Are you a hyper Calvinist ?

[praise_yeshua]

Fallacy of the Beard: Vague Doesn't Necessarily Mean Invalid [#FallacyFridays]

Welcome to #FallacyFridays, the day for learning logical fallacies! Though these posts are posted every Friday, today is as good any to learn about the flaws in our logic that

cerebralistic.com

The fallacy of the beard occurs when someone dismisses a claim by saying that there is no difference between itself and its opposite since a blurry line exists between them.

One may throw doubt on the reality of a beard by a process beginning by asking whether a man with one hair on his chin has a beard. The answer is clearly ‘No.’ Then one may ask whether with two hairs on his chin a man has a beard. Again the answer must be ‘No.’ So again with ‘three, four,’ etc. At no point can our opponent say ‘Yes,’ for if he has answered ‘No’ for, let us say, 29 hairs and ‘Yes’ for thirty, it is easy to pour scorn on the suggestion that the difference between twenty-nine and thirty hairs is the difference between not having and having a beard. Yet by this process of adding one hair at a time, we can reach a number of hairs which would undoubtedly make up a beard. The trouble lies in the fact that the difference between a beard and no beard is like the difference between white and grey in the fact that one can pass by continuous steps from one to the other.

Also known as "a continuum fallacy."

All I need answer is—it's not one.

And Scripture gives us the boundaries and several unpardonable sins, like refusing to forgive someone.

Wouldn't the same apply for saying all Calvinists are logically hyper?

Not saying I believe in the beard fallacy. Just saying it must equally be applied.

 

[Diserner]

Jesus who is the Authority on forgiving sin declared there was only a single sin that was unforgivable, not many.

That's not true.

You are falsely handling the text you quoted, Jesus said "all blasphemies" was talking about a particular kind of sin.


Jesus, "the authority," said this:

But if you do not forgive men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(Matt. 6:15 NKJ)

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well, they are extremely rare, less than 1%.

It is not the logical extrapolation of the position, as it is the case with divine determinism.

False equivalence fallacy.

I have to say I believe it is more than 1 percent. Maybe 1 percent sinless perfection. That might be what you meant.

 

[Diserner]

Wouldn't the same apply for saying all Calvinists are logically hyper?

Not saying I believe in the beard fallacy. Just saying it must equally be applied.

You don't just take fallacy names and slap them wherever you want like it's a sticker.

Explain to me how that applies to Hyper Calvinism.

 

[civic]

That's not true.

You are falsely handling the text you quoted, Jesus said "all blasphemies" was talking about a particular kind of sin.


Jesus, "the authority," said this:

But if you do not forgive men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(Matt. 6:15 NKJ)

so they were forgivable with a condition unlike the unpardonable sin with no exceptions/conditions.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Diserner]

I have to say I believe it is more than 1 percent. Maybe 1 percent sinless perfection. That might be what you meant.

That EVERY sin loses salvation?

I've met about 6 sinless perfectionists.

IN ALL MY LIFE, I've never even met ONE SINGLE PERSON who thought ONE sin loses salvation.

So maybe it's your exposure.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's not true.

You are falsely handling the text you quoted, Jesus said "all blasphemies" was talking about a particular kind of sin.


Jesus, "the authority," said this:

But if you do not forgive men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(Matt. 6:15 NKJ)

If your forgive your brother then you can be forgiven. There is no remedy for the other.

 

[praise_yeshua]

so they were forgivable with a condition unlike the unpardonable sin with no exceptions/conditions.

hope this helps !!!

We said it at the same time

 

[civic]

That EVERY sin loses salvation?

I've met about 6 sinless perfectionists.

IN ALL MY LIFE, I've never even met ONE SINGLE PERSON who thought ONE sin loses salvation.

So maybe it's your exposure.

The unforgivable sin ( blasphemy of the Holy Spirit ) excludes one from being saved.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

If your forgive your brother then you can be forgiven. There is no remedy for the other.

Exactly he was equivocating.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That EVERY sin loses salvation?

I've met about 6 sinless perfectionists.

IN ALL MY LIFE, I've never even met ONE SINGLE PERSON who thought ONE sin loses salvation.

So maybe it's your exposure.

My exposure is larger than your exposure.....

