I loved this video Christopher!
I was especially taken with the statement “Calvinists do not think in logic – they think in rhetoric”. Yes! The PATTERN of Calvinist thinking is not grounded in logic – it is grounded in rhetoric.
This is another way of understanding that Calvinists are not taught to ascertain truth or discern truth by the use of logic. Calvinist are taught “so-called” truths – which are presented to them in the form of rhetoric statements which they learn to recite.
The way one discerns this “so-called” truth is not truth at all – is by recognizing when these rhetorical sayings logically contradict one another – and the Calvinist mind is conditioned with the inability to recognize the contradiction. Because everything they are taught – moves into their mind by the vehicle of sacred rhetorical statements.
They are simply conditioned to embrace a library of rhetorical statements and taught to embrace those as unquestionably sacred. What an untrustworthy platform to stand on!
I think we can recognize this as following the pattern of “group-think”.
But I would love to open up another direction of inquiry regarding the Calvinists relationship to standards.
There are two scriptures I would site: 1) A false balance is an abomination to the Lord. 2) Remove not the ancient landmarks. How do these relate to Calvinists? A particular manifestation of dishonesty is a consistent evasion of commonly accepted standards.
When a money-changer wishes to cheat a customer, who needs to exchange his roman coins for the silver coin of the temple, that money changer may present a weight – lets say 10 ounces and put it on the balancing scale. Then tell the customer he must provide 10 ounces of roman coins for the exchange. But then when the customer is not looking the money-changer quickly removes the weight and replaces it with a heavier one – also labeled 10 ounces – in order to scam his customer. This is what scripture means by a false balance. But what is happening here is that in the exchange of currency, people agree on standards. In this case, standard weights. The scammer needs his customer to adhere to the standard while he deviates from it – in order to gain the advantage.
Consider that Calvinists do the same thing – but with words. As you noted in your video, Calvinists are like lawyers obsessing over words. Because words are rhetorical devices which provide loopholes which allow one to manipulate standards. Calvinists are like “semantic” money-changers who subtly shift the meanings of words while the unsuspecting recipient is unaware he is being scammed.
Logic is the Calvinists worst enemy – because it presents commonly agreed upon standards. Such as the law of non-contradiction. Calvinists are forced to evade standards just as they evade the commonly agreed upon standard definitions of words and terms in the English language. But when the Calvinist evades the standards of logic – he is exposed. This is why Calvinists avoid logic like the plague.
Like the money-changer who switches weights or puts his finger on the balancing scale – the Calvinist’s strategy in dialog is the shifting of semantic weights.
BTW: Matt Slicks argument about “The perfect God” in which he makes the claim that if God ‘quote’ LEARNS something – then it logically follows God wasn’t perfect. This argument actually back-fires on the Calvinist. Because their conception of divine omniscience is that it is the byproduct of decrees which God made in the process of the creation of the world. This conception rejects the commonly held doctrine that God’s omniscience is an “ESSENTIAL” part of his being. Calvin’s doctrine in which omniscience is the byproduct of decrees has divine omniscience “logically” posterior to the decrees – which means “logically” prior to the decrees God does not have omniscience. In other words Calvin’s god **GAINS** full comprehensive omniscience as a byproduct of his decrees. The Calvinist can argue that GAINING does not equal LEARNING but on their own argument – they resolve the same thing. So Matt’s argument about LEARNING actually back-fires on his own doctrine.
The Calvinist position is that all God’s attributes are identical with God. God cannot change, and is eternally simple. Therefore God’s decrees do not preceed How knowledge, but are one and the same.
Bavnick:
He is self-existent and cannot depend in his consciousness and knowledge on, or be determined by, anything outside of himself. The utter independence of his knowledge is a corollary of his aseity. His knowledge of all things is not based on things after they came into existence, for then they would have emerged, as in Schopenhauer and von Hartmann, from the unconscious. [69] Rather, he knows all things in and of and by himself. For that reason his knowledge is undivided, simple, unchangeable, eternal. He knows all things instantaneously, simultaneously, from eternity; all things are eternally present to his mind’s eye. [70]
God is Open 
I loved this video Christopher!
I was especially taken with the statement “Calvinists do not think in logic – they think in rhetoric”. Yes! The PATTERN of Calvinist thinking is not grounded in logic – it is grounded in rhetoric.
This is another way of understanding that Calvinists are not taught to ascertain truth or discern truth by the use of logic. Calvinist are taught “so-called” truths – which are presented to them in the form of rhetoric statements which they learn to recite.
The way one discerns this “so-called” truth is not truth at all – is by recognizing when these rhetorical sayings logically contradict one another – and the Calvinist mind is conditioned with the inability to recognize the contradiction. Because everything they are taught – moves into their mind by the vehicle of sacred rhetorical statements.
They are simply conditioned to embrace a library of rhetorical statements and taught to embrace those as unquestionably sacred. What an untrustworthy platform to stand on!
I think we can recognize this as following the pattern of “group-think”.
But I would love to open up another direction of inquiry regarding the Calvinists relationship to standards.
There are two scriptures I would site: 1) A false balance is an abomination to the Lord. 2) Remove not the ancient landmarks. How do these relate to Calvinists? A particular manifestation of dishonesty is a consistent evasion of commonly accepted standards.
When a money-changer wishes to cheat a customer, who needs to exchange his roman coins for the silver coin of the temple, that money changer may present a weight – lets say 10 ounces and put it on the balancing scale. Then tell the customer he must provide 10 ounces of roman coins for the exchange. But then when the customer is not looking the money-changer quickly removes the weight and replaces it with a heavier one – also labeled 10 ounces – in order to scam his customer. This is what scripture means by a false balance. But what is happening here is that in the exchange of currency, people agree on standards. In this case, standard weights. The scammer needs his customer to adhere to the standard while he deviates from it – in order to gain the advantage.
Consider that Calvinists do the same thing – but with words. As you noted in your video, Calvinists are like lawyers obsessing over words. Because words are rhetorical devices which provide loopholes which allow one to manipulate standards. Calvinists are like “semantic” money-changers who subtly shift the meanings of words while the unsuspecting recipient is unaware he is being scammed.
Logic is the Calvinists worst enemy – because it presents commonly agreed upon standards. Such as the law of non-contradiction. Calvinists are forced to evade standards just as they evade the commonly agreed upon standard definitions of words and terms in the English language. But when the Calvinist evades the standards of logic – he is exposed. This is why Calvinists avoid logic like the plague.
Like the money-changer who switches weights or puts his finger on the balancing scale – the Calvinist’s strategy in dialog is the shifting of semantic weights.
Blessings! :-]
BTW: Matt Slicks argument about “The perfect God” in which he makes the claim that if God ‘quote’ LEARNS something – then it logically follows God wasn’t perfect. This argument actually back-fires on the Calvinist. Because their conception of divine omniscience is that it is the byproduct of decrees which God made in the process of the creation of the world. This conception rejects the commonly held doctrine that God’s omniscience is an “ESSENTIAL” part of his being. Calvin’s doctrine in which omniscience is the byproduct of decrees has divine omniscience “logically” posterior to the decrees – which means “logically” prior to the decrees God does not have omniscience. In other words Calvin’s god **GAINS** full comprehensive omniscience as a byproduct of his decrees. The Calvinist can argue that GAINING does not equal LEARNING but on their own argument – they resolve the same thing. So Matt’s argument about LEARNING actually back-fires on his own doctrine.
The Calvinist position is that all God’s attributes are identical with God. God cannot change, and is eternally simple. Therefore God’s decrees do not preceed How knowledge, but are one and the same.
Bavnick:
He is self-existent and cannot depend in his consciousness and knowledge on, or be determined by, anything outside of himself. The utter independence of his knowledge is a corollary of his aseity. His knowledge of all things is not based on things after they came into existence, for then they would have emerged, as in Schopenhauer and von Hartmann, from the unconscious. [69] Rather, he knows all things in and of and by himself. For that reason his knowledge is undivided, simple, unchangeable, eternal. He knows all things instantaneously, simultaneously, from eternity; all things are eternally present to his mind’s eye. [70]