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

[Jkdbuck76]

it seems like a new thread is started every five minutes on this.

(i know that this could be considered one, but i'm not asking anything about the validity of either system, only the discussion of them.)

yes! There needs to be a thread dump on this site that pushes all c vs a debates into one nice quarantined area.

No offense, folks, but the horse has been dead and has been beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten
and beaten and beaten for centuries. Enough already!

 

[Skandelon]

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.

1. Maybe that's just a reflection of your local body and their current struggle? Some churches are growing and vibrant.

2. Shame has no place in the life of the church or believers. There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus. Maybe its the heaping on of shame and obligation that leads to "less participation" and "burnout?" (no, I'm not saying there is not a place for biblical conviction, I just define that differently than "shame".)

 

[Skandelon]

yes! There needs to be a thread dump on this site that pushes all c vs a debates into one nice quarantined area.

No offense, folks, but the horse has been dead and has been beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten
and beaten and beaten for centuries. Enough already!

With all due respect, I think this reply is somewhat naive and idealistic. It reminds me of the "peace protesters" who insist that war is never necessary. We would all love this debate to disappear and everyone to come to the 'correct' understanding, but are you or someone else going to be the arbitrator of what is that 'correct' understanding? Are you going to silence the discussions through regulation and oversight for the sake of peace? If so, how? Through the violation of one's liberty?

Here are some words worthy of consideration as we make decisions regarding how we deal with disagreements over any issue:

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” -Joseph Joubert

"Only those afraid of the truth seek to silence debate, intimidate those with whom they disagree, or slander their ideological counterparts. Those who know they are right to have no reason to stifle debate because they realize that all opposing arguments will ultimately be overcome by fact." - Glenn Beck

I say, if you don't want to discuss a particular subject, don't. If others violate the rules and post derailing comments on a thread you start, ask them politely to stop or report them. I honestly believe a theological section that doesn't allow the subjects surrounding the Cal/Arm controversy will have little participation after a short time. I think that has been the case in the past, but I could be wrong.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

We would all love this debate to disappear and everyone to come to the 'correct' understanding, but are you or someone else going to be the arbitrator of what is that 'correct' understanding? Are you going to silence the discussions through regulation and oversight for the sake of peace? If so, how? Through the violation of one's liberty?

Skandelon, I am NOT some peacenik. I hope I really didn't come across as naive so much as I am SICK AND TIRED. Also, I'm not in charge here: the mods are. Please re-read what I said. I think the major idea I was communicating was that I wish on this site, they'd put all the C vs A threads (or at least all that degenerated into it) in ONE AREA on this board. That way, the tenderizing of dead horses can be confined to one nice little area. I never said a thing about violating anyone's liberty. C vs A is a wonderful debate.

I belong to more than one web forum. One of which is a martial arts discussion board and whenever something turns into a "my judo is better than your karate", it gets sent to the proper place. What if this was an electrician's forum and every question or discussion turned into an "AC power is better than your DC power"? Woudn't it be nice if there was a nice little area for such discussions to happen? In my sick, twisted world it would be a great thing and the MODS of this board would do it when they saw it fit...not me.

That's all. Wonderful debate....just needs to be put in its own area where it won't cross-polenate.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand that perspective, and maybe the webmaster will decide to go back to that method, but as I explained... I personally think it's unnecessary given the current structure and provisions. Plus, I think it will kill the interaction on the other theological subjects. I could be wrong on that point, but I want to go on record as this being my prediction in case it does go that direction, so I can say, "I told you so!"

 

[Jkdbuck76]

"I told you so" is fine by me, Scandeln.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

1. Maybe that's just a reflection of your local body and their current struggle? Some churches are growing and vibrant.

LOL, my church is fine thank you.....we are all (to the best of my knowledge)Calvinists.:wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

LOL, my church is fine thank you.....we are all (to the best of my knowledge)Calvinists.:wavey:

Well, not every church is perfect.

 

[TomVols]

Before the Cal/Arm thread was dissolved, this thread was filled with mostly eschatological discussions and second, a study of particular passages. You then had a wide variety of discussions a distant third. So I don't recall (as former moderator of this thread) a time when this forum was dying on the vine.

