ok, just be careful because you did say she was libel in the other post. It doesn't matter what your point was. Making a point doesn't mean one has to say someone is libel.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Lion, Rabbit and a Woman
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
ok, just be careful because you did say she was libel in the other post. It doesn't matter what your point was. Making a point doesn't mean one has to say someone is libel.
ALL of us here who are saved agree that it is by grace alone/faith alone, just differ on exactly the process by which the Lord actually does that with us!
In response to the OP -
You could as easily have offered the lion and/or the rabbit a choice that would call for an internal deliberative process on their part, just like the woman's. Animals can be conditioned as well, through natural circumstance, or human contrivance, to be wary of a food that by nature they would accept. Even a rat could think "Do I choose the cheese or the dry dog food kibble. Three years ago I was in a lab experiment when every time I ate cheese I got a shock and I quit eating it. But that was a long time ago. Maybe its not happening again." And he could flip flop back and forth, until eventually the decision was just purely random.
And it seems naive to not realize how a woman's desire to not get fat is the result of powerful societal conditioning, leading her as well to an agonized deliberation over say a chocolate sundae or a Weight Watchers brand dried sugar free diet bar.
--------------------
And I suppose the question is, do human decisions regarding God fall into a different category, not caused by any external factor -either God or nature or man - not random or caused, but instead the result of a fundamental spiritual "choice" of the individual. On a certain level such an idea appeals to me, but I do not believe there is any such doctrine in the Bible regarding a transcendent human choice in spiritual matters.
-----------------
edit cont.
But I can argue the other side possibly, e.g. considering when Christ talks about those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. So they are confronted with the Holy Spirit and decide to reject God. That has the flavor of something not caused by anything other than a person's fundamental choice. But then again in the parable of the Sower, Christ enumerates all the natural factors external to an individual that can cause him to reject the Holy Spirit. This debate is never-ending.
You could as easily have offered the lion and/or the rabbit a choice that would call for an internal deliberative process on their part, just like the woman's. Animals can be conditioned as well, through natural circumstance, or human contrivance, to be wary of a food that by nature they would accept. Even a rat could think "Do I choose the cheese or the dry dog food kibble. Three years ago I was in a lab experiment when every time I ate cheese I got a shock and I quit eating it. But that was a long time ago. Maybe its not happening again." And he could flip flop back and forth, until eventually the decision was just purely random.
And it seems naive to not realize how a woman's desire to not get fat is the result of powerful societal conditioning, leading her as well to an agonized deliberation over say a chocolate sundae or a Weight Watchers brand dried sugar free diet bar.
--------------------
And I suppose the question is, do human decisions regarding God fall into a different category, not caused by any external factor -either God or nature or man - not random or caused, but instead the result of a fundamental spiritual "choice" of the individual. On a certain level such an idea appeals to me, but I do not believe there is any such doctrine in the Bible regarding a transcendent human choice in spiritual matters.
-----------------
edit cont.
But I can argue the other side possibly, e.g. considering when Christ talks about those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. So they are confronted with the Holy Spirit and decide to reject God. That has the flavor of something not caused by anything other than a person's fundamental choice. But then again in the parable of the Sower, Christ enumerates all the natural factors external to an individual that can cause him to reject the Holy Spirit. This debate is never-ending.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Random is just another word for mysterious, which is very definition of a libertarian free choice. Self-determination is just that...made by ones' self, and not anyone else. To suggest, as some do, that one's inborn God-given nature dictates the free creatures desires and subsequent choices in such a manner they could not have been otherwise is biblically unfounded and ultimately affirms a fatalistic worldview. I prefer appealing to mystery over fatalism.
Ann, you are way out of line in this post. Have you called out the "anti arminians" on this board or questioned their hearts?
I am calling out one who has an agenda here. EVERY post he has started of the last 25 have to do with attacking Calvinism. Why is that? Aren't there other issues in the church? How about lukewarmness? How about ministry? How about ANY other topic than Calvinism? I don't see any Calvinist on this board having 25 of the last 25 started threads be on the exact same subject, do you?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Annsni,
I'll ask you nicely to stop making this personal. That is against the rules. At worse, my agenda is to debate theology on a theological debate forum, so sue me. What you see as an 'attack' on Calvinism others view as a defense of truth. In the same manner, there are many Calvinists here who defend their views (i.e. attack us) as diligently as I do, and you say nothing about their 'agenda,' nor do you question their hearts or belittle them, thus revealing your obvious bias. There are a TON of other great topics, many of which I engage in other formats and forums. I don't spend near as much time here as you do, as evidenced by your post count. And, for example, I don't talk politics here much. I go to the blaze.com for that, or in person with friends. I discuss other topics on occasion but since this is a DEBATE FORUM the tendency is to discuss those issues with which we disagree, not those that are common. The greatest point of disagreement happens to center around soteriology. If you don't like that, then don't read them. It is really that simple. But, you can't continue derailing a thread that is clearly in line with the rules by breaking the rules. You are out of line. Please stop. Okay?
I'll ask you nicely to stop making this personal. That is against the rules. At worse, my agenda is to debate theology on a theological debate forum, so sue me. What you see as an 'attack' on Calvinism others view as a defense of truth. In the same manner, there are many Calvinists here who defend their views (i.e. attack us) as diligently as I do, and you say nothing about their 'agenda,' nor do you question their hearts or belittle them, thus revealing your obvious bias. There are a TON of other great topics, many of which I engage in other formats and forums. I don't spend near as much time here as you do, as evidenced by your post count. And, for example, I don't talk politics here much. I go to the blaze.com for that, or in person with friends. I discuss other topics on occasion but since this is a DEBATE FORUM the tendency is to discuss those issues with which we disagree, not those that are common. The greatest point of disagreement happens to center around soteriology. If you don't like that, then don't read them. It is really that simple. But, you can't continue derailing a thread that is clearly in line with the rules by breaking the rules. You are out of line. Please stop. Okay?
Last edited by a moderator:
Show me one person on this board who has started 25 threads in a row for one agenda. THAT is why I have never said anything about anyone else. You seem pretty defensive and I wonder why that is.
DaJesusfanYeshua1chaser has probably started 25 in one day...and Skan is defensive because you have put him on the defense by attacking him.
[snipped - inflammatory and not on topic]
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yeah, to debate theology. We've been over this. That is kind of the reason for the existence of this particular forum. Soteriology encompasses a very broad range of topics, and is certainly the major issue of disagreement among baptists...thus the D-E-B-A-T-E.
As Webdog mentioned there are Cals who post much more than I do and you haven't attacked them in this manner and I seriously doubt if I were still a Calvinist you would be attacking me now. Your bias is abundantly clear.
Because you attacked my character in a very personal and demeaning way which is (1) personally insulting, and (2) a violation of board rules (if you haven't noticed I'm a moderator and it is part of my duty to point out such things.) The only reason you haven't received an infraction is because I'm trying not to moderate my own discussions. And the only reason I'm trying not to go on the offensive is because I don't want to stoop to such levels and break forum rules. I'm sure its the nature of this format that has caused you react in such an unkind manner. I'm sure you are a very nice person in real life and have allowed the anonymity of an online forum get the best of you. It happens to the best of us.
BUT....You really should edit your own post and retract your statements. It doesn't reflect well on you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
When I first heard this accusation I knew it wasn’t accurate, but I also understood it was being made in anger and ignorance, so I didn’t feel the need to specifically point out the inaccuracy. After all, I’m well aware that most of my discussions on this particular forum are centered on soteriology and there is nothing wrong with that. But, for those who are following along, here are the facts of the matter:
Of the last 25 threads I’ve started…
1 was on divine inspiration as it relates to sovereignty
1 was on misrepresentation of others views (straw-man attacks)
1 was on God’s Holiness
1 was on Israel relation to Law as it compares with the World's relation to faith.
1 was in reflection of a Tozer quote “deep calls unto deep” and how that relates to the appeal of the gospel
1 was on how our theology affects how we counsel in tragedy.
Several others were in the private moderators forum about various issues and topics unrelated to theology
And while the rest certainly are involving the issues surrounding Calvinistic doctrine, most of them aren’t ‘attacks’ (as was Ann’s ill informed accusation), but actual defenses of my own views carried over from other threads. Even the ones that are more on the 'offensive' against Calvinism are not what most would refer to as "attacking," but merely questions, arguments and points of disagreement for discussion.
