How About An Agreement ...

[Rippon]

on what words and phrases not to use when dealing with members from the other theological party?

I'll start with some terms that I don't think aids in accurate communication. I am just speaking for myself --maybe some other Calvinists don't have a problem with the following:

Limited atonement --No, Particular Redemption, or Specific Atonement would be better.
Irresistable grace -- No, Effectual calling -please
Calvies -- No, Calvinists or Dortians or Holders of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace.
Worship of John Calvin. I am sick and tired of that phrase. It is repulsive to the core. I admire and respect him, but please I have given my allegiance to Christ alone.

Please add some more Calvinists. And you non-Calvinists can add some terms as well. It's a two-way street.

I know I have used the term "blasphemous" a number of times when I thought it was deserved. That might be a hard one to avoid.

I don't think I have ever used the word, or a form of the word "idol" when dealing with a BB member who was of a different theological stripe. I want all of use to try and eliminate that word in discussions.

It's in the rules that we should not use the term "free-willies" and I think most of us have respected that.

Okay, I'd like some constructive feedback. Is that possible?

 

[JamesL]

I think I'm sick of the phrase "That makes God......"

Both sides have used it, saying "that makes God a puppeteer"
Or "that makes God subservient to man"

Here's my take. If God is an impotent servant of man, so what? If God is a demented sadist, so what?

Questions about God should never be reduced to how WE feel about it. Thus, we should never argue against someone's view on the basis of our emotional outrage. Scripture should be our rule. So if scripture paints a picture of God in a light we aren't particularly fond of, so what?

If scripture bore out that Jesus was created, or that God had celestial relations with "Mother Goddess", or that eternal life comes byway of crawling over hot coals, then so be it.

His word is truth. And our charge should be that scripture does or does not bear these ideas out.


I'm really just sick of empty rhetoric and baseless accusations, all the appeals to creeds and councils and the opinions of mortal men. As if the fear of anathema should sway our opinion?

Luther said "convince me from scripture, or shut up" (very loose paraphrase)

And yes....i appealed to a mortal man in that last line. But not for doctrine, just a principle

 

[InTheLight]

on what words and phrases not to use when dealing with members from the other theological party?

I'll start with some terms that I don't think aids in accurate communication. I am just speaking for myself --maybe some other Calvinists don't have a problem with the following:

Limited atonement --No, Particular Redemption, or Specific Atonement would be better.
Irresistable grace -- No, Effectual calling -please


Okay, I'd like some constructive feedback. Is that possible?

I'm sorry but Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace are right on the money as descriptors of Reformed theology. The fact that Calvinists want to disown the acronyms of TULIP is just another indication of their obfuscation tactics.

So what aspect of the theology of Calvinistic salvation is resistible? Or put another way--is there an Ineffectual Calling? No, I think the term "irresistible grace" is spot on.

 

[Rippon]

I'm really just sick of all the appeals to creeds and councils...

All creeds and Church Councils are not that biblical. But some certainly are. They are valuable. They were crucial in the early stages of the Church to summarize and arrange biblical material in order to address heretical doctrines.

Have you ever read the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession, The London Confession of 1689 and so forth James? If so, are they worth the time to study?

 

[Reformed]

Rippon, actually I not bothered by mischaracterizations or terms used as a pejorative. They tell me exactly where the other person is coming from which makes it much easier to decide whether to seriously engage them in conversation or dismiss them.

 

[JonC]

Rippon, actually I not bothered by mischaracterizations or terms used as a pejorative. They tell me exactly where the other person is coming from which makes it much easier to decide whether to seriously engage them in conversation or dismiss them.

:thumbsup: Although it does color the conversation if you do choose to engage.

 

[Rippon]

I'm sorry but Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace are right on the money as descriptors of Reformed theology.

No, they aren't and you are aware of the fact.

The fact that Calvinists want to disown the acronym of TULIP is just another indication of their obfuscation tactics.

Quite wrong. The acronym is only 109 years old. It's a handy device; but Calvinist don't need to be hamstrung by it. The terms limited atonement and irresistible grace not accurate and lead to misunderstanding.

TULIP was supposedly based on the conclusions of the Canons of Dort. Yet those terms are not found in that document, hence distorting what was actually codified. To be faithful to the CoD using TULIP is not helpful.

 

[Rippon]

Ground Rules

An honest person would agree with certain principles in order to engage in conversation. If any of you non-Calvinistic folks find it too restrictive to abide by my guidelines then I am correct to conclude that you aren't being mature. If you feel compelled to use ammo instead of authentic dialogue then you have condemned yourself.

I want to be evenhanded. Please tell me things that Calvinists should not say to non-Calvinists.

 

[RLBosley]

on what words and phrases not to use when dealing with members from the other theological party?

I'll start with some terms that I don't think aids in accurate communication. I am just speaking for myself --maybe some other Calvinists don't have a problem with the following:

Limited atonement --No, Particular Redemption, or Specific Atonement would be better.
Irresistable grace -- No, Effectual calling -please
Calvies -- No, Calvinists or Dortians or Holders of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace.
Worship of John Calvin. I am sick and tired of that phrase. It is repulsive to the core. I admire and respect him, but please I have given my allegiance to Christ alone.

Please add some more Calvinists. And you non-Calvinists can add some terms as well. It's a two-way street.

I know I have used the term "blasphemous" a number of times when I thought it was deserved. That might be a hard one to avoid.

I don't think I have ever used the word, or a form of the word "idol" when dealing with a BB member who was of a different theological stripe. I want all of use to try and eliminate that word in discussions.

It's in the rules that we should not use the term "free-willies" and I think most of us have respected that.

