Hello and welcome to Sociology 101. Today we're going to talk about straw manning.

Yes, the accusation of misrepresentation. It's very prevalent in this particular discussion from

both perspectives. Both sides don't feel like the other side is representing them properly.

I've written an article on this very issue and I have pretty much come to the conclusion that it's

impossible to represent

accurately the opposition to the satisfaction of every opponent. Why? Because not every

opponent is cut from the same cloth. There's a lot of different kinds of Calvinists, just like there's a lot of

different kinds of non-Calvinist. And therefore, you're not always representing their form of Calvinism or their form of traditionalism or their form of

Armenianism or whatever isom they may hold to, and therefore people feel like they're not

fully being represented properly. And totally get that. I understand that concern,

and therefore we have to really do due diligence

as brothers to try to understand each other individually in the correct way and not overly,

you know, broad brush people in a particular perspective or holding to a particular view.

And while I understand that Calvinism has different heights, sub's sublabsarian, infelabcerian,

superlapsarian, high Calvinist, low Calvinist, mid-Calvinist, author Pink kind of Calvinist that deny that

God loves everybody, John MacArthur kind of Calvinist that says he does love everybody, even though

it's a different kind of love.

And some that deny the concept of the extent of the atonement being limited.

Some say it's more of a four-point kind of Calvinism that the atonement is not at all

limited and believe like we would do.

You can go back and forth on all the different various views and understandings of how

you unpack these different perspectives.

...