Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Suggestions for debating like a true Hyper Calvinist

Some of you are really bad at debating. I mean really bad, and this is to your discredit. You go and read Dabney's systematic theology, or an argument made by a moderate Calvinist and are stumped. "Uh, well I, uh..."
Since I don't want to go back to jail (I've done my cage stage time) I'm printing up this here public service guidelines on how you can debate like a pro against the moderates.

1. Insist that if followed, their argument makes God out to be a [Insert societal pervert here]. 
Nothing is more devastating than a well placed analogy.  For example: God doesn't really love the non-elect in any meaningful way, because if that were true then God would be a flaming homosexual, or a transgendered monkey hooker. And since He's not that, He must not love the non-elect.  Example two: God is not some hot high school senior who is wooing the ugly girl to a dance even though He knows He's not going to ask her out, therefore moderate Calvinism is wrong.

2. Attack the person, not the argument.  It's only ad hominem if you are trying to distract from their argument. But we know that they are wrong from the very beginning, even before they open their mouth. Their presuppositions are wrong, therefore you have no real need to interact with their argument. For example: You assert that because it says world it means world. You are a [insert societal pervert here.]

3. Point out you have addressed that argument already and defeated it.
You don't actually have to have addressed it. Just say it's defeated, and it's as good as done. For example: you assert Christ is weeping over reprobate Jerusalem, but as I have shown on a number of occasions, this is not the case.

4. Drop the fallacies bombs. 
Go to it! Get some wikipedia on! Pick 5 and sprinkle them throughout. For example: You assert that God loves the non-elect because the Bible speaks of common grace. But this is really only affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent.  Look, your argument is nothing but a red herring. Non clausa pro clausa. That's just a straw man.

Now read a fine example here. At last you're ready.  Good hunting out there!


Ryan said...

Is this like the time you told me to read this in response to an argument for supralapsarianism I made, and when I responded to it you never replied to me?


Phil said...

I got busy I think. If you remind me of the link I'll see about the argument again.

Ryan said...

You should find it if you check your message inbox on facebook.

David said...

Hey Phil,

You should know by know that they are master debators.

I have to say, tho, I am surprised at some of the arguments Ive seen, they seem just so bad. "The nasty schoolboy who unwillingly invites the other nasty schoolboy" analogy.

The bible calls that hypocrisy.

NIV Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.

NIV Matthew 9:13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

And the principle of:

NIV 2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Lots and lots more verses could be cited.

So now comes the questions,

Can a hypocritical offer be considered well-meant? No.

Its a sinful offer. His motives are sinful, so his actions are stained by those same motives. What sort of Christian ethic would we have if we started separating motive from actions?

Can a hypocritical offer be considered bona fide? I would say probably Not.

Miriam Websters:

bona fide: made in good faith without fraud or deceit (a bona fide offer to buy a farm)

Dictionary.com: made, done, presented, etc., in good faith; without deception or fraud

Wiki: Wiki: the concept of Good faith—Latin bona fides “good faith”, bona fide “in good faith”—denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action;

The nasty schoolboy offerer has no well-intended faith. He is giving a pretense of being benevolent (well-wishing).