Okay, I'd like some constructive feedback. Is that possible?

I agree with you regarding 1,2, and 4. The idea of worshiping Calvin is absurd and should not even be suggested by anyone who is interested in serious conversation.

I actually don't mind 3, I have used it myself and I are one. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[InTheLight]

No, they aren't and you are aware of the fact.

Quite wrong. The acronym is only 109 years old. It's a handy device; but Calvinist don't need to be hamstrung by it. The terms limited atonement and irresistible grace not accurate and lead to misunderstanding.

So what aspect of the theology of Calvinistic salvation is resistible? Or put another way--is there an Ineffectual Calling?

 

[InTheLight]

I want to be evenhanded. Please tell me things that Calvinists should not say to non-Calvinists.

The idea that by repenting of our unbelief and accepting Jesus as savior we are "participating in our own salvation" and "putting oneself on par with God."

"What man does ultimately causes his soul to be saved."

""X" percent of all decisions made at altar calls are false converts."

"Non-Cals contend that Calvinists say God must drag unbelievers kicking and screaming to salvation."

"God is sovereign, we are nothing. We shouldn't ask such questions."

"The Lord does not have to savingly reveal Himself to anyone."

In response to a non-Cal contention that God desires all to come to repentance, "well, then, you believe that all will be saved. You're a universalist."

 

[JonC]

So what aspect of the theology of Calvinistic salvation is resistible? Or put another way--is there an Ineffectual Calling?

That's not putting it another way. Putting it another way would be asking if Calvinists believe the elect resist, which it seems obvious they do. But they believe God prevails.

 

[Yeshua1]

An honest person would agree with certain principles in order to engage in conversation. If any of you non-Calvinistic folks find it too restrictive to abide by my guidelines then I am correct to conclude that you aren't being mature. If you feel compelled to use ammo instead of authentic dialogue then you have condemned yourself.

I want to be evenhanded. Please tell me things that Calvinists should not say to non-Calvinists.

That they do not see God as being sovereign automatically, that they do not hold to saved by grace alone/faith alone...

 

[InTheLight]

That's not putting it another way. Putting it another way would be asking if Calvinists believe the elect resist, which it seems obvious they do. But they believe God prevails.

Hmmm...I've read so many times here that man has no inclination to seek God, that he is spiritually dead, the unregenerate are "walking corpses". So if a person has been elected since before the world was created and God will ultimately prevail, there was no "resistable grace". Man has no free will to choose to resist, he's just following his fallen nature and his default state is total inability.

Furthermore, using the phrase "Effectual Calling" is redundant. If God calls you to election, you are going with Him. "Calling" would be more apt of a phrase. Unless, of course, there is "Ineffectual Calling".

 

[Yeshua1]

Hmmm...I've read so many times here that man has no inclination to seek God, that he is spiritually dead, the unregenerate are "walking corpses". So if a person has been elected since before the world was created and God will ultimately prevail, there was no "resistable grace". Man has no free will to choose to resist, he's just following his fallen nature and his default state is total inability.

Furthermore, using the phrase "Effectual Calling" is redundant. If God calls you to election, you are going with Him. "Calling" would be more apt of a phrase. Unless, of course, there is "Ineffectual Calling".

Even those chosen to get saved will resist that until the predetermined timing of the Lord though!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Rippon, actually I not bothered by mischaracterizations or terms used as a pejorative. They tell me exactly where the other person is coming from which makes it much easier to decide whether to seriously engage them in conversation or dismiss them.

Agreed....everything but Heretic and Apostate I am fine with. But those two terms are fighting words.

 

[JonC]

Hmmm...I've read so many times here that man has no inclination to seek God, that he is spiritually dead, the unregenerate are "walking corpses". So if a person has been elected since before the world was created and God will ultimately prevail, there was no "resistable grace". Man has no free will to choose to resist, he's just following his fallen nature and his default state is total inability.

Furthermore, using the phrase "Effectual Calling" is redundant. If God calls you to election, you are going with Him. "Calling" would be more apt of a phrase. Unless, of course, there is "Ineffectual Calling".

I think you are mixing up too many terms and doctrines.

"Effectual" calling is redundant if you hold to an "effectual call" without a "general call." It is not redundant if you believe that there is an effectual and a general call OR if you are distinguishing your belief in an argument.

Insofar as your explanation of "resistable grace"...I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. I understood from your previous post that you took exception to the Calvinistic definition because you defined it more literally (that men do not resist). But as the OP was about terms...I'm not sure what you are getting at (unless you mean that Calvinism is stuck with how you would define the term regardless of what it means within their theology..which would be an odd stance).

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you are mixing up too many terms and doctrines.

"Effectual" calling is redundant if you hold to an "effectual call" without a "general call." It is not redundant if you believe that there is an effectual and a general call OR if you are distinguishing your belief in an argument.

Insofar as your explanation of "resistable grace"...I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. I understood from your previous post that you took exception to the Calvinistic definition because you defined it more literally (that men do not resist). But as the OP was about terms...I'm not sure what you are getting at (unless you mean that Calvinism is stuck with how you would define the term regardless of what it means within their theology..which would be an odd stance).

They point to scriptures showing us man can resist God, but that is really not what the Grace as calvinism defines it really means!

 

[JonC]

They point to scriptures showing us man can resist God, but that is really not what the Grace as calvinism defines it really means!

It is difficult to observe opposing points within the context of the opposing view. This is true regardless of one's theological disposition. It would be nice, however, if some would start at least trying.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is difficult to observe opposing points within the context of the opposing view. This is true regardless of one's theological disposition. It would be nice, however, if some would start at least trying.

The proper starting point would be to realise that we do not invest the same meanings, but do use same terms!