Is anyone else growing tired of the Calvinism/Arminianism discussions?

I never get tired of discussions of Calvinistic or Arminian topics.

However, only a fraction of what starts here either starts or ends as a discussion. It's someone spoiling for a fight. That, I'm not tired of....I'm sick of.

 

Agreed, it feels at times that both sides recite our "proof texts" and feel like job well done, we put the other side fleeing...

need to be able to discuss these things as earnestly trying to see where each side is coming from, and remember, that IF in Christ, can agree to disagree, that is not sinning, BUT breaking the unity among the bethren, or taking "pot shots" THAT would be sinning!

I have enjoyed reading the postings from both positions, and have things posted that both strenghtened and also made me think about my position!

 

I am listening and now I am replying. Is someone able to disagree without being accused of not listening or understanding on this forum?

Anyone can introduce any topic they want. How much more diversity do you want? The thread stays active even if it may move down the page or even onto the next page but can always be bumped right back to the top if someone replies and is interested in discussing the given topic. So, I'm really not sure what the problem is, honestly.

If you don't want to discuss Cal/Arm, don't. If you want to discuss another subject, start a thread. If you don't want it derailed then make that request and report it if someone violates it. These are all provisions made just for these very reasons.

 

I'd personally be fine with a separate C/A forum, but they had that when I first joined and if I remember correctly the regular theology forum was pretty dead. I may be wrong, but I think that is why they combined them. At least that is the way it seemed to me. Someone who was in leadership back then may know more as to why they made that call.

Forums that aren't posted on regularly go dry pretty quick and people will just stop dropping in. Let's face it...the controversy of the C/A debate keeps things moving and keeps people checking in. It's the same reason more people will show up to a business meeting if they know there is going to be fight. Debate makes a "Debate Forum" more interesting. This, in return, makes more visit who are also likely to contribute to "less controversial" topics that are introduced along the way. So, really, I think the C/A discussions helps the other threads, whether you realize it or not.

 

I am not tired of all the good things I have gleaned from my Brothers and Sisters on here. I need all the knowledge I can use, and my posts point that out quite easily.

What I am tired of, is all the finger pointing, name calling, salvation questioning(of one's soul I mean), that gets carried out on this board. I know we may differ on a bunch of things, but we are not on opposing sides, for Pete's sake!! If we have been born again, we are on the same side. So the name calling and other extracurricullar(sp?) activities need to go.

 

Yes, I am tired of it.

 

Likewise...

I've have more success removing dandelions from my 72-acre grounds than I do in raising the level of ignorance of some on this board. Note that "ignorance" is not a theological position. I can deal with people who hold a position that disagrees with my own -- I expect that -- what I can no longer tolerate, and what is driving me away from participation on this board are the ones who are deliberately misled and intentionally ignorant and refuse to even learn about the subject they so vociferously debate time and time again.

So, I've essentially said "bye" to this site.

 

Depending on your location, I could help remove certain deer and turkey from your 72-acre grounds if you like. :tongue3:

 

Is that an honest assessment of men like Allan (and many others) who are clearly very well read and knowledgable of the subject at hand?

I don't think so. While there may be some who are not as educated on all parts of the discussion and others who come at it from another perspective, I don't believe that is an accurate or fair critique. Especially considering all the various forms and nuances of the reformed dogma espoused on this board alone.

I'll be having a discussion with a hard determinist like Luke and then jump into another discussion with someone more "middle ground" like you or Archangel where the approach is completely different. Surely you realize such distinctions can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. I don't feel there is any need to insult the entire group of non-Calvinistic posters with such a sweeping generalization and mischaracterization. By those standards the same could be said of the Calvinistic posters here.

 

I get tired of the debate at times, it is especially frustrating when you think you have provided solid scriptural proof for your position and it is simply ignored by the opposing view.

At the same time, I have learned a lot from debating this subject. There have been very many interesting discussions about single verses. For example, we had quite a debate over 2 Thess 2:13.

