Argue against your own position!

Post Reply New Topic

I was going to do an "argue against myself" - focused on critiquing the Arminian position on grace and determinism. Illness and my two-week distancing intervened. I could do it, and it is tempting. It is, after all, if you have the Twin's mind, easy to argue five sides to every issue. I do it all the time - on almost every issue. Because it is all in the Yin - Yang tension, the balance, the narrow band where the wireless signal is received, unheard at frequencies too high and too low, and to approximate truth - which is all we can do in this environment - one must constantly sift and whittle and test whether in light of TODAY's data yesterday's probable near-truth still stands.

But to what end?

Yes, I can argue against Arminianism. And for the proposition that true education involves socializing all children. And that Mr. Obama is a wise man for whom this country is just not ready. And that the doctrine of the Trinity is impious polytheism. And that peer review and the scientific method and the structure of academia ensure steady and unlimited progress toward truth. And that Sand is a wise philanthrope. And that none of you zombies really exist. And that I am the reincarnation of Carl Meinhof. And that religion is the greatest enemy of science. And that if ANYTHING in anyone's scriptures can be shown to be false or even slightly inaccurate or contrary to received wisdom the religions holding to those scriptures are falsified.

I could argue a flat earth or an earth seeded with life from alien planets. I could argue that Liberals are just what the word says, or that Conservatives are just what the word says. I could argue there is no reality other that what the observer, or society, or Big Brother constructs, I could argue that whatever comes out from following the rules of your discipline IS truth.

I could argue that politics should be interesting, that all violence is wrong, that the gentlepersons in Washington are there to represent and advocate the interest and principles of the people. I could argue that thought, sense, spirit are in essence determined by the physical - chemical processes that go on in the human brain.

I could, in fact, go on and on, but to what end? You do not need [nor, I suspect, do you desire] a full inventory of my stances. I have no interest in persuading you either of my view or of the opposite. Nor have I any desire to be convinced. I could - doubtless some of you could - be interested in informed open discussion of some of these. But it has been amply illustrated that that hain't a-gonna happen all that much around here.

So I will content myself with providing an admittedly minimalist statement:, summarizing all too briefly the muchness that has been written against Arminius:

Arminianism hath for centuries been opposed and exposed as a pernicious and impious doctrine, most unreasonably denying the omniscience and omnipotence of God and pretending that Man is not wholly depraved and in himself impotent. If one holds certain views of God and Man and Holy Writ, which are most clearly taught by the scriptures, then it followeth as the day the night that Arminianism is perverse and heretical. A sin which they compound by saying, but if not, not.

Oh, bull. crap. Philologos. You do realize that you have to do a lot better than that. I mean, the point isn't "Oh, I can do it", it is actually getting up to the table and making the argument.

That being said, your small statement is less of an argument, and more of a bit of rhetoric against your belief. Nothing in that statement really allows us to even understand where the author is coming from, much less providing an attempt to obligate us to that position.

Ah, there's the rub. Who am I, and to whom speaking? The prime datum requisite before any attempt at communication?

Am I Herr Professor Doktor Philologos of Keinplatz University addressing senior students on their way to a doctorate in theology?

Am I Jake Philologos, missionary to the Abazimu [call me Bwana Uluyu], explaining an important concept to the newly converted?

Am I Philologos the Wrong Planeteer working to persuade MasterJedi and Sand that Arminianism is unreasonable?

Correct answer, none of the above. I quit the U though it may not always be apparent from my style. I am in no CONVENTIONAL sense [at least 91 and AngelRho know what I mean] a missionary. I have no interest in PERSUADING anyone of anything, and if I had certain of those here would be the last I would target.

What I am is Phil King Log [we KNOW who here is King Stork] having a pleasant discussion with people of reason adequately versed in the matter to care about Arminianism and aware that the majority of what we decide here is shifting shimmers on a tarnished copper mirror.

