How do you deal with others here in our debates?

Attack ideals, arguments, philosophies, theologies and all thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.

It is a good idea for two reasons.

First and foremost because God said to do it.

Secondly- because it works. History bears this out.

 

If we do that, we lose our culture tomorrow.

We do it the way God said to do it.

We are not more spiritual, wiser or more compassionate than he is.

He said to attack ideals which exalt themselves against the knowledge of God and destroy them.

We have no other option but to obey.

But many create the option of doing it Dale Carnegie's way as if Dale Carnegie is a better Christian than CHRIST.

We have opted for the Christ of pop-culture over the Christ of Scripture.

 

:applause::applause::applause:

 

Brother.....you do not blatantly attack anything....rather you debate & dispute & you do it from elaborating on your thinking process.

By your attacking your saying 2 things (1) My position is right & yours is wrong (2) Im going to beat you into the ground in-order to prove it & win.

Note: Nothing gets achieved in that manner & with that hostile tactic. My evidence is the myriad wars on BB. And here is the most important thing I'd like to stress ...... THEY ACHIEVE NOTHING!

 

Your sampling pool is too small.

I could give numerous examples to the contrary.

I will give just a couple.

Read Luther's Bondage of the Will.

I read it recently.

ATTACK is a very soft word for what he does to Erasmus' Pelagian-like view of free will.

No thinking person could accuse Luther of accomplishing nothing.

You find this to be a common factor among those who really DID accomplish great things in history.

People who do not attack ideas are the ones who tend to live and die never accomplishing anything- but avoiding being controversial.

I want to accomplish more in my life than spending my life avoiding criticism and being liked.

Secondly- it is what you find THROUGHOUT the Bible.

The prophets, the Apostles, Christ himself were CONSTANTLY attacking ideas that dimmed the glory of God.

Not only is it wrong for you to condemn this practice. It is wrong for you not to practice it yourself.

 

Luke,

I think the thing that you (and others) are missing is the scriptural entreatment to "speak the truth in love."

I, for one, have seen much truth coming from you, but I haven't seen much love. There is a right way to do something and there is a wrong way. Doing the right thing in the wrong way is doing the wrong thing.

As I have written these thing to you in private, I will state them now in public: Your passion is admirable, but your manner, friend, is not. If people cannot get past your manner they will never hear what you have to say--no matter how passionate or truthful it may be.

It does you no good and it does the other Calvinists no good for you to post in the manner you do. Many non-Calvinists dismiss me, Icon, Ann, etc. because of the way you post. Your passion, being unchecked, does more harm than good to your cause.

Again, friend, a word to the wise should be sufficient. I would hope you will take these words as a friendly rebuke an that you would take these words to heart and change your ways.

Blessings in Christ,

The Archangel

 

I believe in that.

But there are two possible errors you might be making.

#1. You might think that this verse is the rule for every single instance- and it is not.

It is a general rule.

It is not universal like this rule:

II Corinthians 10
1Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: 2But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds) 5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.


Notice that this speech about DEMOLISHING arguments is given on BEHALF of the gentleness of Christ.

The gentleness of Christ does not at all dampen the call to DEMOLISH EVERY SINGLE argument that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.


#2. If it IS universal then perhaps you think that "love" there means to never obliterate the thinking of some erring soul.

It obviously can not mean that or Jesus was the most unloving person to ever walk the earth. Second to him would be the Apostles. On their heels would be the prophets and patriarchs. And then right behind them would be the great heroes of the faith throughout Christian history.

I could not agree more. That's why I am pleading with you guys to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them."

Darkness is ignorance. Ignorance wrapped in a hard shell of arrogance cannot be purged with gentleness (as gentleness is often thought of).

Now if one is plagued with ignorance but he is humble, then he can be handled sweetly and helped.

Unfortunately ignorance and arrogance are generally excellent bed fellows.

This does not bear out historically or biblically.

Does that not matter to you?

I am sorry you feel this way. But being anything less than blunt doesn't make any progress either.

