The Unwritten Rules
Regarding the debate I mentioned last night: as I suspected, it was futile to venture outside the “unwritten rules of all Calvinism-related debate”. They are as follows: if you agree with me, you are smart – if you agree with the other guy, you are not – and if you agree with neither of us, you are too ignorant to comment. See what I mean by visiting the original article, along with my comment, which is directly followed by a reply from the author.
Tags: Blogging, Fundamentalism, History
Editorials | Chris | 
May 23, 2009 11:00 pm
2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe: 
By Chris Anderson, May 24, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Chris, I’m sorry you took offense. My point is simply that an understanding of church history should demonstrate that the charge that Calvinism is unevangelistic and therefore unsustainable is false. Similarly, it should be clear that my appreciation of Piper’s expositional ministry and evangelistic zeal isn’t at all comparable to what Pastor Sweatt did (that is, preach a message with no exposition) or the admiration for dubious men he admired (including Bob Gray and Jack Hyles). If you can’t see the differences between the two (not the least of which is that I wasn’t pretending to preach), I’m not sure what else to tell you.
I never said non-Calvinists are “not smart” or that you need to agree with me to offer a viable comment. But I do think that saying Sweatt’s message and my blog post amount simply to “he said/he said” indicates a lack of discernment.
FWIW.
By Chris, May 24, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Chris, you have demonstrated again why this debate is almost impossible to have. Yesterday you called me ignorant, today you’re saying I lack discernment. You don’t see any problem with that?
Do you contend Dr. Sweatt offered only opinions while you put forth verifiable facts?
- Piper’s messages are “passionately God-focused”. – Opinion or verifiable fact?
- Calvinism is biblical. – Opinion or verifiable fact?
- “Everybody knows that the missionary leaders of previous generations were Calvinists.” – Opinion or verifiable fact?
- “We may find that there are more souls in heaven as a result of doctrinally-grounded, God-dependent Calvinist types than there are from Arminian-leaning revivalists.” – Opinion or verifiable fact?
- “While the Pipers of the world are fighting apostasy (like Open Theism and denials of penal substitution), many fundamentalists are fighting…well, the Pipers of the world.” – Opinion or verifiable fact?
Dr. Sweatt offered his opinions in a forum that allowed it. You did the same thing. Neither of you should be chastised for that. But…if a man cannot admit he is giving an opinion – always insisting there is objective, verifiable truth to his statements – he is impossible to reason with.
Wait…you may be right on the discernment thing, cause I just violated every blogging rule I have ever believed by responding tit for tat. If you call me a moron next time I’ll probably agree with you! ;)
Chris