Anyone like to debate Calvinism by e-mail?

Question

I disagree with all 5 points of Tulip... Anyone like to debate?

Answer 1

I have nothing to debate with you. I also disagree with the 5 points of Calvinism.

Answer 2

No, because Calvinism at its base is sixteenth century thought and western Christian thought taken to its logical extreme. However, had the Reformation not occured, Calvin's thought would have been explored and eventually discarded. There are problems with Calvin that are not apparent on the surface and so a Calvinist is unlikely to notice since they are on the inside of the belief system.

Just as Catholicism and Orthodoxy are trapped in the first and early second century of Christianity, Calvinism is trapped in the sixteenth and early seventeenth. Religions are tied to their founder's time in ways that only make sense if you will accept that period of time as a model.

If you reject the sixteenth century as informative or mostly do so, there isn't much left to debate. This is the challenge of the Reformation really. It is carrying forward sixteenth century thinking that mostly lacks antecedents in earlier Christian thought about the first three to six decades of of Christianity. It would be like taking 21st century thinking on those first few decades and then trying to use it in the 26th century.

The Reformation, not in its beginning, but in its outcome, is a rejection of 16 centuries of Christian thought, with a few exceptions such as St. Augustine. In doing so, it ignores Eastern Christianity in its entirety and takes the most extreme Latin positions, generally. It is Latin Christianity taken to its logical extreme.

There is nothing to debate, the ideas if raised today in a philosophy department for the first time, would result in sending the student home with lots of reading about the subtle problems and expanding the student's way of thinking.

As an example, consider predestination. Philosophically, paradox is impossible in nature. Even "paradoxes" found in quantum physics are not paradoxes but rather unexpected outcomes that we emotionally see as paradoxes. Paradox is a function of language alone and not of fact. Predestination is an issue only on how one expresses the question in the first place.

A similar and simpler example is Zeno's tortoise and hare (at least I think it was a tortoise and hare). If you start the tortoise at say 50 yards and the hare at 0 yards on a 100 yard track (and they cannot run sideways), the hare must run to the fifty yard point before it can overcome the tortoise. But the tortoise would have moved ahead and so the hare must now move to where the tortoise is now. This continues for infinity and the hare never can catch the tortoise. It is also similar to the idea that for an arrow to hit a target, it must first go half the distance. Then from there is must go half the distance again and again from there another half. In an infinite series, it should never arrive.

These "paradoxes" are purely a function of language and not of fact or mathematics. If you phrase the question differently the "paradox" disappears. Much of Calvin's thought disappears when looked in the light of early Fathers such as Ephrem the Syrian or Ignatius of Antioch or when rephrased so the apparent problem is gone.

Calvinism does not exist except in the mind and only in the mind of one unwilling to consider the consequences of Calvin.

Answer 3

What are all 5 points of Tulip, then I will let you know if I will debate.

Answer 4

Are you Scott Hahn?

Peace,

MoP