When I get tired of this debate, which I sometimes do, I simply do not respond.

 

And with that comment we bid farewell to another comrad in arms .....alas, poor Glfrederick, I knew him well!

Referencing your message above Scan, Luke is Banned (is that an eternal ban?) & Glfred vanquished to some dandelion field in Kentucky. Both regulars that camped with the Calvinists. Perhaps the future is made for lite conversation?!? Hmmmmm :smilewinkgrin:

 

I think the main thrust of the displeasure is not that we should get rid or stop having C/A threads.. but that these don't have to be either the main topic, or become the side topic of most every thread created.

I enjoy good debates (my wife wants to strangle me when I get started in them ) but it is 1. the tone they take on; and 2. the predominance of then both as threads themselves and regardless of the threads topic.

The break being spoke of is not removal, but least a reduction in the predominance of the subject. Thus many like me, seldom become involved on the board anymore. And while it is easy to say "then don't participate", isn't the other main objectives of the board to encourage and strengthen one another as well as build brotherly (or sisterly) fellowship/unity in some sense??

Like scripture states - there is a season for everything, and I think what many of the people of the board are saying is that they would like the board to realize this and TRY to find other things to discuss, and if a C/A view comes in, allow it to be acknowledged, without getting into a C/A debate 'unnecessarily' (sometimes it might be) but sticking with the OP and fleshing out both views.


Well that is my drivel for the night, you all have fun.

 

I did not ban Luke or Webdog as only Admins have that authority, and from my understanding it is temporary. According to the rules, numerous infractions will lead to a temporary (10 day) suspension at which time they can request to be reinstated by an Admin.

Glfred was not banned to my knowledge, but hopefully he will be able to distinguish the dandelions from the roses in his new venture. :smilewinkgrin:

 

But, both of those points are already addressed in the current rules and structure of this board. The tone is addressed in Rules 3 and 4, and the Moderators are trying to crack down on those who repeatedly pull the conversations into the gutter. Rule 9 covers your second concern, "Post in the right forum. Keep posts on-topic, relative to the forum it's posted in."

So, if you start a thread on the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, and someone starts talking about Total Depravity you are allowed to report the post and/or request the poster to stay on topic. Same is true if they change the tone of the discussion with personal attacks.

My point is that the board is already set up to handle these matters IF they are properly administered and maintained. Posters are also responsible for their part in reporting and encouraging others as needed.

 

I'm not banned... My absence is purely voluntary.

And, for the record, my beef is not with people like Allan, who debate in manners consistent with scholarly exchange. I have issues with a lot of other people, who are supposedly Christians by their confession, but who refuse to seek out godly truth and grace in their thinking, posts, and rebuttals. I could name names, but I really don't have to.

As has been said often around here, if you don't want to participate, don't... I'm taking that advice. :thumbsup:

 

I understand that, but why not just stay and choose to refrain from participating in discussions with those who "refuse to seek out godly truth and grace in their thinking, posts and rebuttals," rather than making sweeping accusations about the entire non-Calvinistic posting public as you leave?

 

This is very true for me as well.

 

Most of the time, those who "refuse to seek out godly truth and grace in their thinking, posts and rebuttals," seem to flood the market and crowd out the ones who are more vibrant and vital in their discussion.

I rarely post on the CvA discussion though I have strong beliefs. But my strong convictions also lend me to believe that the Arminian is my brother, provided he is not a universalist or a deist, and the Calvinist is my brother provided he doesn't ignore the admonition to proclaim the gospel, persuade all to respond, and doesn't swim in hyper waters.

In other words, I tend to offend everyone, so why bother

 

Well, that's why you've been promoted to your Administrative post my friend! Now we are all counting on you to fix it.

 

As of late, I see less & less & less participation. Disgust & burnout has reared it's head. If this is a microcosm for whats happening in Baptist Churches across America (speaking for my own country) then we should be ashamed of ourselves.