. At that point Calvinism's incidental.

Your notion that Calvinist and I are on opposite sides of the same coin or polar ends of the same magnet (or whatever the appropriate analogy would be :idunno is flatly impossible.

Nope, not really--I was just floating the possibility that both of you have stumbled over two far ends of an elephant. One side sees a fairly bleak universe where our fate's foreordained no matter what we do (which speaks to the darker side of the human condition). The other side insists we're free to make our own choices, regardless of what even the almighty thinks (a free-spirited attitude Milton's own Satan would've approved of, to be honest). Splitting the difference, we may well be actors on a stage, ad-libbing to the best of our ability, bound by the limits of the stage and the script but "free" to act best as we know how whether or not the playwright knows how the show ends or not.

Just food for thought.

 

[Clete]

Granite,

I'm literally at a loss for words. How am I supposed to respond to a post that essentially says that the laws of rational thought don't always apply?

You can call yourself a rational human being if you like but it'll have exactly the same amount of meaning as calling yourself a pink alligator. Saying it doesn't make it so. Being rational has a very specific meaning and you reject the laws of reason, it means that the word 'rational' does not apply to you, whether you call yourself that or not.

Clete

 

[Granite]

I'm literally at a loss for words.

Doesn't look like it.:chuckle:

How am I supposed to respond to a post that essentially says that the laws of rational thought don't always apply?

Do what you like. It's your party, your thread.

Maybe it comes down to me disputing your own pet definition of what does and doesn't constitute "rational" thought. If anything it's the Disputed Middle I'm less dogmatic about than you are. What's interesting is your instinctive, automatic dismissal--or maybe it's a simple implication--as "irrational" for anyone who so happens to disagree with you. That strikes me as pure ego. If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify.

 

[Clete]

Doesn't look like it.:chuckle:



Do what you like. It's your party, your thread.

Maybe it comes down to me disputing your own pet definition of what does and doesn't constitute "rational" thought. If anything it's the Disputed Middle I'm less dogmatic about than you are. What's interesting is your instinctive, automatic dismissal--or maybe it's a simple implication--as "irrational" for anyone who so happens to disagree with you. That strikes me as pure ego. If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify.

Yeah, I'd say that you're misunderstanding me. The laws of reason are not a matter of opinion. They weren't invented and can't be anything other than what they are. You cannot dispute any of them without making use of them. They utterly irrefragable!

And they do define what it means to be rational. That's not me being dogmatic that's just the way it is. Denying it is akin to denying that the state is blue. No rational discourse is possible if one or more parties is willing to forgo any one of the laws of reason.

 

[Granite]

The laws of reason are not a matter of opinion.

Well...actually, they are. Gosh, Clete, philosophy 101 tells us that much. "Who what how and why" are issues we've grappled with probably since before our species figured out fire. I mean, seriously: "Laws of reason"? Where are they chiseled? From what mountain were these immutable laws received? I'm being facetious (surprise) but only to a point. As a Christian your perspective on this issue may fundamentally differ from mine, but your assumption (that there are "laws of reason" that mankind simply or intrinsically possesses) seems to go beyond the presuppositions of your faith.

They weren't invented and can't be anything other than what they are.

Well now I'm not quite sure what specifically you're referring to. Is there a synod somewhere that agreed on Mankind's Laws of Reason?

You cannot dispute any of them without making use of them. They utterly irrefragable!

Huh?

And they do define what it means to be rational.

If you consider the three laws you trotted out to be the be-all end-all to any and every discussion suit yourself, but I've seen nothing so far worth being dogmatic about. You're trying to simplify things to both satisfy yourself and to prove a greater point about a theological dispute.

 

[Clete]

Well...actually, they are. Gosh, Clete, philosophy 101 tells us that much. "Who what how and why" are issues we've grappled with probably since before our species figured out fire. I mean, seriously: "Laws of reason"? Where are they chiseled? From what mountain were these immutable laws received? I'm being facetious (surprise) but only to a point. As a Christian your perspective on this issue may fundamentally differ from mine, but your assumption (that there are "laws of reason" that mankind simply or intrinsically possesses) seems to go beyond the presuppositions of your faith.



