Argue against your own position!

Post Reply New Topic

Well, you're the one who picked the argument with me due to my disgust with Philologos. I don't see why you jumped in, what business it was of yours to jump in, and I certainly don't see how you have a case on this matter.

It's interesting to me that you consider my pointing out value in the statement of another is picking a fight with you.

Are you being serious?


First sentence is a wrong statement, and also a statement in effort to contradict my efforts to attack him for a poor argument.


The problem is that this is in violation of the purpose of this thread, a purpose that, I as the framer of this thread, would be most aware of. As such, you are still trying to disagree with me.


This statement is irrelevant.

So, in short, from the beginning you were arguing against me. This is clear in that you were directly addressing me on my treatment of this situation by countering my positions, as you perceived them, directly. Now, while I am willing to try to deal with you, I get tired of your pervasive dishonesty from time to time, 91.

91, difference here is that to argue for the individual mandate is essentially to argue for Tyranny and government controlling everything. I am not going to try to paint totalitarianism as a good thing.

Hokay - Awesomely Glorious, yes, it was your thread - though a close inspection of the genre shows that after your initial gambit it is anyone's game and you have no more say in how "your" thread developes than I have with respect to mine. But if you want to be disgusted, go right ahead - like the man says, I been despised by fancier people than what you are.

So - where I am coming from:

The question of Arminianism is not a topic for Theology 101. If you had brought it up five years before Damascus, I would have stared at you. Like debating the merits of Hellmann's Mayonnaise and Miracle Whip. They are two different kinds of disgusting slime, so what is to choose? Calvinism and Arminianism? I could just about tell the difference between High Church Anglican and Conservative Baptist.

Five years after Damascus I still was not there. I took a while to get clear on +/- Trinity, +/- the devil, status of Baptism, nature of the Eucharist, rights and wrongs of divorce. There was a lot to work through.

Don't remember when I got to Arminianism. Probably after my big comparative search through the creeds. Schaff [ http://www.amazon.com/Creeds-Christendo ... 0801082323 ] was very useful and has definitive Arminian and Calvinist statements. Anyway, that is where I wound up.

Point is - anybody seriously interested in the question is going to have some advance background, good reasoning skills, and is going to take as prime evidence a specific body of scriptures and a specific interpretive technique. The points I mentioned ARE in fact the arguments - and they can in fact be supported with scriptural references.

But one thing you learn from teaching: by the third week of the semester you know pretty well what the lineup will be at the end of the semester. I've had maybe one surprise every five years.

But you have to DO the exam thing to be able to show the U administration and the student's lawyer a rationale for what you KNOW.

In the same way, the Calvinist or Arminian KNOWS how God has presented himself, but brings out the quotes from Paul or the gospels as the step-through rationale.

In extended discussion, I can refer to Hebrews 6:4-6:

It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

This clearly argues against the Arminian in and out.

And then again I can call up Matthew 18:21-22:

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until
seventy times seven.

Which rather supports the same teaching.

Anyway - if discussion with no interest in persuasion disgusts you, I have no way to persuade you. But I can do the step-through scriptures on the other issues, of course.

You mean I cannot determine the matter? That is correct, but at the same time, while things may shift, this does not mean that a clear violation cannot occur. You might as well say that because the meaning of laws shift, you are alright in stabbing a person you dislike, or that because interpretation of a literary text is an indeterminate manner, that interpreting "Little Red Riding Hood" as a metaphor for the joys of picking another person's nose is as valid as the more straight-forward readings.


Actually, it really IS a topic for theology 101. Arminianism is one of the major theological distinctives shaping the theological landscape, it is hard to really get a grip on modern theological differences without looking into the issue, and frankly, if one were to enter a forum where young wannabe theologians debated, Calvinism vs Arminianism would likely be one of the larger debates.


Oddly enough, the question was the first major question I encountered, and the whole issue has impacted one of my friends immensely, as he became so disgusted with Calvinism, and thought Arminianism was incoherent, to an extent that he ended up becoming an Open Theist, and from that was rejected by his local church organizations, an event still influencing him.


They are vague appeals without those specific scriptural references though. If scripture is the data, then referring to the "clear reading of scripture" without any actual specifics, is just like saying "Oh, it is as plain and obvious as the day that I am right", which... is not an argument.

That being said, there are a large number of arguments one can advance, some would be scriptural, some would be logical, some may even just be speculative theology. Stop pretending that there is only ONE road to Rome. Rome and its suburbs end up being large and well-connected, and figuring out the different ways to get there is part of the fun of the travel.


Well, it is also because that is how the game works as any claim you make ought to be justified on merit. In any case, the exact ranking and the A vs A+ or A- seems a lot less determinate, especially since you can have smart slackers and so on.

That being said, games exist, you said you were going to play this game, and then you started playing "Go Fish" during a Poker game. That ends up being very rude to the players involved, especially if they had some expectation and hope that you would play the game properly.

In the same way, the Calvinist or Arminian KNOWS how God has presented himself, but brings out the quotes from Paul or the gospels as the step-through rationale.


Actually, the Hebrews you cite is easily taken to be anti-Calvinist, as the writing assumes that a person can fall away. Calvinists believe that falling away is impossible, given the "P" of TULIP, which is that anybody saved will persevere to the end.

The Matthew you cite is not actually a soteriological point unless you can connect it to a larger argument.


Well, given that the thread is "Argue Against Your Own Belief", you are supposed to attempt a persuasive argument, one that a hypothetical person could walk through, learn from, and come out at least respecting your grasp for your opponents and/or your mental flexibility. You are spitting in the face of both word and spirit of the thread.

In any case, I have better things to do than to deal with people who are openly violating the norms. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, but I think the purpose was clear.

Ah, back to the old days in Mixolydia with Enlighten Him - a very pleasant young Mixolydian with whom I had many hours of excellent converse. You are much like him and would like him, and obviously vice versa.

One evening Enlighten Him [his real name] proposed to us a game. Play cards, winner names a forfeit for the loser. We played, I lost, he decreed my forfeit - down a slug of Hardzaft. Now I am not - as he well knew a drinker, but I have in my time consumed whiskey, brandy, even coffee in the interests of science or for the sake of the company. But homebrew Mixolydian Hardzaft! It is the best tasting military grade rocket fuel you will ever find, it burns out your tastebuds like Parsee food, and I knew Enlighten Him was going to push me into a shot every time I lost a hand which given my skill at cards was going to be often.

So I refused.

And I had to suffer his outrage and withering scorn, but I held my tongue and kept my tastebuds and sobriety.

Here is a word of wisdom gleaned from experience. I learned it early having two not all that younger sisters; you will learn it in time:

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot get him to follow the rules of your game.

I have more but of different relevance; coming.

Quite right, the Hebrews citation argues against Calvinistic perseverance [which - my own argument here] is like unto the scriptures in their originals]. But it does stomp on the concept of the return of the Prodigal, a tenet which to the Calvinist hardly requires argument, but you can still point to the scriptural problems.

And while 70x7 is not explicitly soteriological, I would maintain that it does give evidence on how we are to take "as your Father is perfect" and support the Arminian stance on the Prodigal.

This when I have done I have not Done, for I rather like Sir [St] Thomas as well as the original twin [and what did they call his brother and which one was he?] Later.