Jump to content

Why Aren't There More Mormonism Vs. Calvinism Threads Here?


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, cksalmon said:

I would disagree for the same old, obvious reason, Bernard. The relevant teachings of BoM are a disproof of X just insofar as one grants them authority. So, for you, I totally get it: BoM clearly affirms propositions imcompossible with Calvinism.

But that's hardly a neutral ground argument against Calvinism. 

👋

Of course. On the other hand, are there any neutral ground arguments for Calvinism? No. What would you propose as a neutral ground defense of TULIP? The Calvinist interpretations of the Bible? Why should they have preeminence over the Book of Mormon? Where would be the neutral ground for that? Who would be a neutral arbitrator? Just what is neutral ground?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
23 hours ago, cksalmon said:

Yeah, last time I was around these parts, there was an apparent conflagration in the midst of some apologetic factions. Would love to hear how that story played out. 

Honestly in practice I don't think it amounted to much although there's still some hard feelings between some people at The Interpreter and The Maxwell Institute. Outside of those figures despite some disagreements about apologetics I by and large don't think there's really a big deal. The main difference is whether one thinks one should do scriptural exegesis with as much acontextual close readings as possible and to what degree one thinks one should focus on ancient culture from the purported time frame, history and science. I'll admit that I'm in the latter. But honestly there's a lot of good stuff written by people who prefer the former. Typically there's not much conflict honestly. Just look at the close readings from the Theology Seminary to see that.

In my opinion the bigger deal was always sloppy apologetics vs. careful apologetics. And there's lots of bad sloppy apologetics loosely in both approaches.

Edited by clarkgoble
Fixed typo
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. On the other hand, are there any neutral ground arguments for Calvinism? No. What would you propose as a neutral ground defense of TULIP? The Calvinist interpretations of the Bible? Why should they have preeminence over the Book of Mormon? Where would be the neutral ground for that? Who would be a neutral arbitrator? Just what is neutral ground?

I largely agree with you here, Bernard. Since we don't have the same canon, appeals to non-shared scripture typically won't solve much. Which was my point. I was merely objecting to your classification of BoM scripture as a refutation of Calvinism in a thread started by a Calvinist. 🤷‍♂️

It occurs to me that you may have been preaching to the choir, as they say, and if so, never mind the above. 

Edited by cksalmon
Link to comment
3 hours ago, cksalmon said:

I largely agree with you here, Bernard. Since we don't have the same canon, appeals to non-shared scripture typically won't solve much. Which was my point. I was merely objecting to your classification of BoM scripture as a refutation of Calvinism in a thread started by a Calvinist. 🤷‍♂️

It occurs to me that you may have been preaching to the choir, as they say, and if so, never mind the above. 

A thread on a Mormon board seems to presuppose a Mormon response. Would it not be fair to limit your responses to non-Biblical sources?

Don’t Calvinists preach exclusively to the choir? I can understand why Mormons might want to preach to Calvinists, but what would be the point of Calvinists preaching to Mormons? It’s not like we can join up. :)

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A thread on a Mormon board seems to presuppose a Mormon response.

Don’t Calvinists preach exclusively to the choir? I can understand why Mormons might want to preach to Calvinists, but what would be the point of Calvinists preaching to Mormons? It’s not like we can join up.

Fair enough. 

As you may recall, I don't adhere to so-called hyper Calvinism, which I consider erroneous. So, no, it is not the case that regla ol' Calvinists preach exclusively to the choir in the sense I think you mean.

Since we don't know the identity of the elect, the gospel is preached indiscriminately to all (Mormons definitely included). The elect, according to that way of thinking, are drawn ineluctably to repentance and faith by God's electing grace.

But I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know about Calvinism. 

Cheers. 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, cksalmon said:

Fair enough. 

As you may recall, I don't adhere to so-called hyper Calvinism, which I consider erroneous. So, no, it is not the case that regla ol' Calvinists preach exclusively to the choir in the sense I think you mean.

Since we don't know the identity of the elect, the gospel is preached indiscriminately to all (Mormons definitely included). The elect, according to that way of thinking, are drawn ineluctably to repentance and faith by God's electing grace.

But I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know about Calvinism. 

Cheers. 

 

Indeed. I tell you, it sucks not to be a member of the club. 😉

Cheers back at ya.

What's new to discuss in the world of Calvinism or are you just dropping by to plant some seeds for the elect to gather?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
22 hours ago, cksalmon said:

The elect, according to that way of thinking, are drawn ineluctably to repentance and faith by God's electing grace.

Ineluctably?