Well now I'm not quite sure what specifically you're referring to. Is there a synod somewhere that agreed on Mankind's Laws of Reason?



Huh?



If you consider the three laws you trotted out to be the be-all end-all to any and every discussion suit yourself, but I've seen nothing so far worth being dogmatic about. You're trying to simplify things to both satisfy yourself and to prove a greater point about a theological dispute.

Granite, look, you're making a fool of yourself here!

You cannot dispute the veracity of any one of the laws of reason without using the very laws you are attempting to refute. That's what irrefragable means. It means there is no escaping them. You might want to insist that they are matters of opinion but that's a truth claim that you cannot defend without complete reliance on the very laws that you're attempting to undermine. In other words, you would defeat the notion that's its a matter of opinion by attempting to prove that its a matter of opinion.

You couldn't even know what an opinion was without the three laws of reason. You couldn't hold an opinion or express that opinion without the use of the three laws of reason.

Reason is simply conforming your mind to reality. It is the only tool your mind has with which to discern truth from error. Forget being dogmatic; without reason nothing can be known at all!

 

[Granite]

Granite, look, you're making a fool of yourself here!

And here come the exclamation points. Never a good sign.

You cannot dispute the veracity of any one of the laws of trade on without usingm the very laws you are attempting to refute.

Umm...what?

That's what irrefragable means. It means there is no escaping them.

Yeah, I know what it means. How you're using it is the problem.

You Might want to insist that they are matters of opinion but that's a truthmcliamntou cannot defend without complete reliance on the very laws that you're attempting to undermine.

Okay, time out. Seriously. You're officially worked up and in such a snit you're typing too fast and misspelling. Take a few before returning to the thread. Otherwise this conversation goes nowhere near fast.

You couldn't even know what an opinion was without the three laws of reason. You couldn't hold an opinion or express that opinion without the use of the three laws of reason.

Clete, the three laws you trotted out don't automatically end any discussion or give you any reason to somehow declare a "victory." Sorry, but any philosophy professor would scoff at how you're insisting those three laws gives you any manner of upper hand.

 

[Clete]

Okay, time out. Seriously. You're officially worked up and in such a snit you're typing too fast and misspelling. Take a few before returning to the thread. Otherwise this conversation goes nowhere near fast.

My previous post is what happens when you try to post something using an iphone. Its terrible!

I edited the post. Now it should make a lot more sense.

Clete, the three laws you trotted out don't automatically end any discussion or give you any reason to somehow declare a "victory."

I'm not attempting to declare a victory, I'm trying to get you to see that you're changing the rules of the game. We're attempting to have a rational discourse and you're attempting to throw out the rule book. What you are doing is akin to a football team declaring the 26 yard line as their goal line.

Sorry, but any philosophy professor would scoff at how you're insisting those three laws gives you any manner of upper hand.

The philosopher worth his salt would instantly acknowledge that its the three laws of reason that allow him to understand the concept of "an upper hand"! A philosopher's entire vocation is built entirely upon the laws of reason - even if he claims not to hold to them! He's not even capable of denying their veracity without employing them to do it! Every sentence you utter uses the three laws of reason. Every idea in your head, if you communicate it, is communicated by means of the three laws of reason. You're every denial of it is instantly self-defeating because your truth claim to the contrary cannot be said to be true unless the three laws are valid, which means its false.

You're reacting to this like I'm trying to trick you or something and I'm just not doing that. This is not about my opinion its about what makes it possible to have an opinion (about anything) in the first place.

Please! Please! Read this! It won't be a waste of time, I promise!

The Nature and Necessity of Logic

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

I'm not attempting to declare a victory, I'm trying to get you to see that you're changing the rules of the game. We're attempting to have a rational discourse and you're attempting to throw out the rule book. What you are doing is akin to a football team declaring the 26 yard line as their goal line.

Okay, I think I might understand the problem. You believe in absolute truth, absolutely--meaning that as you see it, a given situation can only have one of two possible outcomes/value judgments/etc. I don't necessarily agree.