All it does is set the table for fellowship that changes NOBODY.

Luther did not change the world by speaking sweetly to those who obstinately held to Romanism.

And you guys will not change anybody that way either.

The goal is not usually to persuade the person with whom you are debating, anyway.

Luther did not persuade the Pope nor did he persuade Erasmus. But many flocked to his blunt and bold and cutting obliteration of their ideals.

I know you REALLY think you're right about this, but you're not.

I love you guys and I think you are absolutely WONDERFUL people (those you named above)- and I don't think you have to be as aggressive as I am- but I do think you ought to consider that being this aggressive is consistent with Biblical exegesis and historical examples.

 

Sadly, I expected this type of response.

Two things caught my eye: I am really right about this--there's no "thinking" about it. You are really wrong about this--there's no thinking about it.

Secondly, you state: "And you guys will not change anybody that way either." Perhaps this is where our proverbial roads diverge.

For all of your talk about sovereignty and such, you seem to still believe it rests upon you to change people. Your study and knowledge of the sovereignty of God should tell you what the others of us seem to know: It is the Holy Spirit who changes people.

Certainly the rest of us Calvinists can be and do get aggressive. But, we are not known by that. I'm sure others--and I do this--see your posts and say, "oh boy, here we go." Sadly, I cringe to read your posts--not because of the content, but because of the manner.

In our, hopefully, more cordial tone, we trust that what we use will be made effectual by the Holy Spirit. We do not think being aggressive makes us more earnest. Rather, we trust that God, in His sovereignty, will accomplish His will.

I try, though I do not always succeed, to honor the name of Christ in my posts. Posting in the manner in which you do does not honor Christ. Rather, it dishonors Him because people cannot see Christ through your actions.

Do what you will, as it appears my words will have no effect on you for the good. I hope it dawns on you before the final judgment to speak the truth in love.

The Archangel

 

One more thing along these lines.

We live in a very pragmatic culture.

Pragmatism has become the guide of much of our religious culture rather than Scripture.

That's why we have seeker sensitive churches on every hand. (BTW, I am not a Rick Warren hater at all. I actually like a lot of his stuff)

We are driven by pragmatism. If it works do it.

That has infected the way, yes the manner, in which which preach and debate.

We think the Bible instructs us to be WINSOME at all costs.

Of course it does not. Pragmatism tells us this- not Scripture.

Pragamatism tells us it will work if we will be less confrontational, less controversial, etc...

But I like what Douglas Wilson said about pragmatism. He said, "The problem with pragmatism is it just doesn't work!"

Funny- but true.

The Christian church made her largest leaps when she was MOST controversial and hated- not when she was a welcomed fixture.

John MacArthur is one of my favorite preachers.

Have you ever followed this guy?

You ever listened to him preach? HAVE YOU EVER READ HIS BOOKS??? How about Charasmatic Chaos?

Have you ever seen him on Larry King???

He is amazingly blunt and controversial. Thousands of people hate him.

But he runs about seven thousand at his church I am told. And he is without a doubt one of the most influential positive forces for Christ and the Kingdom in this culture.

 

I agree with you AA. You spoke the truth in a genteel way. Luke -- we're not ganging-up on you. And certainly Archangel wasn't being aggressive in his admonition of you. He spoke of your strengths. But please don't disregard his pointers about the way you come across. The manner in which you conduct yourself here is rather prickly. It's not apt to get people to be very receptive to the good,biblical and sensible things you say. But your tirades have to cease. Your pit bull behavior is not very spiritual.

 

Dear Brother, as you well know, the Holy Spirit uses means.

We don't get to BE other means than what the Holy Spirit plainly uses throughout Scripture and history and think that we are right.

I believe in being sweet to those who are humble and teachable.

I believe it is actually WRONG to be sweet to those who continually embrace darkness and try to spread it all over and are terribly proud and impenitent- ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANS.

Like, for example, those who say that they do not need to know what the church has always believed about a passage; who say, in fact, that they do not need ANY MAN to help them understand the great doctrines of the faith because GOD SPEAKS TO THEM.