Quote

 

not capable.

not having the necessary ability, qualification, or strength to perform some specified act or function: As an administrator, he is simply incapable.

without ordinary capability; incompetent.

 

Perhaps you could explain further.

The spirit has led me to repentance and faith in God, that is why I am a Latter-Day Saint.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Vance said:

Ineluctably?

Perhaps you could explain further.

You're quoting a definition of "incapable" rather than "ineluctable." I confess I don't understand the point, Vance. 

 

Quote

The spirit has led me to repentance and faith in God, that is why I am a Latter-Day Saint.

Arguably, you are deceived, though I don't expect you to entertain that possibility. 

Cheers. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, cksalmon said:

You're quoting a definition of "incapable" rather than "ineluctable." I confess I don't understand the point, Vance. 

 

Arguably, you are deceived, though I don't expect you to entertain that possibility. 

Cheers. 

You too could arguably be deceived. How does this work?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You too could arguably be deceived. How does this work?

I've never had a Mormon-themed conversion experience and I've always been skeptical of numerous fundamental tenets of the LDS faith. I've never been a Mormon seeker. So, keep that in mind when I say that, for me, The Evidence™ weighs more heavily against Mormonism than it does for it.

If I'm deceived about Christianity in particular or about theism in general, I'm of the (not unstudied) opinion that Mormons would thereby be doubly deceived (or triply deceived, depending on how we're counting). 

So, at least I only got tricked once (or twice). Neener. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, cksalmon said:

Of course, like you, I don't believe that I am so deceived. 

Indeed. None of us would like to think that we are deceived. What is your equivalent to the LDS "testimony of the Spirit?"

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. None of us would like to think that we are deceived. What is your equivalent to the LDS "testimony of the Spirit?"

Funny you ask. I tried to post a new topic last night that discusses that topic as it relates to the authenticity of scripture, but I kept getting a 403: Forbidden error. Maybe my posting privileges have been revoked...

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, cksalmon said:

Funny you ask. I tried to post a new topic last night that discusses that topic as it relates to the authenticity of scripture, but I kept getting a 403: Forbidden error. Maybe my posting privileges have been revoked...

Did you use a link with a brand name in it or a brand name on its own or use "sex" or a sexual word multiple times (Bluedream is a marriage therapist and has to work around that in her posts a lot  :) )?  You are not marked limited, so it is probably one of those things the autocensor is weirdly obsessed with.  There may be other ones that happen that I can't remember at the moment (plateful of IHOP pancakes putting me to sleep...wonder if IHOP will go through).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, cksalmon said:

Funny you ask. I tried to post a new topic last night that discusses that topic as it relates to the authenticity of scripture, but I kept getting a 403: Forbidden error. Maybe my posting privileges have been revoked...

Or maybe that topic is not to be discussed. 

Link to comment
On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 12:30 AM, cksalmon said:

...imcompossible…

I love the synthesis: incompatible and impossible!  Lovely word! Made me chuckle.  I hope it was intentional, and not a typo!

Link to comment
On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 12:40 AM, Vance said:

Ineluctably?

 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 1:00 AM, cksalmon said:

You're quoting a definition of "incapable" rather than "ineluctable." I confess I don't understand the point, Vance.  

May I gently intervene:

ineluctable: "incapable of being evaded; inescapable: 'an ineluctable destiny.'"

With that in mind, is God going to drag you off to Heaven kicking and screaming, whether you want to go or not?  Not that you would object, of course...

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
On 12/7/2018 at 9:04 AM, Stargazer said:

I love the synthesis: incompatible and impossible!  Lovely word! Made me chuckle.  I hope it was intentional, and not a typo!

Hey, Stargazer. Definitely intentional but definitely not original to me. You've got the gist of the portmanteau. It pops up now and again in philosophical discussions of an analytic bent. 

Link to comment
On 12/4/2018 at 7:00 PM, cksalmon said:

You're quoting a definition of "incapable" rather than "ineluctable." I confess I don't understand the point, Vance. 

Oh, yea, sorry about that.  A hidden hyper link kicked in without my notice.

But still, are you saying that God's elect (the Calvinist version) become drones, like the moth to the flame?

Like the moth, are they ignorant of the consequences of this "ineluctable" enticement?

On 12/4/2018 at 7:00 PM, cksalmon said:

Arguably, you are deceived, though I don't expect you to entertain that possibility. 

Cheers. 

I have found that one can take almost any theological position and argue for it using the Bible.  The old "philosophy mingled with scripture" if you will.

I will say, that discussing Calvinism is getting very boring for me.  I will try to stay awake.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...