Let's go with the football analogy: You're saying that you can only run or pass on a given down; I agree you can either call a straight run, or pass but also point out a flea flicker is an option. A third option is often a possibility, as far as I can tell--but you seem to have rejected that possibility out of hand previously (at least in regards to Calvinism or an alternative--the idea that both you and a Calvinist have a grasp on different ends of the same fundamental truth seems to unnerve you in a very visceral way).

The philosopher worth his salt would instantly acknowledge that its the three laws of reason that allow him to understand the concept of "an upper hand"!

The three laws you cited are subject to debate. When the experts disagree, and they always disagree, you're right back where you started.

A philosopher's entire vocation is built entirely upon the laws of reason - even if he claims not to hold to them! He's not even capable of denying their veracity without employing them to do it! Every sentence you utter uses the three laws of reason.

See above. And since when does the authority of secular, even God-rejecting philosophers factor so greatly in your value system? You can't stand Martin Luther. I can't begin to think what you make of William James.

You're reacting to this like I'm trying to trick you or something and I'm just not doing that.

This is the first time on TOL I've seen you appeal to these three laws as a means of continuing an argument. I don't know if you'd had them in your back pocket for a while and think they're useful for this discussion or if they're a relatively new addition to your playbook. From what I can see, they're kind of a distraction.

Here's what this boils down to. I've suggested (delicately, especially by my standards) that your reformed brethren may be onto something, just as you are. In other words, I said that even folks who firmly disagree may understand the same essential truth and be in greater overall agreement than they realize. This notion excites a response in you that approaches sheer, naked rage. Now: I'm used to Calvinism provoking some pretty serious reactions from folks--it's provocative by nature--but your take on the subject's in a class of itself. I'm not sure why that is, exactly. But what I would suggest is that you consider the possibility that you may not be strictly wrong, or strictly right. I hope this makes sense.

 

[Clete]

Okay, I think I might understand the problem. You believe in absolute truth, absolutely--meaning that as you see it, a given situation can only have one of two possible outcomes/value judgments/etc. I don't necessarily agree.

No, you still don't get it.

I do acknowledge the existence of absolute truth because that again is one of those things you cannot deny without instantly contradicting yourself but that isn't the point at all!

The point is that you can't even understand that there is a problem to understand without the laws of reason. You can't agree or disagree with anything without the use of the laws of reason.

Let's go with the football analogy: You're saying that you can only run or pass on a given down; I agree you can either call a straight run, or pass but also point out a flea flicker is an option. A third option is often a possibility, as far as I can tell--but you seem to have rejected that possibility out of hand previously (at least in regards to Calvinism or an alternative--the idea that both you and a Calvinist have a grasp on different ends of the same fundamental truth seems to unnerve you in a very visceral way).

If I react viscerally to such an idea its because by drawing such an equivalency you tacitly accuse me of blasphemy. The things I believe are as fundamentally incompatible and directly contradictory to the distinctive teachings of Calvinism as they are to atheism or Mormonism. They are simply mutually exclusive. They CANNOT both be true and that is NOT my opinion that is a fact of reality.

The three laws you cited are subject to debate. When the experts disagree, and they always disagree, you're right back where you started.

It seems like you genuinely do not understand what I'm referring to. I cannot understand how someone is able to string those two sentences together.

The three laws cannot be debated because the three laws are what make debate possible in the first place. Debating the three laws of reason would be like an air plane attempting to fly in a vacuum. Air planes presuppose air. Debate (and any other form of meaningful discourse) presupposes the laws of reason.

And since when does the authority of secular, even God-rejecting philosophers factor so greatly in your value system? You can't stand Martin Luther. I can't begin to think what you make of William James.

This made no sense to me really but if my guess is right, you think that the laws of reason are attributable to some philosophical system or philosopher. If so then nothing could be further from the truth. The laws of reason where first written down by Aristotle but he didn't invent them. If anything, he discovered them or figured them out. A good parallel is Albert Einstein who, among other things, proved the existence of atoms. He also figured out, in a scientifically rigorous way, why the sky is blue. My acknowledgement of the existence of atoms or that the sky is blue does not make me an Einstein-ist. Atoms exist and the sky is blue and both would be the case with or without Einstein's work. The same is true of the laws of reason. They have always been the truth and would be true with or without the work of Aristotle or any other philosopher. Indeed, it is the laws of reason (formulated or not) that makes their work (or any intellectual work) possible.

