Disturbing trend on BB

The trend on BB is that anyone who posts anything that differs from 5 point Calvinism is is disparaged, a servant of Satan, needs more study, is not qualified to hold a view of scripture, and of course the old guilt by association argument, is presenting "open theism."

Yes a very disturbing trend attacking people, rather than discussing actual bible study.

 

What about the clear and disturbing trend of Calvinists using derogatory definitions towards those who disagree such as "no-name theology," or "self-salvationist"? Or lumping all non-cals together by calling them "Armenians" when many clearly are not. Or suggesting that one is denying the clear teaching of the Bible or the clearly derogatory comment, "You just don't get it," as if many non-cals are spiritually and intellectually lacking? What about suggesting that non-cals are Universalists? And, the salvation of non-Cals have clearly been called into question numerous times.

 

JD....Your observation that more posts trend towards OT is certainly true......what do you think it is about Calvinism that makes them rabidly anti-Calvinist?

 

I don't get into the Calvinist talk or debate because I'm not of the Calvinist belief, I don't look at them as my enemy or God's enemy. But I agree with you 100% on the Open Theism theology, if my God does not know what is going on in my head and where I'm headed He would be a poor god.

 

The tone of the OP and the outlandish accusation is exactly why I've stopped posting around here.

You all need to get a new topic.

 

Not JD but I think I can answer that one. First off I don't claim to be either Calvinist or Arminean....With that said let me list a few things:

1. Fear of being wrong
2. Fear of letting go of the flesh
3. Fear of not being in control of their outcome.
4. Fear of letting go of nature
Now the big one
5. Not trusting God to do the righteous thing.

 

I claim neither title. I'm somewhere in between. I despise the ugliness from both sides of the aisle.

 

The question was what is it about Calvinism that would seem to be making the posters rabidly anti-Calvinist. That may be a good answer to another question, but it doesnt address that one.:love2:

 

In your opinion is foreknowledge the same as predestine? Remember that to predestine is, according to dictionary.com, to; foreordain; predetermine

 

The question was what is it about Calvinism that would seem to be making the posters rabidly anti-Calvinist. That may be a good answer to another question, but it doesnt address that one.

Plus for someone who claims no title his answers clearly reflect a Calvinist viewpoint.

 

J.D.

Honest question. I don't know how much you have been following some of the threads, but do you think the "extreme" leaning is also going the other direction by some...I mean the tendency for some Calvinists here to lean toward hard determinism?

Could it be said men like Calvin and Spurgeon would roll over in their graves to hear some of the statements from "Calvinists" here that openly admit God is the author/originator/determiner of evil?

 

They will indeed brother.....who's up to bat next....Ahhh the RC's!:tonofbricks:

 

I've noticed the same thing. As the debate points for Calvinism grow stronger and those not holding the doctrine push back harder, the only place left to go is to open theism, for at the end of the day, the only way to fully press the LFW that so many here espouse is to remove from God His divine sovereignty and ability to foreknow exhaustively.

I also see the threads mostly started by one or two individuals, then the normal crowd jumps in and hangs on...

 

Van and I have probably been to two most ardent posters on this topic and I can't recall of a single time either of us has denied God's ability to foreknow all future events.

Van, if I'm not mistaken, has made the point that God may choose not to know some things (as Jesus didn't know the times of his coming), but I've never seen anyone argue that God lacked the ability. Can you point that out since you are the one making the accusation?

It is also clear to me that many here have tended toward exhaustive or hard determinism on the Calvinistic side. Do you think it is for the same reason you have made this accusation about us? Have the weakness of their position just been pressed so much that is the only place left to go?

 

Fear would drive a person to use guilt by association arguments, rather than a specific discussion of the topic.

Fear of being wrong would cause a person to speak in generalities, rather than specifics, to copy and paste rather than post personal bible study efforts.

And fear would cause a person to bury their head in the sand, rather than study what the Bible actually says concerning doctrine.

 

I am just as adamant against deterministic hyper-Calvinism as I am against semi- or full Pelagianism. Both are heretical positions, and oddly, both require a full dose of human involvement apart from God's sovereignty as manifested biblically, which includes aspects of limited free will. Hyper Calvinism leaves humans to make a determination of whom it is that they preach to, teach, reach, allow, etc., while semi- and full Pelagianism leaves humans to do all the heavy lifting to arrive at God. Both are perversions of the Scriptures that say VERY plainly that "no man comes to God unless God draws him," and "God is the author and finisher of our faith."

I've also noted that Van is against your position. How is that you two get along well only when you are both attacking those with a Reformed doctrine?

 

Why quote something from scripture such as "God is the author and finisher of our faith" without saying I use this verse to support the view that God's irresistible grace causes individuals to trust in the Lord. This of course is not what the verse means. Fear would cause someone to quote a verse or part of a verse and not put it in there own words, such as "this is what I think this means."