the singularity of being and nothingness
Yet Another Reason Calvinism is Certain to Die
Deviant Monk has recently posted an incredibly cogent discussion of the relationship of divine and human wills, connecting the conclusions to considerations of the meaningfulness of human will in light of the Incarnation. In this post, DM deconstructs the all-too-familiar strawman argument of Reformed thinking in relation to the "inability" of the human will.
This post confirms, in my mind, the assertion that the best way to overcome the Calvinistic argument is not to bother with arguments about Scripture (which, in Tertullian's words, will only lead to "headaches and stomachaches"). Rather, as Calvinism and its interpretation of Scripture are built upon some pretty absurd philosophical categories, the best way to kill Calvinism is to call the categories themselves into question, showing them to be entirely vacuous and untenable in the face of meaningful and consistent philosophical dialogue.
Also, it pisses off the Calvinists pretty good, which counts for at least 15 bonus points.
| Print article | This entry was posted by existdissolve on June 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm, and is filed under Theology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
The Meaning of Resurrection
about 17 years ago - 2 comments
In the incarnation, the Son of God became one with human beings–with Adam. But only at this moment, when he accomplishes the supreme act of love by descending into the night of death, does he bring the journey of the incarnation to its completion. By his death he now clasps the hand of Adam, of…
The Sinlessness of Christ – Part Second
about 18 years ago - No comments
In my previous post, I argued that locating the sinlessness of Christ within the circumstances of Christ's biological origin is a major and glaring theological mistake. To this effect, I forcefully suggested that such an approach is effectively a denial of the reality of the Incarnation. As such a perspective ultimately makes Christ "other than"…
The Sinlessness of Christ – Part I
about 18 years ago - No comments
Recently, I have been participating in a debate with a hard-core Calvinist at http://www.christianforums.com. However it happened, we got onto the issue of Christ's sinlessness. As the discussion progressed, we delved into an exploration of the nature of Christ's sinlessness. Indefatigably, my detractor maintained that Christ was sinless because of the nature of his birth.…
about -1917 years ago
And by “at least 15 bonus points,” I mean “exactly and no more.”
DM, you have moved up in the ranks by virtue of demiurg-ent fiat.
about -1917 years ago
Say, the caprice of quasi-divine will IS kind of taxing. No wonder the God of Calvinism is so easily irritated…
about -1917 years ago
It is my goal to eventually undo your ability to bring into existence through sheer fiat by accumulating more points than you. In which case, your fiat will be the source of your own negation. Apparently you have converted to Calvinism.
about -1917 years ago
-20 points!
Quasi-divine caprice does have its perks!
about -1917 years ago
“Yet Another Reason Calvisim is Certain to Die”
Call me a historical neophyte but I was terribly unawares ‘Calvism” was a theological paradigm replete with disillusioned followers? Man Exist, your intellectual prowess is a force to be reckoned with…more than first believed! 😉
And yes you are right, quasi-divine caprice does have its perks–I’ve yet to use mine!!
about 13 years ago
My oandinirg pastor, Dr. Ernesrt R. Campbell, would tell you from the pulpit and person to person that he was a supralapsarian, a hyper-calvinist (using both terms in that order). He earned his Ph.D. from Bob Jones, pastored many churches, in SC, MO, FL, & KY. He preached a revival in a country church in GA in which he had 100 professions of faith. He also founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy (cf. Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977). Dr. Campbell was a compassionate person, a beloved pastor, and had many young people called to the service of God under his ministry. Dr. R. G. Lee put it in his will that Dr. Campbell would preach his funeral, the only person named therein. He was a soul-winner. He once pleaded with a member of my family until tears ran down my relative’s cheeks. The aim of that hyper-calvinist was to win souls to Christ and then make devoted belivers out of every one of them[]
about -1917 years ago
For some reason, I guess it is ignorance, but I don’t see Calvinism dying as you claim it is. It hasn’t died since the reformation, so…I’m not concerned. Also:
“the best way to overcome the Calvinistic argument is not to bother with arguments about Scripture (which, in Tertullian’s words, will only lead to “headaches and stomachaches”). Rather, as Calvinism and its interpretation of Scripture are built upon some pretty absurd philosophical categories, the best way to kill Calvinism is to call the categories themselves into question, showing them to be entirely vacuous and untenable in the face of meaningful and consistent philosophical dialogue.”