So consider the above - which admittedly briefly summarizes the issues most important to those concerned - a proffering in the postulated pleasant discussion. If you choose to pursue the matter, I would be most glad to point you to some of the prime scriptures tending to deflate Arminius.

Not a copping out, my debate style does not go encyclopedic in the first volley when talking to peers.

But if the assignment was to CONVINCE - well, I for one am unlikely to convince others of a position out of which I have argued myself, nor, I suspct, will examination of the thread show that anyonde much has bdeen convinced. I learned long ago I cannot convince ANYONE that it is raining even as the Ark is starting to float off the chocks.

Oh, goodness, philologos, you did a worse job than Inuyasha, and Inuyasha had people outright attack him for the kind of job that he did. You're saying that this strategy is honest, that it upholds to the ideal of the thread? Bull. s**t. I created this thread. This thread is for making a substantive argument, designed to both persuade, and to attack your position at length if possible. You wrote 2 sentences without any actual argument in there, but rather just a vague appeal to Calvinist theology, and you expect that to be considered well??

Now, you can take whatever "Who am I, and to whom speaking", you WANT. The point is constructing an argument that is strong, ideally as strong as you can consider it to be. This could mean the "senior students of theology", this could mean MasterJedi and Sand.

I don't need to "pursue the matter", I know my own arguments against Arminianism and I have argued against it for years at this point.

This is a total cop out, and anybody who has paid attention to this thread recognizes this, as you didn't even present an argument, but as I stated, a "vague appeal to Calvinist theology". If you don't recognize, just from comparison to other things people have written on this thread, that what you wrote is gravely inadequate, I don't know what to say.

^^^^

He is in no way obliged to post in this thread. He is just explaining that he is not out to convince anyone. This is different to assuming that no argument against his position exists.

Well, other than that he openly STATED that he would post in this thread. Generally speaking, if you say you are going to do something, which he did, you are obligated to follow-through.

That being said, if you look at all of the other arguments, philologos does the WORST. We got on Inuyasha's case for bad job here, so why not philologos?

For the reasons I just stated. Inuyasha assumed there was no decent argument for the other side. Philologos has simply stated that he is not out to prove anything. One is a statement of arrogance the other of humility. And I actually think Philologos made some interesting points, it was at least a better read than Inuyasha's spiel.

91, I know what Inuyasha did. Inuyasha at least presented an argument. I don't care what "virtues" you can ascribe to one or the other, as the point is not to show how virtuous one is, but rather to present an argument.

As for interesting points, you mean in his argument? Here's his argument again:


This is an informal logical fallacy if we take this to be an argument. If we are charitable, then we can choose not to take it as an argument though, and just progress with it as rhetoric.


Either false or in need of elaboration. Arminianism is a form of classical theism, and it tends to uphold God's omniscience and omnipotence. So, either this is an outright false statement or it needs elaboration. It still is not an argument, as some theisms DO deny these characteristics.


A false statement or one needing elaboration. Arminianism is not Pelagianism. Arminians hold that God offers man a choice, not that man has the ability to choose on his own strength. It is a variety of synergism, like a lot of historical theologies.


Not an argument at all, as it is an appeal to the contents of Christian scriptures, these scriptures being ones that we know are debated on this particular affair, and where Arminians have their own arguments. As such, this has to be considered rhetoric, as it fails to be an argument due to a lack of substance.

Philologos doesn't meet the bare minimum requirements. Inuyasha DOES though:


In short, single payer health care will decrease the diversity of forms by reducing the number of players in the matter, thus simplifying the industry.


It will get rid of the market power of drug companies, and it will reduce perverse incentives for doctors, thus saving on cost.


It will eliminate an unnecessary middle man.

Now, we can argue that Inuyasha should expand his arguments somewhat, and we can argue that Inuyasha does a terrible job of arguing, BUT he actually really presents an argument to a much higher degree than Philologos does, making Philologos the worst contributor.

Ok AG, let's argue about how people argue shall we.

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.