This is the first time on TOL I've seen you appeal to these three laws as a means of continuing an argument. I don't know if you'd had them in your back pocket for a while and think they're useful for this discussion or if they're a relatively new addition to your playbook. From what I can see, they're kind of a distraction.

Well ask around. This is by no means the first time I've brought this up. If anything its more or less a theme of mine, actually. And its anything but a distraction its the whole point!

No argument is valid outside the laws of reason. It is the laws of reason that define the argument as valid (or not). If I make the argument that the arbitrary nature of Calvin's god is in contradiction to the concept of justice. That is an argument based directly upon the law of contradiction. It presupposes that the words 'arbitrary' and 'justice' have meaning and those meanings are not compatible with one another. In syllogistic form the argument would look something like this...

Arbitrary and just are opposites by definition.
The God of scripture is just.
Therefore the God of scripture is not arbitrary.
The god of Calvinism is arbitrary (not disputed by Calvinists)
Therefore the god of Calvinism is not the God of scripture.

The argument can be refuted in ONLY two ways.

1. Demonstrate that the conclusions do not follow the premises.
2. Demonstrate that one or more of the premises are false.

If a Calvinists engages me on this basis, whether he does so knowingly or not, my response is cordial, respectful and substantive. If he challenges the veracity of rules that make that argument valid we end up having the discussion you and I are having now and if he responds with stupidity then he gets called names and made fun of.

Here's what this boils down to. I've suggested (delicately, especially by my standards) that your reformed brethren may be onto something, just as you are. In other words, I said that even folks who firmly disagree may understand the same essential truth and be in greater overall agreement than they realize. This notion excites a response in you that approaches sheer, naked rage.

You are reading entirely too much emotion into my posts!

Being emphatic or even frustrated does not imply anger. I've not been angry with you at all.

You suggested that my beliefs are somehow compatible with Calvinism and I explained why they cannot be because of the laws of reason. You, in response, suggested that the laws of reason do not work and then I've been trying to convince you that your wrong on that point. A very logical progression. You're essentially arguing that maybe my beliefs are compatible with Calvinism because reason doesn't always apply and I'm telling you that if reason works then my beliefs are not compatible with Calvinism.

Now: I'm used to Calvinism provoking some pretty serious reactions from folks--it's provocative by nature--but your take on the subject's in a class of itself. I'm not sure why that is, exactly. But what I would suggest is that you consider the possibility that you may not be strictly wrong, or strictly right. I hope this makes sense.

Oh yes it makes total sense! I acknowledge that I am perhaps above average in my hatred of Calvinism. I'll even acknowledge that I do get way too emotionally worked up by some of the things Calvinist say. But that hasn't been the case on this thread. This thread has been quite pleasant and substantive.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[beloved57]

No, you still don't get it.

I do acknowledge the existence of absolute truth because that again is one of those things you cannot deny without instantly contradicting yourself but that isn't the point at all!

The point is that you can't even understand that there is a problem to understand without the laws of reason. You can't agree or disagree with anything without the use of the laws of reason.


If I react viscerally to such an idea its because by drawing such an equivalency you tacitly accuse me of blasphemy. The things I believe are as fundamentally incompatible and directly contradictory to the distinctive teachings of Calvinism as they are to atheism or Mormonism. They are simply mutually exclusive. They CANNOT both be true and that is NOT my opinion that is a fact of reality.


It seems like you genuinely do not understand what I'm referring to. I cannot understand how someone is able to string those two sentences together.

The three laws cannot be debated because the three laws are what make debate possible in the first place. Debating the three laws of reason would be like an air plane attempting to fly in a vacuum. Air planes presuppose air. Debate (and any other form of meaningful discourse) presupposes the laws of reason.