That’s the best way….Is that all you got….well we have seen that it doesn’t work at the reformed mafia…Have you converted any Calvinists to your postmodern heresy yet. I would like to know.
“Absurd philosophical categories….yeah sure….whatever you say hoss. Your philosophy has no absurdity whatsoever….absurdity free…yeah, ok.” Perhaps absurd according you. Who defines what is absurd? You are defining “absurd” with your own self-developed criterion, and by doing so, calling something absurd, is itself and absurd thing to do. Nonethless, you are unconvincing. In fact, you convince me all the more of Reformed Theology. Thanks!
“Vacuous and untenable in the face of meaningful and consistent philosophical dialogue.”
Several things here:
1. Who is determining what is meaningful? Upon what criteria do you base “meaningful.” You would have to be basing this upon outside criteria that is self-formulated, and itself untenable.
2. Consistent….consistent according to whom. Again, what determines consistency. Obviously, we have different beliefs about what consistency is. Your statement implies a universal understanding of what is consistent, which that of course, is untrue.
3. Philosophical…Well, what philosophy are we talking about. Plato, Socrates, Augustine, Locke, Descartes….Philosophy contains a much broader scope than the limitations that you have placed upon it by your assertion. Perhaps you should have said that it is untenable in the face of your own philosophical presuppositions.
OK, two can play this game hoss.
about -1917 years ago
For some reason, I guess it is ignorance, but I don’t see Calvinism dying as you claim it is. It hasn’t died since the reformation, so…I’m not concerned.
Like all good cancers, it will take time to die. 500 years is not that long of a time.
That’s the best way….Is that all you got….well we have seen that it doesn’t work at the reformed mafia…Have you converted any Calvinists to your postmodern heresy yet. I would like to know.
I don’t seek to convert Calvinists–they are without hope for the most part. What I seek to do, then, is to show those who have not bought into the ridiculous gameof philosophical charades that is Calvinism exactly how absurd it is, primarily by revealing the inconsistency and untenability of its doctrines espoused from the very lips of its self-proclaimed defenders.
Who defines what is absurd?
Given your rabid need to establish all things on the basis of propositionally verifiable truth, I hardly see why this question would be of material importance for you.
You are defining “absurd” with your own self-developed criterion, and by doing so, calling something absurd, is itself and absurd thing to do.
Finally, you are starting to get it. Welcome to the club.
Nonethless, you are unconvincing. In fact, you convince me all the more of Reformed Theology. Thanks!
Self-justifying paradigms of thought have a funny way of doing that. Do not be alarmed that I am not surprised by your answer, but moreover was rather expecting it.
1. Who is determining what is meaningful? Upon what criteria do you base “meaningful.” You would have to be basing this upon outside criteria that is self-formulated, and itself untenable.
This is only necessary if one presupposes that untenability of philosophical dialogue must be established on the basis of external and objective criterion. I presume no such thing. Therefore, your critique is irrelevant.
2. Consistent….consistent according to whom. Again, what determines consistency. Obviously, we have different beliefs about what consistency is. Your statement implies a universal understanding of what is consistent, which that of course, is untrue.
No, it assumes no such thing. You presume that it does because you are hopelessly tied to the presupposition that for the meaningfulness of something to be established, the same “something” must be demonstrable in the realm of propositional truth. Again, as I assume no such criterion for meaningfulness, the assumptions which you impose upon my discussion are entirely inapplicable and without material import.
3. Philosophical…Well, what philosophy are we talking about. Plato, Socrates, Augustine, Locke, Descartes….Philosophy contains a much broader scope than the limitations that you have placed upon it by your assertion. Perhaps you should have said that it is untenable in the face of your own philosophical presuppositions.
Where have I defined the parameters of philosophy within the assertions that I have made? Given your consuming need for things to be substantiated, perhaps you could show where I do this.
As to my philosophical presuppositions providing a distinct lens through which I approach the subjects at hand…DUH. I have already established that this is the case on numerous occasions of our dialogues.
OK, two can play this game hoss.
LoL, I welcome the challenge.
about -1917 years ago
“What I seek to do, then, is to show those who have not bought into the ridiculous gameof philosophical charades that is Calvinism exactly how absurd it is, primarily by revealing the inconsistency and untenability of its doctrines espoused from the very lips of its self-proclaimed defenders.”
