How to argue poorly: An analysis of non-Calvinist rhetoric.

Theo1689

Well-known member
One of the most worthless religious books I have ever read was Dave Hunt's "What Love is This?"
Why do I say that?
Well, unlike James White's "The Potter's Freedom", Hunt's book is guaranteed NEVER to convince a Calvinist to Arminianism. It is that bad of a book. It is that uncompelling. It is that dishonest.

I'll explain why.

Hunt's basic methodology for arguing looks something like this:

"Let's talk about limited atonement.
John Piper had this to say, "................."
But the BIBLE actually says THIS, "...........................".

"Let's talk about irresistible grace.
R.C. Sproul had this to say, "................."
But the BIBLE actually says THIS, "...........................".

And it goes on and on like this.

Hopefully people see the fallacious nature of this kind of argumentation. Or at least I'm guessing more Calvinists will see it than Arminians.

Here's the deal.... Calvinism wasn't created out of whole cloth, from our imaginations, because we "want" to believe it. We got it from the BIBLE.

So an HONEST discussion would look something more like this:

"Let's talk about limited atonement.
John Piper had this to say, "................."
Piper believes this because of these Bible passages.
Let's discuss these passages and see whether they actually teach that.
But the BIBLE actually says THIS, "...........................".

Or in actual fact, he could leave out "Piper" and "Sproul" altogether, since they are irrelevant, only the Bible passages are relevant.

I have said for MANY years that to truly study a doctrine, you need to study ALL the passages which speak to that doctrine, both pro- and con-. (And if you don't think there are any "con-" passages against your favourite doctrines, you should (1) recognize your bias, and try to correct it, and (2) address all the passages which your opponents claim go against your pet doctrine.



What we usually see here in the A&C forum is that Arminians will IGNORE the passages that caused us to believe TULIP in the first place, and then say, "Well, my interpretation of this verse contradicts TULIP, so obviously TULIP is wrong. Well, that's a nonsensical argument, for two reasons, namely (1) your interpretation is only your OPINION, and may be wrong, and (2) your use of one verse doesn't negate all the passages that CAUSED us to hold to TULIP in the first place, and since they are still there, TULIP is still true.


Mormons do this same thing as well.
They will pull out Ps. 82:6 and 1 Cor. 8:5 to try to defend "plural gods", but when we pull out the 20-30 passages which teach that only one god exists, they summarily dismiss them, "My verses say that there are many gods, so you must be misinterpreting your verses". They only concentrate on passages which teach ONE SIDE of the issue.
Same with faith alone... They will trot out passages which speak of works in a positive sense, but when we bring up Eph. 2:8-9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-6, Rom. 11:5-6, etc., they pretend those passages don't exist, and basically ignore them.


So if you want to know why Calvinists are not impressed or convinced by Arminian arguments, it's NOT because we're "brainwashed", or "under a stronghold" (Hi Seth!), or "they don't care about truth, they only want to believe their doctrines".

It's because the passages which TEACH Calvinism are still in the Bible, and they remain unscathed, since you guys never address them.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
So if you want to know why Calvinists are not impressed or convinced by Arminian arguments, it's NOT because we're "brainwashed", or "under a stronghold" (Hi Seth!), or "they don't care about truth, they only want to believe their doctrines".

It's because the passages which TEACH Calvinism are still in the Bible, and they remain unscathed, since you guys never address them.

All your pet verses have been addressed multiple times

Your comment is a falsehood
 
Top