This made no sense to me really but if my guess is right, you think that the laws of reason are attributable to some philosophical system or philosopher. If so then nothing could be further from the truth. The laws of reason where first written down by Aristotle but he didn't invent them. If anything, he discovered them or figured them out. A good parallel is Albert Einstein who, among other things, proved the existence of atoms. He also figured out, in a scientifically rigorous way, why the sky is blue. My acknowledgement of the existence of atoms or that the sky is blue does not make me an Einstein-ist. Atoms exist and the sky is blue and both would be the case with or without Einstein's work. The same is true of the laws of reason. They have always been the truth and would be true with or without the work of Aristotle or any other philosopher. Indeed, it is the laws of reason (formulated or not) that makes their work (or any intellectual work) possible.


Well ask around. This is by no means the first time I've brought this up. If anything its more or less a theme of mine, actually. And its anything but a distraction its the whole point!

No argument is valid outside the laws of reason. It is the laws of reason that define the argument as valid (or not). If I make the argument that the arbitrary nature of Calvin's god is in contradiction to the concept of justice. That is an argument based directly upon the law of contradiction. It presupposes that the words 'arbitrary' and 'justice' have meaning and those meanings are not compatible with one another. In syllogistic form the argument would look something like this...

Arbitrary and just are opposites by definition.
The God of scripture is just.
Therefore the God of scripture is not arbitrary.
The god of Calvinism is arbitrary (not disputed by Calvinists)
Therefore the god of Calvinism is not the God of scripture.

The argument can be refuted in ONLY two ways.

1. Demonstrate that the conclusions do not follow the premises.
2. Demonstrate that one or more of the premises are false.

If a Calvinists engages me on this basis, whether he does so knowingly or not, my response is cordial, respectful and substantive. If he challenges the veracity of rules that make that argument valid we end up having the discussion you and I are having now and if he responds with stupidity then he gets called names and made fun of.


You are reading entirely too much emotion into my posts!

Being emphatic or even frustrated does not imply anger. I've not been angry with you at all.

You suggested that my beliefs are somehow compatible with Calvinism and I explained why they cannot be because of the laws of reason. You, in response, suggested that the laws of reason do not work and then I've been trying to convince you that your wrong on that point. A very logical progression. You're essentially arguing that maybe my beliefs are compatible with Calvinism because reason doesn't always apply and I'm telling you that if reason works then my beliefs are not compatible with Calvinism.


Oh yes it makes total sense! I acknowledge that I am perhaps above average in my hatred of Calvinism. I'll even acknowledge that I do get way too emotionally worked up by some of the things Calvinist say. But that hasn't been the case on this thread. This thread has been quite pleasant and substantive.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Your hatred of Calvinism, particularly TULIP, is hatred of the Gospel of Gods Grace in Christ!

 

[Nanja]

Your hatred of Calvinism, particularly TULIP, is hatred of the Gospel of Gods Grace in Christ!