Again, you cannot make the assertion that anything is absurd, because what you see as “absurdity” may not necessarily be absurd. Of course, I have already demonstrated this…so what you seek to do, you will end up not doing it. Calvinism is inconsistent and untenable…according to whom. IF there is no universal understanding of inconsistent and untenable, then one cannot say anything posses these two qualities, because they would be mere abstract concepts, not possessing any ontological reality.
“This is only necessary if one presupposes that untenability of philosophical dialogue must be established on the basis of external and objective criterion. I presume no such thing. Therefore, your critique is irrelevant.”
No, it is relevant. If you have no criterion for establishing “meaningfulness” Then it is “absurd” to state whether anything posses the quality of meaningfulness or not. You would be determining meaningfulness based on something that is self-determined, and thus, even saying something is meaningful, would be meaningful.
about -1917 years ago
Again, you cannot make the assertion that anything is absurd, because what you see as “absurdity” may not necessarily be absurd.
According to you, perhaps. But again, such criterion presupposes that for something to be absurd, one must be able to encapsulate within their own being absolute, objective truth in order to be able to speak at all about anything. As your incessant nonsense clearly illustrates that this is impossible, I hardly see that your expectations of “demonstration” (which you fail to achieve yourself) are meaningful or binding upon anyone, most especially yourself.
Of course, I have already demonstrated this
I must have missed that one, for all that you have demonstrated is your significant naivety concerning the issues you talk about and, moreover, your rather loose and inconsistent use of philosophical categories.
…so what you seek to do, you will end up not doing it. Calvinism is inconsistent and untenable…according to whom. IF there is no universal understanding of inconsistent and untenable, then one cannot say anything posses these two qualities, because they would be mere abstract concepts, not possessing any ontological reality.
So you suggest that for one to assert that anything possesses ontological reality, one must be able to propositionally demonstrate the necessity and reality of such from the basis of objective criteria? If this is the case, one will be able to assert the ontological reality of NOTHING, one’s own ontology in particular. There is no possible way that you could even come close to attaining the parameters of demonstration which you seek to impose upon me, thus revealing the very inconsistency and untenability that I have been talking about. Please, for the sake of death of Calvinism, keep talking. You are my best weapon.
No, it is relevant. If you have no criterion for establishing “meaningfulness”
Nor, as you have sufficiently demonstrated, do you (beyond your absurdly naive appeals to what amounts to a self-justified appeal to Scripture, i.e., Joshua’s presuppositions about them). So what is your point?
Then it is “absurd” to state whether anything posses the quality of meaningfulness or not.
This is only applicable if one presupposes that absurdity is objectively linked to a prior determination or non-determination of meaningfulness, which meaningfulness would seem to require propositionally verifiable means of demonstration. Again, as I appeal to no such arbitrary and manufactured criterion, I hardly see why your critique of my position is binding.
You would be determining meaningfulness based on something that is self-determined, and thus, even saying something is meaningful, would be meaningful.
I hardly see how this is materially different from what you do. The only difference is that you arrogantly pin the claim of “divine truth” to yours.
about -1917 years ago
All I am trying to do is that by calling into question the meaning of words, and deconstructing them, using your method of argument, you can argue anything, even if it is the most basic of all truths. Deconstructionism is really nice, but I don’t particularly think deconstructing divinely revealed truth is a good idea. If you are going to show that Calvinism is wrong, you are going to have to do it biblically. You will never win a theological argument otherwise. People who are saved and accept the authority of Scritpure will not accept your philisophical musings. Trust me, I know several people at my college with ridiculous theologies, but they will not listen to anything if it is not from the Bible. You say this will not work, but I am saying if you are going to battle against Calvinism, then you must show biblically that “God chose us in him before the foundation of the world” means something entirely different.
about -1917 years ago
All I am trying to do is that by calling into question the meaning of words, and deconstructing them, using your method of argument, you can argue anything, even if it is the most basic of all truths.
Do you not see how flippantly and casually (without substantiation, that is) you use these words, “basic of all truths?” How have you demonstrated that something is objectively verified as truth whereby you might be able to determine that something is, in fact, deconstructing it?
Deconstructionism is really nice, but I don’t particularly think deconstructing divinely revealed truth is a good idea.
Nor do I think that arrogantly propositionalizing about it is either, but that doesn’t stop you.
