Featured Is there anyone interest in an organized discussion?

Setting up definitions before hand may help with reasonable discussions. What happens around here so often is people talk past one another because of differing definitions.

Even then the difficulty will be to get some to post with attitudes other than ?my definition is correct so I will only post based on my defintion. I will disregard the fact that you have a different one." Attitude.


Very prideful and arrogant

 

Terms that need hammering out but some will treat with selfish pride are:


Election

Predestination

Regeneration

Salvation

Basically any and all "tion's"

 

Also need to remind ourselves that we are discussing between brothers here , NOT the saved to the lost!

just as long as all realise that NONE of us have perfect understanding yet, nor that 'calivinism IS the Gospel/calvinists teach a false gospel!"

 

Good luck.

I say that sincerely. I would love to see this conversation actually happen, but for too many (I'm thinking of about 3 people in particular) this is too emotional of an issue to discuss rationally or dispassionately.

I think Rev has a good idea. Need to start with established, clear definitions of major terms. Many of the disagreements I believe come from us assuming everyone understand what we mean when we say something, then we spend the rest of the thread talking past each other.

I don't know about them, but I'd be interested. I'm a Calvie. Recently (within the last 1-2 years) became convinced of the Doctrines of Grace from a background of practical 4-point Arminianism.

 

I huge problem is even the Calvinist cannot agree on the definitions within their own camp. This makes it terribly difficult to have a debate.

 

Calvinists disagree with each other. OK? So do Arminians. It's not the end of the world, everyone nuances things different.

 

I have been on this board for a good number of years. With the recent onsluaght of some cagey cals it has never been possible to carry on a good conversation very long.

Also there is quite often an implcation that Calvinsim is the gospel they used to say it out right but they were called out for it by the powers that be. So now they just imply it.

I will take part until it turns into a Jerry Springer show.

 

Already the insinuation that it's the Calvinists who can't agree and it's the Calvinists that cause all the conversations to go bad... I'm sorry but if that's the foundation that we're starting with in this thread, I'm out.

 

:thumbs: ...smart man.

 

Are there really any Arminians on this board?

 

There is one that I know of.

 

I in fact said "some cals" and "recent cagey cals". As far as losing the lables I do not know of any cals who will agree to that. I have had conversations about that with them and they love their labels.

 

Yes you said "some" and I appreciate that you avoided the blanket accusation against all of us. However what I take umbrage with is that you only mentioned Calvinists. It's not just a problem on the Calvinists side.

You have to admit that there have been several Arminians (synergists if prefer) on here who have been more hateful and irrational in their arguments than any Calvinists here. Again, I have some specific people in mind, one of which recently joined the banned. It's not just a problem on the Calvinists side.

Regarding labels, they can be useful, provided we are all using the same definitions. They are just a form of shorthand. Saying I'm a Calvinist is a helpful label since we generally understand Calvinism to be the Doctrines of Grace/TULIP. If someone understood Calvinism to mean total agreement with John Calvin, then I don't fit the bill. It all hinges upon definitions.

Sure. I hope you aren't too disappointed.

 

How about avoiding one line posts like some people we both know do ?

 

I think it's impossible to have a civil discussion of these issues because:

1. Each side defines the other's side incorrectly, and then "destroys" their position. In reality they erect a strawman and then burn it down. Each side does this.

2. There are so many variations on reformed theology that there is very little across the board agreement on points of Calvinism.

I've found that Calvinism does not follow logical progressions making it difficult to have a discussion. Here's an example:

God is sovereign in all things. Calvinists believe that God elected people to salvation since before the foundation of the world. Therefore, it logically follows that God didn't elect all the other people, also before the foundation of the world. God decided, decreed, that these people would go to Hell. This is called double-predestination. Yet, many Calvinists will deny that God not electing these people is sending them to Hell. They will argue that Adam's sin and the Fall has damned these people to Hell. But Adam's sin did not happen "before the foundation of the world", it happened after the world was created. Yeah, but God knew that Adam would sin (but God didn't decree it!) See what I mean? Just one example.

Another is the definition of "free will". Or "totally depraved". As RevMitchell points out, you simply cannot have a discussion or argument about these things until the definitions are agreed upon, which will never happen.