Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Fare Thee Well Manuel Culwell

Readers of this blog are no doubt aware by now that I have decided to ban Manuel Culwell from posting to my blog. My reasons for this are many and I cannot think of a single reason why I shouldn't have. Manuel's first post here was exceedingly bad and each successive one had steadily gotten worse. It appeared that this spiral of spam would not stop unless I stopped it. In fact, Manuel himself stated that he would not leave unless I made him. That statement was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back since I had already come to suspect that Manuel was the type to keep going after somebody with an almost stalker-like fervor. This suspicion first came about when Manuel stated that Eddie Dalcour would not have anything else to do with him. Here is what Manuel said regarding Dalcour:

I tried very hard to get him to have a discussion but he kept insisting I made no attempt at exegesis so that he would not debate me,...

Now, this sounds to me like Eddie Dalcour was having the same problem with Manuel that I've been having. That is, Manuel doesn't do exegesis. Rather, he prooftexts, makes a statement that doesn't contradict the opposing viewpoint, and concludes that the opposing view is wrong. This flawed methodology is what Manuel consistently employs. For instance:

Every man that hears and learns of the father (Through the preaching of the word Romans 10:14-15) that is the drawing and the way mankind comes to God. The Calvinist view is completely unwarranted. I don’t care if you go back even further it still does not prove your point.

This statement comes on the heels of Manuel quoting John 6:35-45. Notice that the statement only alludes to v.44 and 45 only. This is prooftexting. Next, Manuel states every man who hears and learns from the Father is drawn to the Son by the preaching of the word. This is what I meant by Manuel making statements that don't conflict with the opposing viewpoint. That is, Reformed theology teaches that those who come to Christ were drawn to Him by the Father. This drawing is ordinarily done by way of the preached word. So where is the contradiction between what Calvinists believe and what Manuel has stated? There is none. Lastly, Manuel leaps to the conclusion that the Calvinist view is unwarranted. But in point of fact, it is Manuel's own conclusion that is not warranted. One cannot draw conclusions based on absentee argumentation. I believe that this faulty methodology is what Eddie Dalcour was referring to and that this is why he chose not to go any further with Manuel.

Now, after reading what Manuel had to say about Eddie Dalcour not having anything else to do with him I wondered if there were others who have had similiar experiences in dealing with Manuel. So I googled the name "Manuel Culwell" and a thread from none other than Alan Kurschner's Calvinist Gadfly popped up. This particuliar thread had devolved into a discussion on man's will and had a virtual who's who of Reformed bloggers commenting on it. So what insights did Manuel bring to the insuing discussion? See for yourself...

What’s sickening is your calvinst God ! (John Calvin Himself ) Man is a mindless robot and your doctrine of orginal sin (CATHOLIC ACTUALY BEFORE CALVIN) BUT HEY, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REFORMED… I THINK YOU FORGOT TO REFORM ON THAT ONE, INSTEAD YOU CONFORMED WITH YOUR THREE HEADED TRINTY AND YOUR ORIGINAL SIN DOCTRINE, BOTH FAIL SCRIPTURE ESPECIALLY YOUR THREE PERSONS! ALL FIVE OF THE FALSE TULIP DOCTRINES FALL….

Readers of this blog who have kept up with my exchange with Manuel will immediatly recognize that this is the same kind of near incoherent tripe that he opened with here. Same screed, different day. And it only took about six more of these before Kurschner gave Manuel the boot. And in so doing, Kurschner was on target when he said:

You cannot be reasoned with. And the “your doctrine is trash!” comment is the last straw. Cease commenting here.

Manuel cannot be reasoned with. He is, himself, unreasonable. Kurschner knew it, ditto with Dalcour. If anyone thinks this assessment is too harsh, I simply invite them to read thru the entirety of what Manuel has written here (and at the Gadfly) and simply ask themselves how they would deal with him. As for myself, I will give one last response to what Manuel has written in the comments section of my previous entry concerning him. After that, I'll wash my hands of him.

3 comments:

Turretinfan said...

I hadn't realized that MC was an anti-trinitatian. Debating Calvinism with an anti-trinitarian would be like debating Calvinism with a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness.

You could do it, but they need to learn the basic, fundamental doctrines of Christianity, before they get into the details of soteriology.

At least that's my view.

-Turretinfan

Bob said...

It's interesting because James White on his blog has put up a video of him debating a Mormon in Salt Lake City where he was basically pressing the Reformed view of election on the LDS theologian. The man couldn't answer the questions and towards the end of the cross examination all he could say was "I don't know" because he was so mixed up in his soteriology.

So I don't know it is interesting because when I have talked with the JW's or LDS I haven't really seen Reformed soteriology as a point to press, but I am beginning to think otherwise. Simply because it is the truth the Bible teaches about man's salvation. Mormons and JW's all use synergistic (at best) arguments right in the stream of Pelagian thought, so I am starting to think that it does make good sense to press these issues.

Turretin brings up a good thing to think about, and I honestly have thought similarly. But just as I have interacted with these cultic groups more I realize that they all generally embrace a form of Pelagianism for their soteriology.

J. Matthew Cleary said...

tf,

Yeah, and did you notice how Manuel kept trying to divert the exchange to trinitarianism? Perhaps Manuel forgot that this is 'Conversations in Calvinism' rather than "Treatises in Trinitarianism'!