If you are going to show that Calvinism is wrong, you are going to have to do it biblically. You will never win a theological argument otherwise
Again, I’m not interested in winning the theological argument with Calvinists, for as far as I’m concerned, their minds are indelibly closed to any reasonableness that exists apart from the comfortable self-justifications of their own presuppositional paradigms. As I mentioned before, I engage Calvinists for the benefit of those who have not bought into the absurdity of this philosophical system, that they might see the ridiculousness engendered therein from the lips of Calvinism’s own protagonists.
People who are saved and accept the authority of Scritpure will not accept your philisophical musings.
Probably not. But then again, these same people whom you characterize as this are already those who have bought into your system of philosophy, so again, my interest is not in persuading them.
Trust me, I know several people at my college with ridiculous theologies, but they will not listen to anything if it is not from the Bible. You say this will not work, but I am saying if you are going to battle against Calvinism, then you must show biblically that “God chose us in him before the foundation of the world” means something entirely different.
I will never be able to show you anything biblically, for your presuppositions about the legitimacy of Calvinistic categories of thought have already predetermined (just like God predetermined you to do so, no doubt) the conclusions that you will take away from the texts in the process of interpretation. Moreover, any affront to these presuppositions will appear to you to be naturally “unbiblical,” not merely because they somehow are askance of objectively demonstrable truths about God, but rather–and primally–because they contradict the comfortable lethargy of self-justification in which you have become engaged through the seemingly self-authenticating witness of your philosophical biases and prejudices concerning interpretation of Scripture, the nature of God, and everything else in between.
about -1917 years ago
“Do you not see how flippantly and casually (without substantiation, that is) you use these words, “basic of all truths?”
yes I did you it rather causally…But I do not see that as a problem as you do. It is true that I am typing right now and that I am commenting on your wall. That is true. After I hit comment, you will be able to see that at this point in time, I commented on your wall. That will be truth. That’s pretty basic. But you probably would like to deconstruct that. For example, you deconstructed Rhett’s use of at” face value”, by saying something like, “well it depends on what face we use…When the saying at face value is universally understood by people who speak English. Perhaps the Germans have another phrase that means the same thing. So why deconstruct something that is universally understood. It is ridiculous.
“Nor do I think that arrogantly propositionalizing about it is either, but that doesn’t stop you. ”
No, its not arrogance….its submission to God as Lord, but submitting to His word….but you will never understand that. Sorry, I don’t buy into epistemological humility, because it is really that most disgusting form of pride, because by being epistemologically humble, you can promote whatever philosophy you want…Your ultimate authority is yourself and what you think….Your authority is entirely subjective.
“Again, I’m not interested in winning the theological argument with Calvinists,”
Then why bother commenting on our blog….because I doubt we have a large crowd of anti Calvinists who read our blog.
” for as far as I’m concerned, their minds are indelibly closed to any reasonableness that exists apart from the comfortable self-justifications of their own presuppositional paradigms. ”
Yes, you are right about that…so is yours hoss.
“As I mentioned before, I engage Calvinists for the benefit of those who have not bought into the absurdity of this philosophical system,”
Again….how is it absurd? According to whom? By what standard? How do you define “absurdity?” And I fail to see how it benefits them.
“that they might see the ridiculousness engendered therein from the lips of Calvinism’s own protagonists.”
Again…ridiculous according to whom? You…..well, I don’t think you are going to get very far with your goals in ridding the world of Calvinism…good luck though…
People who are saved and accept the authority of Scritpure will not accept your philisophical musings.
“Probably not. But then again, these same people whom you characterize as this are already those who have bought into your system of philosophy, so again, my interest is not in persuading them.”
No, Actually even Arminian Southern Baptist who despise my system of “philosophy” won’t buy into your arguments. So who are you interested in persuading…
I will never be able to show you anything biblically, for your presuppositions about the legitimacy of Calvinistic categories of thought have already predetermined (just like God predetermined you to do so, no doubt) the conclusions that you will take away from the texts in the process of interpretation.
As do your presuppositions…which you have no way of determining that you presuppositions are right or even better, so you are involving your self in a vain task.
“Moreover, any affront to these presuppositions will appear to you to be naturally “unbiblical,” not merely because they somehow are askance of objectively demonstrable truths about God, but rather–and primally–because they contradict the comfortable lethargy of self-justification in which you have become engaged through the seemingly self-authenticating witness of your philosophical biases and prejudices concerning interpretation of Scripture, the nature of God, and everything else in between.”
You don’t know that until you try it.