Just kidding. I have meet plenty. Especially among some Baptist.

 

[Diserner]

so they were forgivable with a condition unlike the unpardonable sin with no exceptions/conditions.

hope this helps !!!

All unpardonable sins have a condition, man.

I'm getting frustrated with the lack of logic here.

 

[Diserner]

Please step back and try to really think about the logic of what you all are posting.

Like, take a moment, and really think it out for a bit before just posting random stuff that pops into the head.

 

[civic]

All unpardonable sins have a condition, man.

I'm getting frustrated with the lack of logic here.

There is no ALL with unpardonable there is only one which is blasphemy of the H.S. according to Jesus.

 

[civic]

Please step back and try to really think about the logic of what you all are posting.

Like, take a moment, and really think it out for a bit before just posting random stuff that pops into the head.

Maybe you can take a step back and pray about it instead of arguing against what Jesus said and taught. That seems to be your advise you give to me on many occasions. What pops into my head most of the time is Scripture that I have memorized.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Please step back and try to really think about the logic of what you all are posting.

Like, take a moment, and really think it out for a bit before just posting random stuff that pops into the head.

So you're actually claiming I don't "think"before I respond?

 

[Diserner]

So you're actually claiming I don't "think"before I respond?

Anyone can post without thinking as much as they should, are you just "above" that somehow?!

So maybe not as much as you "think" you "think."


Look, if you post illogical things, what am I suppose to think?

You tell me.

I can't know what's going on in your head, or why your logic is bad.

If a person posts confused logic, then it's pointless to interact.


And you're not headed in the right direction here....

 

[praise_yeshua]

Anyone can post without thinking as much as they should, are you just "above" that somehow?!

So maybe not as much as you "think" you "think."


Look, if you post illogical things, what am I suppose to think?

You tell me.

I can't know what's going on in your head, or why your logic is bad.

If a person posts confused logic, then it's pointless to interact.


And you're not headed in the right direction here....

I know enough to recognize when someone is "deflecting" from the conversation.

Can we agree you're not the arbitrary of "logical" responses? You certainly can't know I wrote was the "first thing" that popped into my head.

As far as debate is concerned, anyone can justify what they said with such claims as you made. I mean seriously... "fallacy of the beard"? It is rather obvious that perspective is required/used in assessing equal applications of various claims.

I know you realize I'm not Arminian or Calvinist. (Though I share characteristics with both) As such, I don't feel a requirement to promote one over the other. I see "hyper" views in both systems. There is no doubt that Piper is a hyper-Calvinist along with a few other adjectives I'll not share. I don't consider him a moral man at all. He is utterly contemptible in the way he attacked Greg Boyd.

Like "Calvin" I believe Piper would actually have someone that disagreed with him "arrested".... though he might "appeal to mercy" for them after they receiving what he desired for them to begin with..... I can't say that I don't believe that many other well known Calvinists would do the same. It is wonderful thing that they don't have any power.

However, I have seen the same in Arminianists.

To me, they are both just man made Systematic Theologies that carry some truth in them. I'm just recognizing that fact. There are "hyper" views on each side. Calvinism might have the "edge" in contempt toward their own brothers in Christ.

 

[atpollard]

Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

As Phil says, “All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility.

Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Definition | Tim Challies
The term hyper-Calvinist is often used as a pejorative. Almost any Calvinist who adheres to the doctrines of grace is likely to be considered a hyper-Calvinist by at least someone. Frankly speaking, a hyper-Calvinist can be any Calvinist to a person who doesn't understand Calvinism. So today...
www.challies.com

I disagree with the 5-fold definition presented.
I suspect I am not alone and many Seminaries and Theology textbooks would define it differently.

Nothing further can hope to be gained from such a "false start", so carry on.
I have said my piece, now I'll hold my peace.

 

[civic]

I disagree with the 5-fold definition presented.
I suspect I am not alone and many Seminaries and Theology textbooks would define it differently.

Nothing further can hope to be gained from such a "false start", so carry on.
I have said my piece, now I'll hold my peace.

I'll get some more references from Calvinists like I did in the OP as support.

But you are right even within Calvinism there is disagreement as to what Calvinism is and what Hyper is.