Tweet
Well, those were both an interesting read.
I think it becomes clear pretty quickly that logos_x has spent a great deal more time debating this issue and in many instances the arguments he presents do a good job of anticipating Kevin's argument's and questions. However, his actual lines of reasoning are of variable strength. For example, Establishing historical merit for the orthodoxy of Universalism is good, but then turning around and attempting to reject the doctrine of ECT on the basis that it offended some people who became atheists is a lot weaker. And in cases of many of the specific people he quotes trying to tie their atheism specifically to the doctrine of ECT seems at best of oversimplication if not an outright misrepresentation of their reasons for rejecting Christianity.
The biggest problem though that I had with logos_x post was the use of some extremely loaded questions, not quite "Are you still beating your wife?" level loaded, but fairly bad all the same. Some examples:
"Why do you believe that God could not create things in such a way that eternal torment would not be the outcome for the vast majority of the human race?" - Belief in ECT does not immediately carry with it the assumption that in particular percentage of the human race is saved or damned. One could easily believe in ECT while holding that the majority or even the vast majority of humanity will ultimately be saved. You can even find examples of strident Calvinist (ie Warfield) who held that the elect comprised the vast majority of humanity.
"Do you honestly think that an unending punishment that does not allow change is just?" - By throwing in that little adverb "honestly", this question implies that someone saying they think unending is just must on some level be being dishonest.
"What do you think Christ will do with that power, what God intends, or continue what Satan started?" - This one implies again that it's already been conceded that ECT is against God's wishes, which obviously at this point in the debate hasn't been established.
In terms of Kevin's first post, the content is a bit more succinct. He lays out the major passages seen as demonstrating ECT, and asks as for logos_x's interpretations of them. Many of these have been anticipated in logos_x initial post, but laying them out in that fashion should give both sides the opportunity to lay out their respective cases in an unambiguous fashion.
I would note though, despite the fact I just spent a lot more time criticizing logos_x's opening that's because there was just a lot more content there to sift through. I would have to say that he in essence "won" this first round, as he did a good job of presenting his case, and did so in way that anticipated many of the argument's of the other side.
I think it becomes clear pretty quickly that logos_x has spent a great deal more time debating this issue and in many instances the arguments he presents do a good job of anticipating Kevin's argument's and questions. However, his actual lines of reasoning are of variable strength. For example, Establishing historical merit for the orthodoxy of Universalism is good, but then turning around and attempting to reject the doctrine of ECT on the basis that it offended some people who became atheists is a lot weaker. And in cases of many of the specific people he quotes trying to tie their atheism specifically to the doctrine of ECT seems at best of oversimplication if not an outright misrepresentation of their reasons for rejecting Christianity.
The biggest problem though that I had with logos_x post was the use of some extremely loaded questions, not quite "Are you still beating your wife?" level loaded, but fairly bad all the same. Some examples:
"Why do you believe that God could not create things in such a way that eternal torment would not be the outcome for the vast majority of the human race?" - Belief in ECT does not immediately carry with it the assumption that in particular percentage of the human race is saved or damned. One could easily believe in ECT while holding that the majority or even the vast majority of humanity will ultimately be saved. You can even find examples of strident Calvinist (ie Warfield) who held that the elect comprised the vast majority of humanity.
"Do you honestly think that an unending punishment that does not allow change is just?" - By throwing in that little adverb "honestly", this question implies that someone saying they think unending is just must on some level be being dishonest.
"What do you think Christ will do with that power, what God intends, or continue what Satan started?" - This one implies again that it's already been conceded that ECT is against God's wishes, which obviously at this point in the debate hasn't been established.
In terms of Kevin's first post, the content is a bit more succinct. He lays out the major passages seen as demonstrating ECT, and asks as for logos_x's interpretations of them. Many of these have been anticipated in logos_x initial post, but laying them out in that fashion should give both sides the opportunity to lay out their respective cases in an unambiguous fashion.
I would note though, despite the fact I just spent a lot more time criticizing logos_x's opening that's because there was just a lot more content there to sift through. I would have to say that he in essence "won" this first round, as he did a good job of presenting his case, and did so in way that anticipated many of the argument's of the other side.
Comment