tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post4281895529598045346..comments2024-03-11T17:32:55.577-07:00Comments on The Freed Thinker Podcast - A Tyler Vela Joint: What is Calvinism According to Soteriology101? Tyler V.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02107421305857393469noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post-29611940615021169772019-07-31T12:46:21.381-07:002019-07-31T12:46:21.381-07:00I find point 1 and 4 rather revealing. On the one ...I find point 1 and 4 rather revealing. On the one hand, you don't like being told that you don't understand Calvinism, which is relatable: that retort is often used in lieu of an argument. But in point 4 you reveal that you don't understand the differences between compatibilist free will and hard determinism, which means you don't actually understand Calvinism.<br /><br />I find it just as annoying when an anti-Calvinist tells me that I'm not really a Calvinist because I confess as Calvinists have confessed for centuries that man has a free will (WCF 9) and that God's decree establishes our freedom and second causes without making God the author of sin (WCF 3.1), etc. One who can't explain why we think these are consistent beliefs doesn't understand Calvinism enough to argue against it. You can disagree, think it inconsistent, or whatever, but you have to understand what we actually claim or any refutation will miss the mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1192460758675629625.post-85647154180709914212019-03-04T10:36:33.870-08:002019-03-04T10:36:33.870-08:00Hi Tyler,
Point #1. Calvinism, like other doctrin...Hi Tyler,<br /><br />Point #1. Calvinism, like other doctrines Christianity holds to, can have a spectrum within. All calvinists claim that Flowers misrepresents them, and that seems to be their main or at the very least first argument against him. Every time Flowers engages with a calvinsit and actually responds to their own words, another pops up to say "That's not calvinism and you don't understand it!" This is what's known as a no true Scotsman fallacy, and it's a tired point. You may not agree with his conclusions and practicalities, especially when engaging with others views who hold to calvinism, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it or has made a “caricature” of it. If a socialist asked me why I reject socialism and I explained it to them, they may respond by telling me that I must just not understand the core tenants of it then! If I truly understood socialism, I would have reasoned that it’s a beautiful and wonderful form of government just as they have seen. Perhaps what they call redistribution of wealth, I then refer to as stealing and they say “See, you just don’t get socialism! We’re not saying the government would be stealing from anyone! You still don’t get it and I keep explaining it to you!” I may use terms they wouldn’t like, I may draw conclusions they don’t like, or simply I am arguing from the conclusions I have previously reasoned to. However, those items are independent of whether or not I understand socialism, particularly their brand of it, which they may label Democratic Socialism or Marxism. This argumentation makes a system unfalsifiable. That being said, if you feel he has misrepresented your view, then I would extend an offer to him to discuss some of the specific points of contention ( I know you guys have engaged in the past ) <br /><br />Point #2. I guess I don’t really see why it matters that he jumps to Total Inability. What's wrong with getting to the logical conclusion of something, especially once it’s been reasoned to before by the individual? Trying to shift the focus back to the more palatable part of Total Depravity seems to just be window dressing. It seems analogous to when the pro-abortion movement tries to give all the reasons and backstory they can so that I understand why they are pro-abortion, whereas I understand and have listened to all their arguments, reasons, and logic and completely reject them. If it all ends up with babies being murdered, I care very little about the reasoning behind it, because the conclusion is ultimately flawed.<br /><br />Point #3. I think you spend way too much time here. It was a short video, and he wouldn’t be able to draw out all his points or reasoning, so it makes very little sense to put out this comprehensive of a rebuttal.<br /><br />Point #4. We actually believe it to be a true dichotomy because we see compatibilism as a distinction without any meaningful difference. You've simply added a deterministic link to the causal chain and labelled it free choice. To say God uses means actually means nothing, given the means (nature) are just as determined as the ends. I would also say as you've mentioned in the past that free will doesn’t mean we can choose to fly like a bird. What it means is we can choose to want to fly like a bird or even attempt to do so. Free will is not the superpower you’ve seemingly made it out to be. <br /><br />Thanks for reading, I hope none of this comes off as hostile. Not my intention! Blessings, Tyler<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com