Roll-call for Arminians on BB... Bueller... Bueller...

[mandym]

You are suggesting an an-theological position. No such thing exists. Everyone fits somewhere within the continuum between Pelagian and hyper-Calvinist. They just don't realize or recognize that they do -- or that there are even positions with which they fit.

If I fit in any position I will tell you that I do. It is not your place to decide for me or anyone else where they fit. And when you realize that your unnecessary systematic labeling offends someone it is your responsibility to back off. It is sad that intellectualism cannot function outside of systematic labeling. Hence the perception that "Calvinists" are arrogant.

 

[JesusFan]

You have asked an incoherent question comparing theological holdings to denominationalism. They are not one and the same.

Time to break out the systematic theology and learn what theological positions entail.

just was using those "demominatiional" names as the examples of groups holding to a "model" of threology seperate/different from Cals/Arms...

believe that those in those 2 given viewpoints would agree that their held position are quite distict and peculiar to their groups!

 

[humblethinker]

I understand your post to be saying that it is your desire that all posters on the BB be required to restate the position of the posts they are responding to in their own words.

I could be wrong but this may just create an equal level of rancor when the intent is misrepresented as is the habit of some here. What we need is for some to quit trying to discredit people and just stick to the issues.

I understand the first sentence in your reply above to be tongue-in-cheek and rather clever. Lol, that was funny, that is, if that was your intent. Even if it wasn't your intent I still find it funny. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[mandym]

I understand the first sentence in your reply above to be tongue-in-cheek and rather clever. Lol, that was funny, that is, if that was your intent. Even if it wasn't your intent I still find it funny. :smilewinkgrin:

It was :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

It was :laugh:

And it proved useful because it helped me to see that I was misunderstood. I just meant to say I wanted one thread to have that requirement. I'm not so naive to think they could enforce that as an overall rule. :laugh:

 

[mandym]

And it proved useful because it helped me to see that I was misunderstood. I just meant to say I wanted one thread to have that requirement. I'm not so naive to think they could enforce that as an overall rule. :laugh:

Oh, well then I did miss something. Sorry

 

[humblethinker]

... Everyone fits somewhere within the continuum between Pelagian and hyper-Calvinist...

I'm glad you brought that up. I think I would take issue with what I perceive to be your linear model. I can see how, in a rudimentary sense it could be informative but I think this linear representation helps to promote the misapplication and misunderstanding of the great variety of ideas and the relationships between those ideas.

Why would everyone best fit in a flat 'line'? Or a horseshoe shaped line? Why not a xy graph or a 3 dimensional model?


con·tin·u·um/kənˈtinyo͞oəm/Noun
1. A continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct.

 

[humblethinker]

If I fit in any position I will tell you that I do. It is not your place to decide for me or anyone else where they fit. And when you realize that your unnecessary systematic labeling offends someone it is your responsibility to back off. It is sad that intellectualism cannot function outside of systematic labeling. Hence the perception that "Calvinists" are arrogant.

I think I understand what you're saying but, believe it or not mandym, I love labels. If we need to create a new label for what you believe because no other label is sufficiently appropriate then i'm all for doing so! My perception regarding anything I believe is that someone has definitely believed it before me, and probably a lot of someones, so much that the belief probably has a label to it. My hope is that this will help me process beliefs and understand my own beliefs in a more logical fashion.

Allow me some self aggrandizing latitude here as I think it would be helpful to the discussion at hand:

It is rare that I ever say anything that is at the same time both important and original. -me

(don't steal this one Skan, it's all I have.... And if someone else in the world has said this before me please know that I came by it honestly and just let me live in my ignorance. ;-) you can use it though with attribution :laugh: )