Skip to main content

The Great Fallacy Showdown: Flowers vs White

How to Win Friends and Influence People with Fallacies: A Masterclass by Flowers and White


Image graciously lent to us by Facebook page: 
@Free Will Ferret


In a highly anticipated debate, two prominent theologians clashed over the interpretation of John 6:44, a biblical verse that deals with God’s sovereignty and election. Leighton Flowers, a non-Calvinist, and James White, a Calvinist, each tried to prove their point of view using various logical fallacies and rhetorical devices. The result was a draw, with each side claiming absolute victory and accusing the other of being irrational and dishonest.

The debate, which was moderated by a confused and frustrated pastor, lasted for two hours and consisted of opening statements, cross-examinations, rebuttals, and closing remarks. The audience, which was divided into two camps, cheered and booed accordingly, often interrupting the speakers with shouts of “Amen!” or “Heresy!”

Flowers, who argued that God draws all people to himself and gives them the free will to accept or reject his grace, employed several fallacies and devices, such as:

  • Cherry picking: He selectively quoted from various biblical passages and historical sources that supported his view, while ignoring or dismissing those that contradicted it.
  • Straw man: He misrepresented White’s position as fatalistic and deterministic, implying that he believed that God created some people for hell and that human choices and actions were meaningless.
  • Ad populum: He appealed to the popular opinion and sentiment of the majority of Christians, who he claimed agreed with his interpretation of John 6:44 and rejected Calvinism as a false doctrine.
  • Red herring: He changed the topic several times to avoid addressing White’s arguments, bringing up irrelevant issues such as the origin of Calvinism, the problem of evil, and the nature of love.

White, who argued that God unconditionally elects some individuals for salvation and others for reprobation before they are born, and that he irresistibly draws them to himself, also used various fallacies and devices, such as:

  • Generalization: He made sweeping statements and conclusions based on insufficient or questionable evidence, such as claiming that all non-Calvinists were inconsistent, illogical, and unbiblical.
  • Ad hominem: He attacked Flowers personally, rather than his arguments, accusing him of being ignorant, arrogant, and deceptive, and questioning his credentials and motives.
  • Rhetorical device: He used rhetorical questions, analogies, and metaphors to illustrate and emphasize his points, often using emotional language and imagery to appeal to the audience’s feelings and imagination.
  • Begging the question: He assumed the truth of his own position without providing adequate support or justification, often citing his own books and articles as authoritative sources.

The debate ended with no clear winner, as both sides failed to address the main issue and resorted to fallacious and rhetorical tactics. Each side declared themselves the victor and the defender of the truth, while denouncing the other as the loser and the enemy of the gospel. The moderator thanked them for their participation and announced that the next debate would be on the topic of predestination and free will, hoping that it would be more productive and civil. The audience left the venue, either satisfied or disappointed, depending on their prior beliefs and preferences.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Christian Pacifists Reinterpret Romans 13 After Tragic Animal Incidents

Fred and Peanut Become Latest Mascots for Justice  In a surprising twist, Christian pacifists have taken a page from the revolutionary Presbyterians' book by reinterpreting Romans 13, following the tragic demise of Fred the squirrel and Peanut the raccoon at the hands of government officials. These furry martyrs have sparked a theological debate, as pacifists now argue that Romans 13 supports civil disobedience against unjust state actions. Fred and Peanut, beloved local mascots, were allegedly "neutralized" for causing minor disruptions in a public park. Their untimely deaths have become a rallying cry for pacifists, who argue that the state's actions were neither just nor necessary. In response, pacifists assert that Romans 13, traditionally seen as a call to obey governing authorities, actually mandates resistance when the state acts contrary to God's will. They emphasize Paul's call to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21) as a directive to ch...
Post a Comment
Read more

Cracker Barrel Celebrates Pride with Drag Brunch and Bud Light

Cracker Barrel's Business Booms Despite Conservative Boycotts Thanks to Drag Queen Brunch and Bud Light Image source: Cracker Barrel's Official Facebook Page Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, the popular Southern-themed restaurant chain, has seen a surge in business despite facing boycotts from conservative groups for its support of Pride Month. The reason? A new menu item that has attracted customers from all walks of life: the drag queen brunch. The drag queen brunch, which is offered every Sunday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., features a variety of dishes such as rainbow pancakes, glitter grits, and fabulous french toast. But the main attraction is the live entertainment provided by some of the most talented drag queens in the country, who perform songs, dances, and comedy routines while interacting with the guests. "We wanted to do something fun and different to celebrate Pride Month and show our support for the LGBTQ+ community," said Cracker Barrel CEO Sandra Cochran. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Men Named "David" More Likely to Suffer Identity Crisis

Matt Chandler, the lead pastor of Southern Village Church in Flower Mound, Texas, has shot to the evangelical spotlight in after preaching a sermon in which he proclaims that "You're not David!" to an unsuspecting captive audience. In doing so, however, he inadvertently caused a mass identity crisis among an unlikely, oddly-specific demographic: people who actually are named "David." One person, who commented on the condition of anonymity, said: "I've been called David my whole life. Now that I've been told I'm not David, I don't even know who I am anymore. I've started going by my middle name, but nobody's ever called me "Matthew" before and it's really taking some getting used to. My children look at me like I'm a stranger. My wife says she feels like she's sleeping with another man. I feel like a stranger in my own skin. I'm having an identity crisis. What do I do? We reached out to a local counselor for ...
Post a Comment
Read more