1. Thank you Christopher for posting this!
    At minute 2:32 Dr. Flowers refers to a Catholic who would -quote “tear up silly little Ad hominem like this”. Does anyone know who that Catholic is? I would be interested in that type of analysis. Thanks in advance

  2. Here we see the Calvinist asserting that he denies compatibilism – when in fact his theo-philosphy logically entails it. This is actually a consistent move we often observe with Calvinists – Namely deny a LABEL while retaining the characteristics it classifies.

    Another example – It is universally recognized that “alternate possibilities”, “up to us”, and “do otherwise” are characteristics of libertarian freedom eliminated by determinism.
    Philosopher William James writes that compatibilism is all to often an attempt to -quote “smuggle in” these characteristics into a deterministic cosmology when in fact, they are eliminated by determinism. We should be able to discern various attempts to assert or deny LABELS while retaining what they characterize, as clear examples of sophism.

  3. James Whites argument that Dr. Flowers by denying God as the author of sin is thereby denying the doctrine of “ex nihilo” actually works against White rather than for him.

    The fact is White will (when convenient) assert that his Theo-philosphy doesn’t make Calvin’s god the author of evil. This is where Calvinists show their consistency to be duplicitous – affirming [X = TRUE] in one argument and then asserting [X = FALSE] in another.

Leave a Reply