The one problem with going back to a way where you separate the two is how do you deal with, say, sanctification when there is a clearly reformed perspective vs the Augustinian model or the Wesleyan model? Still, I think those are few and far between. I'd like to see it go back to the old way. There is no question in my mind that the Cal/Arm debates have chased away the textual/Passage studies.

 

[Skandelon]

Before the Cal/Arm thread was dissolved, this thread was filled with mostly eschatological discussions and second, a study of particular passages. You then had a wide variety of discussions a distant third. So I don't recall (as former moderator of this thread) a time when this forum was dying on the vine.

So why was it dissolved? Do you remember the reasoning?

The one problem with going back to a way where you separate the two is how do you deal with, say, sanctification when there is a clearly reformed perspective vs the Augustinian model or the Wesleyan model? Still, I think those are few and far between. I'd like to see it go back to the old way. There is no question in my mind that the Cal/Arm debates have chased away the textual/Passage studies.

Like I said, I'm fine with them trying it again, but I don't see how they have been 'chased away' when the provisions allow for you limit the subject discussed in any given thread. Plus, I see unrelated textual subjects pop up quite often and if the verses don't relate to the Cal/Arm subjects I don't see why they would need to be derailed...or at least they shouldn't be allowed to be derailed.

 

[TomVols]

They got chased off like so many good ones got chased off in BVT: the glut of other topics made them run away, plus the rancor was too much. Also happened in the Sports forum. That one had new threads every day. One or two bad apples, and now we have maybe a new thread every month.

I don't recall the official reason to disband the Cal/Arm forum. I think it was to merge it with theology, and I do recall the debates being mean but not to the point they are now. Unfortunately, the debates have never been policed well and they have been let get out of hand, much like what happened in the BVT forum. But the whip got cracked, and now you see a mostly better tone. The same is needed here.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, I vote for a whip over segregation...neither of which sound like politically correct options.

 

[glfredrick]

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.

It has and it is...

I'm currently in the early stages of pursuing a new pastorate and the very first under-the-carpet question posed by a member-at-large is, "Please explain Calvinism and are you one? Would you preach Calvinism?" The assumption is that if I are one, I'm not qualified to be the pastor.

 

[glfredrick]

With all due respect, I think this reply is somewhat naive and idealistic.

I expect you would, seeing as how you (and lately Van) have driven the C/A conversation.

 

[Skandelon]

I expect you would, seeing as how you (and lately Van) have driven the C/A conversation.

It takes two to tango my friend. :love2:

 

[Skandelon]

It has and it is...

I'm currently in the early stages of pursuing a new pastorate and the very first under-the-carpet question posed by a member-at-large is, "Please explain Calvinism and are you one? Would you preach Calvinism?" The assumption is that if I are one, I'm not qualified to be the pastor.

IMO (not that you asked) you should be very clear where you stand on this issue and other important doctrinal matters. Better now than after a few years and then splitting the church, which happens all too often.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It has and it is...

I'm currently in the early stages of pursuing a new pastorate and the very first under-the-carpet question posed by a member-at-large is, "Please explain Calvinism and are you one? Would you preach Calvinism?" The assumption is that if I are one, I'm not qualified to be the pastor.

Then why in heavens name even apply? Remember our conversation about "Reformed" Baptist Churches. Couldnt that be an option. Surely they would not ask that type of question.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It takes two to tango my friend. :love2:

bottom line, dont post.

 

[Skandelon]

bottom line, dont post.

“The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.” - George Bernard Shaw

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names [or attempt to silence him]." - Elbert Hubbard

 

[Bob Alkire]

It has and it is...

I'm currently in the early stages of pursuing a new pastorate and the very first under-the-carpet question posed by a member-at-large is, "Please explain Calvinism and are you one? Would you preach Calvinism?" The assumption is that if I are one, I'm not qualified to be the pastor.

When a church came to me about being or meeting them about becoming their pastor, after prayer, I would ask them their beliefs and doctrine. Then I would tell them my views and theology. If they differed from me, they weren't my enemy but I felt it would be wrong for me to come in with my views, which didn't match to their's. I don't want to cause a split in a church. If I felt called to that town or city I would plant a church which I've done.

I'll be praying for you that you will be lead to the church or work that God is leading you to.