Yep, bottom line!

~~~~~

 

[Clete]

Your hatred of Calvinism, particularly TULIP, is hatred of the Gospel of Gods Grace in Christ!

If Calvinism is the gospel then I say amen!

I wouldn't want to be in your god's heaven. He's an asinine, unjust bully more akin to serial murders than the God of justice, the God of righteousness, the God of Mercy, the God of Wisdom, the God of Love!

Besides, if your doctrine is right, it isn't my hatred in the first place. Your idiot god predestined me to believe in free will and to say and do everything I've ever said or done.


Resting in His Just Grace,
Clete

 

[Granite]

I do acknowledge the existence of absolute truth because that again is one of those things you cannot deny without instantly contradicting yourself but that isn't the point at all!

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

The point is that you can't even understand that there is a problem to understand without the laws of reason. You can't agree or disagree with anything without the use of the laws of reason.

Clete, there's no rule book anywhere that all people draw from, adhere to, and agree to when it comes to debate. None. The "laws of reason" are open to discussion, disagreement, and dispute. Introducing three such "laws" to set the parameters of a discussion between a Christian and a non-believer's kind of a losing argument, at least from where I'm sitting.

If I react viscerally to such an idea its because by drawing such an equivalency you tacitly accuse me of blasphemy.

You obviously cherish what you believe, but I would say from the outside of Christianity looking in you go a step too far in accusing Calvinism of being blasphemy.

The things I believe are as fundamentally incompatible and directly contradictory to the distinctive teachings of Calvinism as they are to atheism or Mormonism. They are simply mutually exclusive. They CANNOT both be true and that is NOT my opinion that is a fact of reality.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are in correct it still doesn't mean Calvinists have fallen so deeply in error as to be guilty of "blasphemy." You will find, I'd wager, no firmer believers in the trinity, incarnation, and inevitable victory of the church anywhere. Say what you will about Calvin or Calvinism but they are staunch in their belief in the word, the almighty, and his justice. None of this even whispers of blasphemy. Fundamental incompatibility when it comes to soteriology means you disagree about the big question: How then can one be "saved"? Nothing else by way of orthodoxy is threatened.

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

They can be and they are. That's really all I can leave you with.

This made no sense to me really but if my guess is right, you think that the laws of reason are attributable to some philosophical system or philosopher.

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? 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? 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?

The laws of reason where first written down by Aristotle but he didn't invent them.

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

The same is true of the laws of reason. They have always been the truth and would be true with or without the work of Aristotle or any other philosopher. Indeed, it is the laws of reason (formulated or not) that makes their work (or any intellectual work) possible.

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

If I make the argument that the arbitrary nature of Calvin's god is in contradiction to the concept of justice.

You could. Many have before. Calvinists have countered such arguments. I don't really feel like getting into a rehash.

It presupposes that the words 'arbitrary' and 'justice' have meaning and those meanings are not compatible with one another.

Words that a Calvinist and non-Calvinist (or believer or non-believer) would define very differently. Again, remember the bit I mentioned before about hammers.

Arbitrary and just are opposites by definition.
The God of scripture is just.
Therefore the God of scripture is not arbitrary.
The god of Calvinism is arbitrary (not disputed by Calvinists)
Therefore the god of Calvinism is not the God of scripture.

This is a popular counterargument to Calvinism but one that (again) has been rebutted in the past. The problem is that it hasn't been rebutted to your own personal satisfaction. That's fine, as it goes, but it speaks to a real ego problem if your own lack of convincing becomes the basis for a discussion surrounding the source of reason and logic.

The argument can be refuted in ONLY two ways.

1. Demonstrate that the conclusions do not follow the premises.
2. Demonstrate that one or more of the premises are false.

With you so far.

If a Calvinists engages me on this basis, whether he does so knowingly or not, my response is cordial, respectful and substantive.

And God help anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. I've seen it firsthand.:chuckle:

If he challenges the veracity of rules that make that argument valid we end up having the discussion you and I are having now and if he responds with stupidity then he gets called names and made fun of.

Bully for you.K:

Being emphatic or even frustrated does not imply anger. I've not been angry with you at all.

Yet.:noid:

You suggested that my beliefs are somehow compatible with Calvinism and I explained why they cannot be because of the laws of reason.

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.

You, in response, suggested that the laws of reason do not work and then I've been trying to convince you that your wrong on that point.

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

You're essentially arguing that maybe my beliefs are compatible with Calvinism because reason doesn't always apply and I'm telling you that if reason works then my beliefs are not compatible with Calvinism.

You may be personally and biblically persuaded you can find nothing in your own theology that makes room for TULIP. Fine. I would simply submit the concept of sin and the sovereignty of God put you closer to Calvinism than...well. Than a fella like me, for one.

I acknowledge that I am perhaps above average in my hatred of Calvinism.

This much is certain.:chuckle:

I'll even acknowledge that I do get way too emotionally worked up by some of the things Calvinist say. But that hasn't been the case on this thread. This thread has been quite pleasant and substantive.

I agree!

 

[Clete]

They can be and they are. That's really all I can leave you with.

I'm short on time so I'm just going to say one thing for now....

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


Two laws of reason within six one syllable words. Congratulations!

Further, your contention that they can be and they are is either true or it is false - it can't be both at the same time and in the same way. There's the third law of reason.

Care to try again to make an argument against the veracity of reason? The result will be the same - every single time.

And one last point - just for clarity - 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. The very act of arguing is tacitly accepting the veracity of the laws of reason. Opening your mouth to speak a meaningful word is a tacit acceptance of the laws of reason.

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


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[beloved57]

clete

If Calvinism is the gospel then I say amen!

It is the Gospel !