a Plea To christian Unity On this BB!

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's fine and what we should all strive for...but that is not what Aaron said. He said calvinism IS the Gospel. The Gospel is immutable...calvinism is anything but.

Yes Calvinism is systematic theology & it has its adherents. Youve heard me disagree with Luke, Kyred, P4T etc on certain points & all baptistic Calvinists have big disagreements with our Reformed & Presbyterian brothers. Ive also see the Non Calvinists argue theology amongst themselves & I know you dont concur with everything members of your own group believe.....thankfully that Baptistic Liberty

 

[webdog]

And thats why we go to our church & you go to yours.....everybody happy now?:tonofbricks:

That is irrelevant if you equate the immutable truth of the Gospel with the mutable truth of man's doctrine. Where we go to church is the least of our problems.

 

[webdog]

Yes Calvinism is systematic theology & it has its adherents. Youve heard me disagree with Luke, Kyred, P4T etc on certain points & all baptistic Calvinists have big disagreements with our Reformed & Presbyterian brothers. Ive also see the Non Calvinists argue theology amongst themselves & I know you dont concur with everything members of your own group believe.....thankfully that Baptistic Liberty

Agreed completely...hence any of our theology must be deemed mutable while the Gospel is immutable. Conclusion: Calvinism (nor Arminianism, Molinism, Amyraldinism, etc.) is NOT the Gospel.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Agreed completely...hence any of our theology must be deemed mutable while the Gospel is immutable. Conclusion: Calvinism (nor Arminianism, Molinism, Amyraldinism, etc.) is NOT the Gospel.

Allow the 2nd shoe: But rather taken from scripture to piece together certain theological details....then I would add : To the best of our ability. Now thats how I see it.

As I said before....I gravitate toward DoG because the pieces fit better than what I see in other theologies (I didnt say flawlessly) but Im fully willing to debate my opinions to your opinions just as long as we both put Christ as lord & savior. When you start saying that the Cleveland Indians is your deity then I will call you on it....cause everybody knows its the Tampa Bay Rays.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is irrelevant if you equate the immutable truth of the Gospel with the mutable truth of man's doctrine. Where we go to church is the least of our problems.

I would debate that! lets say we are both right from each of our prospectives but we both go to a watered down diluted "Happy Happy Koom Buy Ahh church. Then neither you or I really work to fill Gods potential for us. I think God wants us each to fufill our greatest potential. So from my prospective Im not in favor of such assemblies.

 

[TomVols]

Well I hope you can explain that statement of blaspheme to God my friend
MB

It's comments like these that make having a non-vitriolic discussion of soteriology impossible. Everyone wants their view accepted and unquestioned. Don't you dare say my view is unScriptural, yet I'm allowed to say my view is Biblical and nothing else measures up.

Cals should be allowed to say Calvinism is Biblical. Arms should not question this. Disagree with it all you want, but like it or not they are free to say their view is the view held in Scripture.

Arms should be allowed to say Arminianism is Biblical. Cals should not question this. Disagree with it all you want, but like it or not they are free to say their view is the view held in Scripture.

Therein, the rub lies. No one is willing to agree to the above. It requires maturity, which is lacking around here.

 

[webdog]

The issue isn't whether our doctrine is derived from Scripture. MB's response was to Aaron's statement calvinism IS the Gospel. It isn't. It's but one view of the mechanics of the Gospel.

 

[JesusFan]

It's comments like these that make having a non-vitriolic discussion of soteriology impossible. Everyone wants their view accepted and unquestioned. Don't you dare say my view is unScriptural, yet I'm allowed to say my view is Biblical and nothing else measures up.

Cals should be allowed to say Calvinism is Biblical. Arms should not question this. Disagree with it all you want, but like it or not they are free to say their view is the view held in Scripture.

Arms should be allowed to say Arminianism is Biblical. Cals should not question this. Disagree with it all you want, but like it or not they are free to say their view is the view held in Scripture.

Therein, the rub lies. No one is willing to agree to the above. It requires maturity, which is lacking around here.

that is why we MUST agree to discuss all things in a "Chrsit like" fashion...

can say in MY OPINION this or that is scripturally, but we also see statements in posting like "ignorrant/dumb/ not biblical" etc

AND whenever we disagree, fall back to "straw man" arguemets and bellittling other party!

 

[Gershom]

Are you suggesting G that it doesnt happen on both sides? Just curious.

No, I'm not suggesting that.

 

[mandym]

seems that whenever we start discussion in area of Sotierology, that it quickly becomes a heated debate, without much evidence of Christian behavior among the bethren!

can't we at least agree to quite ridiculing, talking down to, stop making it seem that God is a "true blue' calvinist or Arminian?

If you want unity then you and others need to quit pretending that anyone who is not a calvinist is an Arminian. It is just a clear fallacy.

 

[Skandelon]

It's comments like these that make having a non-vitriolic discussion of soteriology impossible. Everyone wants their view accepted and unquestioned. Don't you dare say my view is unScriptural, yet I'm allowed to say my view is Biblical and nothing else measures up.

Cals should be allowed to say Calvinism is Biblical. Arms should not question this. Disagree with it all you want, but like it or not they are free to say their view is the view held in Scripture.

