Post by Dr James Ach on Oct 24, 2015 22:07:12 GMT 3
Unbalanced Calvinist Debate Tactics~ by James A, Th. M
One common theme I've noticed in these debate groups about Calvinism is the seeming failure of the Calvinists to recognize the difference between affirming statements and implications. An affirming statement is a declaration or decree about what a person believes, and an implication is something that can be deducted from a premise, and it may or may not be based entirely on what someone said.
Calvinists often give themselves a lot of room to make implications that they deny to others. For example: when the issue is raised regarding statements among Calvinists that God has determined whatsoever comes to pass, non Calvinist observers see an implication that it makes God the author of sin. The Calvinist objection is "we never said that", but they are missing the point. They are not being accused of saying that, it is simply what is implied and can be deduced logically from things they have said or affirmed.
However, the Calvinists do the same thing to their opponents. The most classic example is that of the "synergism" ad hominem. Synergism is the accusation that Non Calvinists believe salvation is man-centered, and that you "work with" God to be saved. In other words, if you believe that libertarian free will is permitted in receiving Christ as Saviour, and you don't believe that salvation is exhaustively determined by irresistible grace and unconditional election, then therefore you believe you are saving yourself. Calvinists routinely level this accusation against their opponents even though it is an accusation that not even the most ardent Arminian would subscribe to. It is an implication that Calvinists deduce from how they view libertarian free will.
Calvinists routinely use implications to challenge their opponents, but reject the usage of implications when their opponents use them to evaluate Calvinism.
One common theme I've noticed in these debate groups about Calvinism is the seeming failure of the Calvinists to recognize the difference between affirming statements and implications. An affirming statement is a declaration or decree about what a person believes, and an implication is something that can be deducted from a premise, and it may or may not be based entirely on what someone said.
Calvinists often give themselves a lot of room to make implications that they deny to others. For example: when the issue is raised regarding statements among Calvinists that God has determined whatsoever comes to pass, non Calvinist observers see an implication that it makes God the author of sin. The Calvinist objection is "we never said that", but they are missing the point. They are not being accused of saying that, it is simply what is implied and can be deduced logically from things they have said or affirmed.
However, the Calvinists do the same thing to their opponents. The most classic example is that of the "synergism" ad hominem. Synergism is the accusation that Non Calvinists believe salvation is man-centered, and that you "work with" God to be saved. In other words, if you believe that libertarian free will is permitted in receiving Christ as Saviour, and you don't believe that salvation is exhaustively determined by irresistible grace and unconditional election, then therefore you believe you are saving yourself. Calvinists routinely level this accusation against their opponents even though it is an accusation that not even the most ardent Arminian would subscribe to. It is an implication that Calvinists deduce from how they view libertarian free will.
Calvinists routinely use implications to challenge their opponents, but reject the usage of implications when their opponents use them to evaluate Calvinism.