Related Fallacies: Begging the Question Special Pleading [given that God has power of contrary choice] False Dichotomy If all men are neutral in prevenient grace was it by chance that one believed and not another?…
Calvinist Polemics
Calvinism’s Bold Accusation: Making A Calvinist
This post is written by SEA member, Rev Christopher Chapman A humble and hungry disciple is a wonderful thing in God’s kingdom. They are humble not because they have no pride, but because they hate…
Jesus Says the Dead Will Hear Unto Spiritual Life
I want to recommend Chris Chapman’s article available at SEA called, The Extent of Spiritual Death. Chapman’s article does an excellent job of demonstrating from Scripture that the spiritual death described in the Bible does…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Jargon
Or “The Obscenity of Obdurate Obnubilating Obfuscation” What I mean by Jargon If we equate any philosophical debate to battle I would argue that our basic weapons are our ideas and arguments, and our rhetoric…
Why Does One Person Accept Christ, While Another Rejects Him?
Why does one person accept Christ, while another rejects Him?
Notwithstanding God’s prevenient, enabling and intervening grace, free will is reasonably the cause of the aforementioned divergence, and which certainly requires greater explanation, and I believe that there is one. However, the first thing that Arminians point out is Adam and Eve, because the equation of total depravity no longer applies in their situation, and which begs the question: Why did they choose the way that they did? Arminians argue that God presented them with the opportunity to choose well, and by choosing well, to form good moral character. The same matter of free choice also applies to the angels as well, pre-Fall. No issues of depravity applies to their equation either. It is to this point that Calvinists, even such as R.C. Sproul, state the following:
A Response to an A/C “Primer” from A&O ministries
I was going to write a second post on corporate election, but I am postponing it to look at something which Alan Kurschner has recently put out on Dr. James White’s blog. He calls it…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Prooftexting
Or “Say hello to my little friend!”</ What I mean by Proof-texting There are four different ways to interact with Scripture within a discussion: Exegesis: Carefully breaking down the meaning of a text through grammar,…
Arminianism Overthrows Biblical Inerrancy?
Calvinists have put out a DVD called “Amazing Grace,” which makes the following charge against Arminianism: One Calvinist explains: “Arminianism has real implications for the doctrine of Scripture. How can God superintend men’s words so…
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Slippery Slopes
Or “Are We Inclined to Decline?”
What I Mean by Slippery Slopes
Before I begin, it is important that I differentiate between Slippery Slope Arguments, and Slippery Slope Fallacies.
Slippery Slope Arguments are a form of inductive reasoning which notes that those who hold to a certain position (hitherto referred to as position A) either eventually come to hold a bad belief (hitherto referred to as position B), or their students/descendants come to hold that bad belief (i.e. position B), or it is reasoned that position A should logically lead to position B. It is then induced that there is some quality about position A which usually or necessarily causes a belief in position B. Since position B is bad, it then follows that position A is also bad (or at least too dangerous to be considered).
CALVINIST RHETORIC: The Stronghold
Or “A Mighty Fortress Is Our Theology”
What I Mean by the Stronghold
This is probably going to be the hardest rhetorical analysis that I currently have planned to explain what I mean. It is important for this post that I mention that this is neither a critique on Calvinist theology, nor is this particular anomaly a universal characteristic of Calvinist rhetoric. Instead, this is something that I have noticed experientially as I have talked to Calvinists.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Euphemism and Dysphemism
Or “Poisoning the Well while Sweetening the Pot”
What I Mean By Euphemism and Dysphemism
Both euphemism and dysphemism are replacing words in order to make a point. With euphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound better (often to be less offensive). With dysphemism, you replace a word with another to make an idea sound worse.
A great example of a rhetorical use of euphemism is the titles “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Using the prefix “pro” makes both of them sound like they are for something, instead of being against something. Additionally, it makes opposing the position sound bad (who wants to be against choice, or life?). Therefore, naming your position can make your position sound better, while making the other position sound worse.
CALVINIST RHETORIC: Idealistic Abstractions
Or “Plato: Imagination Taking Shape”*
What I Mean by Idealistic Abstractions
To be abstract means to be “thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.” To put it more simply (at least for our purposes), something which is abstract is something which is not defined by our five senses. For instance, love, peace, faith, grace, sovereignty, etc. As we can see from the examples, abstraction is quite important for Christianity. Indeed, it is quite important for life, since most subjects deal with abstractions, including science, politics, and even sports.
Calvinists Still Honing Their Skill in Misrepresenting Arminianism
In their book The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn utterly misrepresent Arminianism on the subject of Total Depravity, stating that Arminianism teaches: “Although human…
The Liberalism Straw Man of Young, Restless Reformers
As Arminians, we often have to deal with a number of scurrilous charges and various innuendos inflicted upon our faith by an assortment of polemicists, predominantly at the hand of the young, restless, Reformed variety and their elder teachers. Whether it is a straw man of “free willism,” salvation by works, or open theism and a host of other unsupportable accusations, each is brought to nothing by the revelation of plain, simple truth. Truth will always bring to naught any straw man fabricated for divisive purposes. I came across another bale of straw dressed up as knowledge today. The following quote was offered to buttress another’s doctrine of mush and as always, truth will grind it to chaff.
“We are living in a day in which practically all of the historic
churches are being attacked from within by unbelief. Many
of them have already succumbed. And most invariably the
line of descent has been from Calvinism to Arminianism,
Is Faith a Work Created by Man?
Here are some edited comments by one of our members posted in our private discussion group concerning the Calvinist claim that the Arminian view of faith makes faith a work created by man: When they…
Do We Need an Arminian Defense League?
by Roger Olson Okay, so I used that title to get your attention. No, I don’t really think we need an Arminian Defense League (although sometimes I feel like the only person doing anything to…
Justin Taylor, Ardel Caneday, and the New (Gnostic) Calvinism
Gnosticism, according to Patheos, refers to “a philosophical and religious movement in the Greco-Roman world that claimed that the path to salvation is through secret knowledge.” Gnostic tendencies among some professing believers began in the…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics: The Arminian View of Divine Foreknowledge Attacks God’s Aseity
Original post. Related fallacies: Non Sequitur Equivocation Special Pleading One apparent ramification of holding to both libertarian free will and God’s omniscience is that God (apparently) derives His knowledge of our choices from us, since…
Assuming Determinism to Disprove Free Will
Phil Johnson of John MacArthur’s Grace to You has authored a post entitled “The Problem for Arminians”. Quoting Phil:
If God knows every detail of the future with infallible certainty, then (by definition) the outcome of all things is already determined. And if things are predetermined but God did not ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then you have two choices:
1. A higher sovereignty belongs to some being (or beings) other than God. That is idolatry.
2. Some impersonal force did the determining. That is fatalism.
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #10: Wait, Now Faith is a “Work?”
Related Fallacies: Equivocation Category Mistake “[Arminianism] denies sola fide (faith alone) by changing the character of faith so that it is basically a work.” (Rev. Richard Phillips [Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals], Is Arminianism a Biblical…
Recent Posts
How Does Arminianism Respond to Calvinism’s Deterministic Claims and Its Appeal to Texts that Seem to Suggest God Ordains Evil?
Steve Lemke on How Jesus’ Encounter with the Rich Young Ruler Implies Grace Is Resistible
Three Brief Book Reviews by Roy Ingle
William Burt Pope on Prevenient Grace and Free Will