Arms should be allowed to say Arminianism is Biblical. Cals should not question this. Disagree with it all you want, but like it or not they are free to say their view is the view held in Scripture.

Therein, the rub lies. No one is willing to agree to the above. It requires maturity, which is lacking around here.

I agree, however, it should be noted that Aaron said, "Calvinism is the Gospel. Anything else is not," which carries the blatant intent to communicate that those who don't believe "Calvinism" don't believe the gospel. That is not only an immature approach, but a clear violation of posting rules, IMO.

 

[HankD]

Nope.

Calvinism is the Gospel. Anything else is not. Noncalvinism ridicules and talks down to Christ, the Cross and the work of Redemption. Ain't gonna pretend that's okay.

Wait a minute! By this reasoning there was no Gospel before calvin.

HankD

 

[Luke2427]

I'm also not going to pretend it's ok to equate man's systmatic theology WITH the Gospel.

If you don't believe your systematic theology is the Gospel then what do you believe it is- a false gospel???

That's ridiculous- particularly when you espouse a theology that has never BEEN systematized. I guess you would oppose anyone STANDING on a systematic theology since you do not have one.

If your systematic theology doesn't pan out to be THE Gospel then you'd better change it.

All the major branches of theology_ theology proper, Christology, soteriology, anthropology, etc... are woven together and make up the very FABRIC of the Gospel.

To study the Gospel is to study all these things in depth.

I do agree, however, with the OP. Name calling needs to stop.

Attacking ARGUMENTS is HALF of why we are here, however. This IS a debate site.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree, however, it should be noted that Aaron said, "Calvinism is the Gospel. Anything else is not," which carries the blatant intent to communicate that those who don't believe "Calvinism" don't believe the gospel. That is not only an immature approach, but a clear violation of posting rules, IMO.

Now your suggesting that this Forum should not be flexible enough to allow people who whole heartedly believe in a given theology to express themselves. I happen to agree with Tom Vols that people should be allowed that Liberty & if you disagree say just so. You have it within your ability to correct also....maybe even to change a thought process.

 

[Jim1999]

I understand it was Spurgeon who said that.

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

Cheers,

Jim

 

[preacher4truth]

Now your suggesting that this Forum should not be flexible enough to allow people who whole heartedly believe in a given theology to express themselves. I happen to agree with Tom Vols that people should be allowed that Liberty & if you disagree say just so. You have it within your ability to correct also....maybe even to change a thought process.

Freedom is being restricted in a sense, yes, if this does happen. I agree with you here EWF. It's almost to the point that if one is Calvinistic he is being teamed upon as if an attempt to remove these believers or harrass them enough to stop them from frequenting the BB is an objective. I don't know when this changed to the worst, but it has since I came back a moth or so ago.

But, I wouldn't go and say "Calvinism is the Gospel." But that's just me, and yes I get what one means by making this statement. It's his apologetic of his belief, a system I happen to share much agreement with.

 

[humblethinker]

...and just because you believe your position is the biblical one isn't a warrant for being a jerk.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Freedom is being restricted in a sense, yes, if this does happen. I agree with you here EWF. It's almost to the point that if one is Calvinistic he is being teamed upon as if an attempt to remove these believers or harrass them enough to stop them from frequenting the BB is an objective. I don't know when this changed to the worst, but it has since I came back a moth or so ago.

I'm laughing.. but not 'at' you.. but at the irony of your post above and other Cals on here saying some of the same. It wasn't but a month or so ago, this is just what the non-cals were saying.. even creating threads asking for the whole in general to please STOP.

It is just the flow of the BB.. For a while the Cals will be doing it to the non-cals (especially when new guys come on) and then it switches over to the Non-Cals doing it to the Cals (again, especially when the new guys come on). For as long as I have been on here, that is how the ball bounces and hasn't seen fit change yet and unfortunately I don't foresee it changing either

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Freedom is being restricted in a sense, yes, if this does happen. I agree with you here EWF. It's almost to the point that if one is Calvinistic he is being teamed upon as if an attempt to remove these believers or harrass them enough to stop them from frequenting the BB is an objective. I don't know when this changed to the worst, but it has since I came back a moth or so ago.

But, I wouldn't go and say "Calvinism is the Gospel." But that's just me, and yes I get what one means by making this statement. It's his apologetic of his belief, a system I happen to share much agreement with.

Personally I think (My own Opinion) that people should stop being so hyper sensitive. :tonofbricks:

 

[JesusFan]

I agree, however, it should be noted that Aaron said, "Calvinism is the Gospel. Anything else is not," which carries the blatant intent to communicate that those who don't believe "Calvinism" don't believe the gospel. That is not only an immature approach, but a clear violation of posting rules, IMO.

the problem is though it "cuts both ways"

If you are a Cal, than others, even moderaters here, at times seem to go out of their way to say that it is totaly unscriptually, man made system, makes God out a Monster, Giod apuppet master etc!

on other hand, those who are Arms get talked down as being "dumbed down" not believing in "true Gospel" that are ignorant of the Bible, thinks man saves himself etc!

can we at least agree both sides preach/teach SAME Jesus SAME Cross SAME Gospel?

With differing views/points on it?