I had the pleasure of reading through many, though I confess not all, of the posts on your blog (Liver and Onions) - an enormous percentage of which relate to Calvinism, apparently from a less-than-favorable George Bryson-esque perspective.
I notice that in your most recent post you go after Calvinist apologists. As a Calvinist apologist, I didn't find the portrait particularly compelling - but then I'm clearly biased. I'd like the chance to demonstrate which of those characterizations are true, which are meaningless, and which are incorrect.
So, if you have interest, perhaps we could explore one issue that you believe particularly highlights the weakness/heresy/what-have-you of Calvinism.
If it is hard for you to pick something, perhaps we could focus on your June 30, 2007, post in which you suggest that the great Reformer Jerome Zanchius was a child of the devil because of his comments on election and reprobation.
You would take the affirmative position that Zanchius' following statement contains heresy:
As the future faith and good works of the Elect were not the cause of their being chosen, so neither were the future sins of the reprobate the cause of their being passed by, but both the choice of the former and the decretive omission of the latter were owing, merely and entirely, to the sovereign will and determinating pleasure of God.
But perhaps you have a better suggestion.
I have a debate blog set up where we could conduct this debate in a formalized manner. At the moment I'm wrapping up a debate on Sola Scriptura with an Eastern Orthodox opponent, but I'd be happy to find time to accommodate an edifying debate with you on a Calvinism topic of your choosing.
Please don't leave me hanging.
-Turretinfan
8 comments:
Hopefully he will take you up on the offer. It would be an interesting debate.
In the meantime, I am way behind on your debate with Orthodox, I need to catch up.
A backchannel from T.J.P. suggests that he is interested. We'll see how it goes forward.
-Turretinfan
1) It is my understanding that "Calamites" was an ancient horse-tail like plant... I can't find any references to the use of the word in reference to Calvinists except on that blog.
2) I'm not quite able to imagine how it is possible for one to exist willfully somewhere between "point A" and "point B" and yet have a strong aversion to point B.
3) The debate might be an interesting curiosity, but I wonder how fruitful it will be considering your opponent seems to want to limit the debate to a "couple of exchanges", and seems to think that Fred Phelps is "possessed by the retarded ghost of John Calvin."
But you never know.. you might have as much success in this as you would trying to use scripture to apologize for God to an atheist. (Irony intended...)
I'm willing to give TJP the benefit of the doubt that he will comport himself properly - despite the rather extreme comments that TJP has made on his blog.
-Turretinfan
Please don't leave me hanging.
That phrase reminds me of something. Does it remind you of anything?
Dear KoD:
Sure does! The oldest item on my list of blog comments to respond to is a post of yours from quite a while ago.
It's only partially complete, and keeps getting bumped by other more immediately pressing items.
Thanks for your patience!
-Turretinfan
The oldest item on my list of blog comments to respond to is a post of yours from quite a while ago.
It's only partially complete, and keeps getting bumped by other more immediately pressing items.
I am looking forward to it. Take your time...just let me know when you do finish it. Are you going to post it here?
Till then...
Ben
Dear Ben,
God willing, I will post it here in the not to distant future.
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment