Featured Christian or Calvinist/Arminian?

I am more selective these days on which threads to participate in. One topic I am interested in discussing was mentioned in a few recent threads. The gist of the comments were that [some] people are Calvinists/Arminians first and Christians second. The thought behind these statements was that some individuals self-identity by their doctrinal distinctives instead of their standing in Christ. Let me make some quick points about this charge:

The C&A debate forum exists for the very purpose of debating Calvinism/Arminianism. Posting on either topic in that forum is expected.

Passionate debate about either position does not mean a person thinks that is all there is to the Christian life (although they may consider the topic to be important).

Looking at our brother through uncharitable eyes is the cause of many perceived offenses and hurt feelings. In short - if you are looking to be offended, you will be.

We may knowingly or unknowingly exasperate the problem by returning fire with fire.

We cry "Foul!" not because of a real offense but because a debate point was scored against us. Some people are more concerned with their own personal image than the truth.

We make mountains out of mole hills. Instead of moving on we dig in and fight as if our life depends on it.

We become unbalanced and make Calvinism/Arminianism a hobby horse that we will not get off of. That is when we make either doctrine more important than our identity as Christians.

Notice that I did not blame one side. I have read enough posts over the years to know this problem cuts both ways.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

That is true and it cuts both ways.

I am in complete agreement. The difficult part about that is two parties can be at odds with each other while respectively believing they are in the right. Because this a message board the truth is difficult to ascertain. It is easy to judge motives. Things can devolve to the point where it is virtually impossible to have a civil or profitable interaction with another poster. It is sad when that happens but happen it does. If we use the principle embedded in Matthew 18, we will try to work things out with a brother who we are having a difficult time with. But this is not a church setting. Relationships in this venue are more contrived and artificial. Sometimes the best courses of action are the least appealing. They include simply not engaging with the other person or using the block/ignore feature. Of course, these things only come into play when there is conflict that cannot be resolved.

Theologically, I am Calvinist in my soteriology. I am not "proud" of that because pride has no place in what we believe. I am convinced by scripture that my position is correct. I acknowledge that there is much that I do not understand. So, while I identify as Reformed Baptist from a theological perspective, that is a subset of my primary identity as a Christian. I do not have a theological litmus test for fellowship with another believer. I have a very close friend who is a tongues-speaking, laying on hands healing, and a rapture-tribulation believer. I love him dearly, although we disagree on almost everything that is not essential to the faith. Can we partner together in ministry? No. We disagree too much. Can we enjoy each other's company? Absolutely! Are there certain things we avoid? Yes. He knows my opinion on tongues and the Pentecostal view of divine healing.

In the end, I think we are defined more by how we interact with those we disagree with more than those who are in our camp. I do not like thinking about that too much because I know my history. It took me a long time to act more charitably towards those I do not agree with. I have to constantly remind myself of that history so I will not fall back into bad behavior. That does mean shying away from tough conversations. It does mean avoiding unprofitable conversations that do not have truth and glorifying God as their main goal.

 

Brother, I am not excusing poor or sinful behavior on anyone's part. That type of behavior needs to be confronted (biblically) and repented off (hopefully) by the offending person(s). Since all of us are prone to sin we should be also be looking at ourselves (Matthew 7:5).

So, for the sake of argument, let us say that we believe a brother on the Baptist Board has acted wrongly towards us. We have taken the issue up with that brother but the behavior persists. "Acting wrongly" in this context can be any of a number of things. Perhaps it is just needless bickering (wrangling about words, 2 Timothy 2:14). Maybe it is snide remarks, mischaracterizations, or plain rudeness. The goal is to see peace but sometimes we cannot. After all, even Paul understood that peace with all men is a goal that is not always realized (Romans 12:18). What do we do in such cases? To me, the remedy is simple, if not regrettable. We stop interacting with that person, whether it be for a time or permanently. The only other option is to stop posting on the board completely. There are members of this board who have placed me on block/ignore and I have done the same. Regrettable? Yes. Beneficial? For both parties, yes. We are able to engage on the board with a better spirit and (hopefully) be a blessing to others.

Are there Diotrephies and Alexanders among us? Given the size of the board, I do not doubt it. What should we as individuals do about it? We have three clear choices. 1. Continue to feed the problem. 2. Disengage from the problem. 3. Stop posting altogether. Does it matter if we are right while being portrayed by another(s) as wrong? It certainly matters to our ego but in the eternal scheme of things not so much. Again, I am not excusing poor or sinful behavior, although I recognize such behavior occurs. The question is what do we do about it? What is the right way to respond? I have given some suggestions for consideration.

 

But as a Christian how should we respond on an Internet discussion board where other Christians will be reading our posts? There was an exchange between John Adams and Benjamin Franklin from the John Adams miniseries a few years ago that I just love. John Adam's was speaking about another member of the Continental Congress and asked Benjamin Franklin, "Should I insult him in private?" Benjamin Franklin responded, "It is perfectly acceptable to insult someone in private. In fact, they may even thank you for it." A private conversation is one thing. In open forum with other brothers and sisters watching? I leave that for others to decide.

 

There are some people that enjoy the debate and have a win-at-all-costs attitude. To these types the end justifies the means. No camp has a corner on these types. Again, this does not mean that there is no place for hard-hitting debate. There is. Contending for the truth creates sparks (and maybe a few mushroom clouds!).



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk