Can We Talk?

[thatbrian]

There have been some pretty venomous posts lately, in this area. In fact, this subject is always hotly debated, but from what I can see, in general, the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but.

Since I spent the first 25 years of my Christianity as a default semi-Pelagian, I understand how difficult coming to grips with the sovereignty of God in election can be. I once threw the audiobook, Chosen by God across the room, I hated the ideas contained within so much. . .

Here's the thing, since almost all Calvinists were once Arminian or semi-pelagian, we understand both sides of this debate, while almost all of our opponents do not. That should cause any rational person to at least try to understand the Calvinist position rather than assuming they know it. Strawmen abound here, and the same posters resurrect the same strawmen that were corrected in the last thread.

Is there a non-Cal in the house who would truly like to discuss the subject, or are there just going to be personal attacks and the same old strawmen?

 

[Don]

There have been some pretty venomous posts lately, in this area. In fact, this subject is always hotly debated, but from what I can see, in general, the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but.

Since I spent the first 25 years of my Christianity as a default semi-Pelagian, I understand how difficult coming to grips with the sovereignty of God in election can be. I once threw the audiobook, Chosen by God across the room, I hated the ideas contained within so much. . .

Here's the thing, since almost all Calvinists were once Arminian or semi-pelagian, we understand both sides of this debate, while almost all of our opponents do not. That should cause any rational person to at least try to understand the Calvinist position rather than assuming they know it. Strawmen abound here, and the same posters resurrect the same strawmen that were corrected in the last thread.

Is there a non-Cal in the house who would truly like to discuss the subject, or are there just going to be personal attacks and the same old strawmen?

Why would any non-cal be interested, when you've already started the "discussion" with "we're right, you're wrong"?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There have been some pretty venomous posts lately, in this area. In fact, this subject is always hotly debated, but from what I can see, in general, the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but.

Since I spent the first 25 years of my Christianity as a default semi-Pelagian, I understand how difficult coming to grips with the sovereignty of God in election can be. I once threw the audiobook, Chosen by God across the room, I hated the ideas contained within so much. . .

Here's the thing, since almost all Calvinists were once Arminian or semi-pelagian, we understand both sides of this debate, while almost all of our opponents do not. That should cause any rational person to at least try to understand the Calvinist position rather than assuming they know it. Strawmen abound here, and the same posters resurrect the same strawmen that were corrected in the last thread.

Is there a non-Cal in the house who would truly like to discuss the subject, or are there just going to be personal attacks and the same old strawmen?

First define Calvinist. Do you mean believers of Doctrines of Grace, then Presbyterian theology vs Baptist vs Anglican? Monergist vs Sinergist, Hyper Calvinistic vs Moderates what? Or do you even know what type your imagination is projecting when you speak about a “Calvinist.”

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why would any non-cal be interested, when you've already started the "discussion" with "we're right, you're wrong"?

Good point

 

[TCassidy]

Why would any non-cal be interested, when you've already started the "discussion" with "we're right, you're wrong"?

Hmmmm. I read his post three times and I can't find where he said "we're right, you're wrong." Could you point that out for me?

 

[TCassidy]

First define Calvinist.

Although I do not self-identify as a "Calvinist" for many reasons which I will not go into here, but I am an Historic Particular Baptist believing the bible teaches Particular Redemption.

The main points of Particular Redemption can be summed up with the acronym TULEP. (No, that is not a typo. I think the term Irresistible grace raises more questions than it answers.)

Total Depravity - all of man is ruined by the fall and no part of him escaped the consequences of the fall.

Unconditional Election - The sinner meets no condition which would merit his salvation. God saves whom He saves according to the good pleasure of His will.

Limited Atonement - not limited in its ability to atone for every sin of every person who ever existed, but limited in its application to regenerate believers.

Efficacious Grace - The Grace of Almighty God never fails to accomplish that which He intends it to accomplish.

Preservation of the saints - all those saved by Christ will never be lost. He preserves us by His Grace.

 

[thatbrian]

Why would any non-cal be interested, when you've already started the "discussion" with "we're right, you're wrong"?

I didn't write anything of the sort.

One way in which things go pear-shaped quickly in this section is when people don't take the time to read a post carefully or when they read a post in the most uncharitable way possible. You have done a great job demonstrating this, even to the point of using quotation marks which make it appear that I said such a thing. . .

Your post helps prove my point, but I would rather have a calm rational discussion regarding the topic at hand than be proven right about the apparent impossibility of doing so on the forum.

 

[thatbrian]

Although I do not self-identify as a "Calvinist" for many reasons which I will not go into here, but I am an Historic Particular Baptist believing the bible teaches Particular Redemption.

The main points of Particular Redemption can be summed up with the acronym TULEP. (No, that is not a typo. I think the term Irresistible grace raises more questions than it answers.)

Total Depravity - all of man is ruined by the fall and no part of him escaped the consequences of the fall.

Unconditional Election - The sinner meets no condition which would merit his salvation. God saves whom He saves according to the good pleasure of His will.

Limited Atonement - not limited in its ability to atone for every sin of every person who ever existed, but limited in its application to regenerate believers.

Efficacious Grace - The Grace of Almighty God never fails to accomplish that which He intends it to accomplish.

Preservation of the saints - all those saved by Christ will never be lost. He preserves us by His Grace.

While I'm Okay with the label, I don't go out of my way to refer to myself as a Calvinist either. In discussions regarding the DoG, I certainly do, just for brevity.

The doctrines which cause many to lose their minds are indeed those dealing with God's sovereignty in election. I've found that it's the U,L, and I that get people going, more than the T and the P do, but as you certainly know, they do fit together perfectly. In fact, if one is convinced of the T, the ULIP should logically follow; however, people often argue emotionally, rather than logically, regarding this subject.

It's my view that people often don't think through this subject properly and take a default position, which is based on human reasoning, not God's Word. Pelagianism makes sense to the natural man. Also, beyond making sense, God sovereignty, when it comes to our personal lives is an intolerable thought to the human mind and will. We don't mind God being sovereign in general, we're Okay with Him being in control of the weather and the birds and bees, but our flesh is riled to fury if we are told that God does as He pleases with His other creatures: men.

If a reasonable person shows up to get clarification on the DoG, maybe there could be some fruitful conversation. . .

 

[Don]

Hmmmm. I read his post three times and I can't find where he said "we're right, you're wrong." Could you point that out for me?

It's there; you just have to look deeper.

from what I can see, in general, the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but.

Since I spent the first 25 years of my Christianity as a default semi-Pelagian, I understand how difficult coming to grips with the sovereignty of God in election can be. I once threw the audiobook, Chosen by God across the room, I hated the ideas contained within so much. . .

Here's the thing, since almost all Calvinists were once Arminian or semi-pelagian, we understand both sides of this debate, while almost all of our opponents do not. That should cause any rational person to at least try to understand the Calvinist position rather than assuming they know it.

 

[Don]

I didn't write anything of the sort.

One way in which things go pear-shaped quickly in this section is when people don't take the time to read a post carefully or when they read a post in the most uncharitable way possible. You have done a great job demonstrating this, even to the point of using quotation marks which make it appear that I said such a thing. . .

Your post helps prove my point, but I would rather have a calm rational discussion regarding the topic at hand than be proven right about the apparent impossibility of doing so on the forum.

In order to have a calm, rational discussion regarding the topic, you must be prepared to admit that calvinism is possibly wrong. Are you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In order to have a calm, rational discussion regarding the topic, you must be prepared to admit that calvinism is possibly wrong. Are you?

Why?

 

[HankD]

Although I do not self-identify as a "Calvinist" for many reasons which I will not go into here, but I am an Historic Particular Baptist believing the bible teaches Particular Redemption.

The main points of Particular Redemption can be summed up with the acronym TULEP. (No, that is not a typo. I think the term Irresistible grace raises more questions than it answers.)

Total Depravity - all of man is ruined by the fall and no part of him escaped the consequences of the fall.

Unconditional Election - The sinner meets no condition which would merit his salvation. God saves whom He saves according to the good pleasure of His will.

Limited Atonement - not limited in its ability to atone for every sin of every person who ever existed, but limited in its application to regenerate believers.

Efficacious Grace - The Grace of Almighty God never fails to accomplish that which He intends it to accomplish.

Preservation of the saints - all those saved by Christ will never be lost. He preserves us by His Grace.

If I were to choose an actual position Doc yours would be close (Especially "E" and "P" - a given) for a choice.

But it is as of yet an IF

HankD

 

[thatbrian]

In order to have a calm, rational discussion regarding the topic, you must be prepared to admit that calvinism is possibly wrong. Are you?

That is completely illogical. I debate many things in which I am convinced I am correct, with no possibility that I am wrong. For example, I debate people that Jesus is the Christ. I debate Leftists who think that killing babies is Okay. . .

I rest the weight of my soul on my biblical beliefs regarding these matters, so no, I do not accept the idea that God's sovereignty in election is not true. That does not preclude honest, rational debate, however.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have been down this road before...on this very forum. It starts off cordial enough but over time becomes a out and out war as to just which brand of theology best represents the will of God... and heck it got ugly. At that time, I pitched my tent with the Calvinists and I learned a lot about doctrine that most people don’t care about today. But I also probably made my share of enemy’s. I just know that if we persue this the same darn thing is going to happen so I’m not in favor of it. But I didn’t start this, Brian did... so Brian be prepared for WW3 .... and it will keep going long when you grow tired of it That’s your decision though and now, you have been warned.

 

[utilyan]

Hmmmm. I read his post three times and I can't find where he said "we're right, you're wrong." Could you point that out for me?

"the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but. "

He starts the thread with a attack.

Let me start with that same sentiment.



The non-Calvinist, are GOOD, INTELLIGENT, and they are not Spiritual [Name Calling Edited], while the opposing side is anything but.....

 

[utilyan]

Let me expand gladly........


In fact, this subject is always hotly debated, but from what I can see, in general,NON-Calvinist, are not [Name Calling Edited] non-calvinist are not [Name Calling Edited] who would [Name Calling Edited]

Non-calvinist don't believe God [Name Calling Edited] he has to [Name Calling Edited]. That a human being could actually learn something.

Here's the thing all Ex-calvinist learned to PRAY.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but. "

He starts the thread with a attack.

Let me start with that same sentiment.



The non-Calvinist, are GOOD, INTELLIGENT, and they are not Spiritual [Name Calling Edited] while the opposing side is anything but.....

Wow... spiritual [Name Calling Edited]! That proactive claim could only be meant to insult...with the end result of getting you thrown off the board. Is that what you are looking to achieve...you’ve already crossed the line.

 

[utilyan]

Wow... spiritual NAZIS!! That proactive claim could only be meant to insult...with the end result of getting you thrown off the board. Is that what you are looking to achieve...you’ve already crossed the line.

The entire point of the post was to show that! its an attack.

I'm not saying Calvinist [Name Calling Edited]. I'm showing how he is hiding his own attack.

He is the one that said:

the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but.


So we are non-Calvinist are not calm, not cool and not collected.

 

[utilyan]

If you say your going to stick to the subject and not peoples character......THEN DO IT. Don't start off with an attack, thats hypocritical.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The entire point of the post was to show that! its an attack.

I'm not saying Calvinist [Name Calling Edited]. I'm showing how he is hiding his own attack.

He is the one that said:

the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but.


So we are non-Calvinist are not calm, not cool and not collected.

Look brother, unfortunately you are starting on the wrong foot... and you know that. These types of discussions need to be handeled very calmly and deliberately.