You can't be sweet to people who maintain that kind of thinking- not and be consistent with your duty as it is outlined in Scripture and exemplified in the heroes of Christian history.

Yet it is the opposite manner which the Scripture shows the Holy Spirit using more often. And some of our most Spirit filled men have been the fiercest debaters and preachers in history.

And I think you do by and large. But I think when you abandon your responsibility to DEMOLISH arguments that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God and when you fail to REPROVE the unfruitful works of darkness- I think you fall short in those instances.

I disagree.

If you're right about this, then it is incumbent upon you to provide better exegesis and historical references to prove to me that I am wrong. You are indebted to me as your brother in Christ for that.


If you could, I'd yield. But I think your thinking here is more molded by pop culture and this tolerance obsessed society than it is by Scripture.

If I am wrong, you are obligated to prove it- not just SAY IT.

 

I sense your compassion. I really do. I really do appreciate it.

But what I need you to do is not just SAY I am wrong but make the exegetical CASE.

You cannot expect me to yield just because you make unsubstantiated claims.

And btw, consensus is no argument. It is a logical fallacy to say that just because several of my brethren feel this way means they are right.

You have to make an exegetical case. And I think you have to follow that up with an explanation of how God so mightily used so many like Luther who were also thought of as very unnecessarily abrasive in their communication.

 

Don't mistake what I and others do as "pragmatism." Do we try to be winsome? Sure. Do we always succeed? No. Is there a time to be forceful and abrasive? Sure. The opponents of Arianism and Pelagianism were rightly abrasive and forceful. But it seems to me, and others, that your are intentionally abrasive and forceful against Arminianism. To believe like a disciple of Arius was to be a non-Christian. To be a disciple of Pelagius was to be a non-Christian (or as close to being one as possible without actually being one). Being an Arminian doesn't make one a non-Christian.

Luther stood up against Rome because the Gospel itself was at stake. MacArthur stands up against the "Charismatic Chaos" because the Gospel itself is at stake.

Friend, you are no Luther and you are no MacArthur and the situation you are "fighting" is not the same as Luther and MacArthur fought.

The Gospel is salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. On this, for the most part, Calvinists and Arminians agree. Therefore, Arminians, though we find their theology wanting, are to be addressed as brothers and sisters in Christ.

If we approach this with a "come let us reason together" attitude, we will do much better and we will honor the name of Christ.

I, for one, have learned much from the approach of John Piper and Mark Dever. They are theologically sound, but their approach doesn't get in the way of the Gospel. The Gospel is offensive enough; Calvinism is offensive enough. Don't add to the offense.

The Archangel

 

This is wrong-headed and deeply insulting--saying that I am guided by pop culture and not guided by Scripture. This is tantamount to saying I'm guided by the spirit of the age rather than Christ. This is dangerously close to calling my salvation into question.

You are running dangerously close to not having any friends and I seriously doubt that you would want me as an enemy. The truth of the matter is this: Even the staunch Calvinists on this board are disassociating themselves from you. That should tell you something.

The Archangel

 

Have you ever read 1 John?

The Archangel

 

No it isn't. It's nothing like it at all. That's absurd.

MOST of us are influenced way too much by our culture.

This is an area that MANY Christians, I think including yourself, are influenced negatively.

there are plenty of areas where I am influenced negatively by my culture. This applies to all of us.

I am not running for office nor do I concern myself with such things.

I am more concerned with you making an exegetical case for where I am wrong here.

That's none of my concern.

 

Makes a fellow wonder if it's only on the internet he acts this way, or if he does this at his church and work also.

 

No, it isn't absurd. Perhaps your thoughts should take an extra lap around your brain before they flow through your fingers.

All passion and no brain is not a good combination.

Obviously. Pity.

You've never made a case that it's OK to be an in-your-face hothead. Scripture never makes that case. Some things don't need Greek and Hebrew to understand. Read 1 John. Then, perhaps, we'll talk some more.

The Archangel