ALL of the threads are cordial and covering issues often discussed in theological journals and articles written by scholars on these subjects. They certainly were all well within the rules and expectations set by the owners of this forum, which is more than we can say for Ann’s most recent posts.
Now, let’s get back to the OP and away from this derailment. Thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
One more piece of information that may be helpful to understand:
When I joined this forum there used to be a Cal/Arm only section, but the other theology section virtually died out because almost every point of theological disagreement lead back to this issue in one way or another and most of the posts in the general theology section were getting moved into the Cal/Arm section. If this Cal/Arm only section still existed Ann wouldn't have to subject herself to having to click away from subjects that weren't of interest (oh, the horror of it all).
When I joined this forum there used to be a Cal/Arm only section, but the other theology section virtually died out because almost every point of theological disagreement lead back to this issue in one way or another and most of the posts in the general theology section were getting moved into the Cal/Arm section. If this Cal/Arm only section still existed Ann wouldn't have to subject herself to having to click away from subjects that weren't of interest (oh, the horror of it all).
Not in anger at all. Trust me, if I were angry, you'd know it!
Here is the apparent motive behind your question in your response - your second post in the thread:
Yet you start right on Calvinists:
Your words:
Yet again we see your motive:
You are correct .....exactly right...there is an agenda. The thing is these questions have been answered...but some who post do not want an answer...they are set to resist.
The Apostle paul could sign in,and they would tell him he does not agree with what he wrote 2000yrs ago:BangHead::BangHead:
I do not mind the discussion /debate....except this obsession is making the [snip - inflammatory]
You do not see cals doing this...we have our own issues...but [snip - inflammatory] is never suggested or mentioned in our posts.
the non cal misunderstanding....leads to unfounded speculation where they go off it sounds like this.......if you believe in total depravity...THEN YOU MUST believe this... only 99 out of 100 times we do not believe anything like what the non cal describes.....:thumbsup::thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
Whoa there, Brother, back up just a sec. Where have any of us non cals questioned God's nature, goodness, and holiness? We have never denigrated God. That's an awful big charge to lay against us w/o any evidence to back it up. None of us are guilty of these things you accuse of us.....or at least I haven't seen it. FTR, I may have missed someone who has done this, but I don't think so.
I'm a minister, not a zoologist, so bare with me on my illustrations.
Here we go again. THIS is a debate forum on Christian doctrine, of which the doctrine of soteriology is arguably the most important and most debatable. I average just over 2 posts here a day, not excessive by anyones standards. (especially one with an average of over 6 posts daily and twice the total post count as I have, and I'm a moderator...thus one might argue you are the one who has something "wrong."). This is virtually the ONLY place in my life I discuss this soteriological disagreement.
As to your TIRESOME issue. Listen very carefully, and I say this in LOVE. If you don't want to debate theological differences then DON'T COME TO A FREAKIN THEOLOGICAL DEBATE BOARD AND KEEP CLICKING ON THREADS HAVING TO DO WITH THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS. :love2: Again, I say that in love. No one is holding a gun to your head. YOU DO have a CHOICE.
OR do you?
Well said. This issue is controversial and people should be open to the possibility that their particular view is wrong, regardless of how well convinced they are. I believe the doctrines of grace and the love of God and His unwillingness that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. I have, nevertheless, prayed for the Lord to teach me how to not lean on my own understanding and to guide me into all truth. Thus far, Calvinism has proven to be untenable in my view and so I continue to hold the views I hold out of necessity and obligation to stand on what I believe the Bible teaches, regardless of whose feelings may be hurt.
Willis,
I am speaking about posts who say the God of calvinism is a monster,unloving, vindictive,where people say they would not or could not worship a God who does what calvinism teaches, the 5 pts.
You have seen these posts willis...I know you have seen them.I do not remember you saying that...but I did not have a score sheet with me...
There are posts who say or question Gods wisdom,and goodness.
News flash: those posts you refer to question the wisdom of “your” interpretations and philosophy, not God’s wisdom or goodness. First, to suggest, as you do, that others here question God’s wisdom and goodness is for you to openly (although you think disguised) question other’s salvation on this board based on "your" beliefs; and that common accusation from you is against the rules. Second, maybe it would help if you stopped thinking “your” words to be inspired so you would stop coming to these types of false conclusions and accusations?
- Status