Is there anyone interest in an organized discussion?

[JeremyV]

I have been considering starting a discussion on Calvinism. I would like the discussion to have some ground rules and definitions settled on beforehand to help keep the discussion productive. It would probably also be helpful to breakdown the topic into smaller issues and look at them in order. My question right now is this: is anyone interested in such a discussion?

I will state beforehand that I am not a Calvinist, but I hesitate to call myself an Arminian. I consider myself open minded and try always to conform my beliefs to the word of God. So, if you can prove it to me in the Bible, I will believe it.

I realize that it is unlikely that anyone's mind will be changed, but that is no reason to not try.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

 

[JeremyV]

I agree that attitude would probably be a big issue, but would hope that a lot of that may be hammered out before actually looking at the issues.

Edit: Perhaps one way to help with this would be to try to avoid controversial terms in the first place. I am sure we could have a discussion without actually using words like Calvinism, Arminianism, free will, etc. The posts may be longer but at least the confusion would be avoided.

 

[Revmitchell]

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


Election

Predestination

Regeneration

Salvation

Basically any and all "tion's"

 

[Yeshua1]

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!"

 

[JeremyV]

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


Election

Predestination

Regeneration

Salvation

Basically any and all "tion's"

I agree that these could be a problem.

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!"

I completely agree.


So, are either of you interested in actually going through with such a discussion and if so (and just to see if people from different views are interested) what is your stance on the subject?

 

[RLBosley]

I have been considering starting a discussion on Calvinism. I would like the discussion to have some ground rules and definitions settled on beforehand to help keep the discussion productive. It would probably also be helpful to breakdown the topic into smaller issues and look at them in order. My question right now is this: is anyone interested in such a discussion?

I will state beforehand that I am not a Calvinist, but I hesitate to call myself an Arminian. I consider myself open minded and try always to conform my beliefs to the word of God. So, if you can prove it to me in the Bible, I will believe it.

I realize that it is unlikely that anyone's mind will be changed, but that is no reason to not try.

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.

So, are either of you interested in actually going through with such a discussion and if so (and just to see if people from different views are interested) what is your stance on the subject?

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.

 

[steaver]

Good luck.

I say that sincerely. I would love to see this conversation actually happen, but for too many 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.

 

[RLBosley]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree that these could be a problem.



I completely agree.


So, are either of you interested in actually going through with such a discussion and if so (and just to see if people from different views are interested) what is your stance on the subject?

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.

 

[RLBosley]

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.

 

[kyredneck]

:thumbs: ...smart man.

 

[steaver]

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

Are there really any Arminians on this board?

 

[Revmitchell]

Are there really any Arminians on this board?

There is one that I know of.

 

[JeremyV]

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.

I do not feel that Revmitchell was trying to say that all the problem is by Calvinists. I believe he was only referring to specific people and problems he has been involved with. On the other hand, using terms like "cals" is not very helpful. In fact, given the wide range of beliefs in each camp, it is probably best to drop both names entirely. If the post was in fact meant to make a blanket statement about Calvinists, then I would agree that such is an unhelpful attitude.

Could I persuade you to take the same attitude he takes and stick with it till it turns into a "Jerry Springer show"? As the over used saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day," and I am sure we all have attitudes and habits that need adjusting.

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not feel that Revmitchell was trying to say that all the problem is by Calvinists. I believe he was only referring to specific people and problems he has been involved with. On the other hand, using terms like "cals" is not very helpful. In fact, given the wide range of beliefs in each camp, it is probably best to drop both names entirely. If the post was in fact meant to make a blanket statement about Calvinists, then I would agree that such is an unhelpful attitude.

Could I persuade you to take the same attitude he takes and stick with it till it turns into a "Jerry Springer show"? As the over used saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day," and I am sure we all have attitudes and habits that need adjusting.

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.

 

[RLBosley]

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.

Could I persuade you to take the same attitude he takes and stick with it till it turns into a "Jerry Springer show"? As the over used saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day," and I am sure we all have attitudes and habits that need adjusting.

Sure. I hope you aren't too disappointed.

 

[JeremyV]

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.

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.

I agree that they can be useful, but only to a limited extent, especially when it comes to "Calvinist". The term has such broad meaning that it has become almost meaningless. Beyond classical Calvinism, I often here people speaking of four point Calvinists, tree point Calvinists, etc. And let's not forget hyper-Calvinists. The problem becomes that these different distinctions are not always clear and more often then not no distinction is even attempted, by both non-Calvinists and Calvinists alike. In my experience this only leads o problems.

Sure. I hope you aren't too disappointed.

My expectations aren't exactly very high.

 

[pinoybaptist]

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

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

 

[InTheLight]

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.