Every once in a while, I have to make a few observations. They’re not necessarily observations that no one else has made, but they’re the kind of observations no one talks about.
Like how our Arminian brethren have discovered the word “irenic” and like to put it in as many comments as they can post, most often in the accusatory sense to make their use of the term irenic rather ironic. Thus: “The disagreement is surprisingly civil and irenic (which proves that both Peter and Paul know how to disagree with each other without resorting to childish rhetorical tactics as are so often employed by them against non-Calvinists).” (I may have edited that slightly there at the end.) And: “I hope Peter finds this post irenic, as I have tried to be. If he decides to respond I hope he can refrain from the normal, sinful Triablogue behavior of calling names, insulting intelligence, and using abbreviated bad words.”
I suppose I could point out the unnecessary comma after the word “normal” in the last quote above, but woe to me if I would be accused of insulting someone’s lack of intelligence! After all, the most important thing in my life is to look good in front of irenic Arminians. Because really, who wouldn’t want their behavior as the standard of righteousness? (Yes, that sentence has an intentionally ambiguous “their” in there, because that’s how I roll.)
Be that as it may, I’m sick of the term irenic. So I offer an exchange. From now on, whenever an Arminian talks about how irenic Arminians are, I’m going to talk about how anfractuous their arguments are. Further, because I care and wish to show the utmost respect for my Arminians, I will no longer engage them as I have up to this point, but will instead view them as intellectual equals, viz.:
Birch’s billingsgate vituperation was manifest via the attendant extract: “[I]t should not at all be assumed that any of the five Calvinists who contribute to blogging on Triablogue are born again Christians…” With no pretense proffered in a homogeneous riposte, one must admit it disquieting that this is beheld as a nonpareil rejoinder, though we must receive that the quip is notably breviloquent. Notwithstanding such ephemerality, the postulation merely traduces Triabloggers while proffering no theological remuneration. Consequently, Birch’s ejaculation is sub judice inasmuch as Birch himself indites his own injunction. Subsequently, no antiphon is obligatory for it is oft affirmed that the one who would impute malignance in others endows veniality himself.
Thankfully, there is no need for further dialogue with such irenic fellows.
