A Plea for Civility

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are people on this BB who would argue with a brick wall and find grave offense with the fact that the wall refuses to answer them.

Then there is the group of people who need to go find a telephone pole and argue with it, the pole would at least listen to them.

I simply do not participate in many, many, many of the subjects on here and carefully participate in the ones I even bother to read. It's just not worth the effort to get upset over something so trivial. I learned long ago that you are not going to change someone's mindset unless they want it changed. Spending time arguing accomplishes very little and life is far too short to waste it arguing on a bulletin board.

Well some do use it as a sounding board. Ive seen in the past undue attacks on people who (Heaven Forbid) have different belief systems & sometimes its even shameful. And Ive even participated so I can well testify to the problem having experienced it 1st hand.

The OP from the Brother is a call to Christian Civility....quite a rare post around here. I for one would hike to head it!

 

[kyredneck]

I see your point Mandym. I thought they would catch it, but I think it flew right on by.

Allow me to explain: Mandym made the point that we would continue to have unruly debates as long as we continue to misrepresent each others views. He linked to those posts as examples of blatant misrepresentations (which they were). There are examples of these on both sides, no doubt.

Now, Mandym is putting words in your mouth and misrepresenting what you have said to prove his point. We get upset with each other when we create straw-men and put words in the other's mouth instead of dealing objectively and honestly with their actual words.

Go back and read my post. I caught it!

I reiterate, there's people whose skin is too thin to be on a debate forum.

(I'm sure IQ comes in play somewhere also)

 

[Skandelon]

Go back and read my post. I caught it!

Sorry, it was hard to tell because your accusation that he was being too "thin skinned" seemed unwarranted considering his point. He wasn't expressing that these posts were themselves unruly, but that they were the cause of unruly responses due to their being overtly misrepresentative.

(I'm sure IQ comes in play somewhere also)

I'm sure it does. :type:

 

[DaChaser1]

Do you really think we believe that God's will is trumped by man's? REALLY?

Do you really think we believe that man must save themselves? REALLY?

If so, then you do not understand what we believe. It would be tantamount to one of us saying, "Calvinists believe that God is an evil puppet master." That may be what some perceive the Calvinistic doctrine looks like, but to claim that is what Calvinists actually believe would be unfair and offensive.

I'm not saying both sides don't do it, but if we are going to get past the bickering we have to deal honestly and fairly with each other's views. I think that was Mandy's point.

do you hold that all men have inherit free will and faith residing in them "naturally" that would allow ALL to decide to accept/reject Jesus?

if yes, how can you deny the fact that you DO elevate man will to be the determing factor in/of salvation process?

 

[mandym]

do you hold that all men have inherit free will and faith residing in them "naturally" that would allow ALL to decide to accept/reject Jesus?

if yes, how can you deny the fact that you DO elevate man will to be the determing[sic] factor in/of salvation process?

Good! That is a reasonable way to present your concern without telling someone else what they believe. Nice Job!:thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Good! That is a reasonable way to present your concern without telling someone else what they believe. Nice Job!:thumbs:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

do you hold that all men have inherit free will and faith residing in them "naturally" that would allow ALL to decide to accept/reject Jesus?

if yes, how can you deny the fact that you DO elevate man will to be the determing factor in/of salvation process?

If it is God's will that man makes a free choice (meaning being willingly able to accept or reject) then it is NOT US doing the 'elevating.' In fact, it is God's will and plan for salvation. So, accusing us of doing the 'elevating' assumes that our doctrine is false and not 'of God's doing.' Suppose God WANTS free moral creatures. Are you suggesting He couldn't create free moral creatures if that was His desire? Are you suggesting that if indeed he did will to create libertarianly free creatures that His will would be subverted or subjected by creating what he wanted? See what I'm saying? Our view doesn't elevate anything. Our view is simply that this is what God wanted, so He created it this way.

Secondly, I've explained how I believe it is the Calvinistic view that actually 'elevates' the view of lost mankind. Which is worse: A person who rejects God because he was born that way, or a person who freely rejects God despite God's provisions, love and genuine appeals for reconciliation? I say the latter, what do you think?

 

[quantumfaith]

If it is God's will that man makes a free choice (meaning being willingly able to accept or reject) then it is NOT US doing the 'elevating.' In fact, it is God's will and plan for salvation. So, accusing us of doing the 'elevating' assumes that our doctrine is false and not 'of God's doing.' Suppose God WANTS free moral creatures. Are you suggesting He couldn't create free moral creatures if that was His desire? Are you suggesting that if indeed he did will to create libertarianly free creatures that His will would be subverted or subjected by creating what he wanted? See what I'm saying? Our view doesn't elevate anything. Our view is simply that this is what God wanted, so He created it this way.

Secondly, I've explained how I believe it is the Calvinistic view that actually 'elevates' the view of lost mankind. Which is worse: A person who rejects God because he was born that way, or a person who freely rejects God despite God's provisions, love and genuine appeals for reconciliation? I say the latter, what do you think?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

If it is God's will that man makes a free choice

Right, "if" except it's not according to freewill, so your point is moot.

Man? Jesus said he is not free until the Son sets him free via truth.

In addition to this, it is God who chose us, not our "freewill" choosing Him.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am not here on this thread to give Youse (I'm from NJ) my own opinions of Theology; The OP is still another plea to Christian civility.

John tells us in chapter 5:13 that his whole object in writing to the folks he wrote to was "That you who believe on the Son of God might know that you have eternal life". that statement positively gives assurance to the "Believer"

But you may ask, "How does he give it to them?' GOOD Question.....bottom line, there are some tests that the "believer" can apply to him or herself.

The most important test is this, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren."

So I'm askin a simple question of all of you in BB, "Do you love the brethren?" & can you honestly say that you would sooner be with the brethren than with anybody else, that you have found that people whom you do not like by nature you can love as Christians because they are, with you, children of God?

I would suppose this requires some contemplation by us all.:godisgood:

God Bless

 

[David Lamb]

David, I have only ever seen Christlike brotherly love from you on this forum. Granted, you don't typically get very deep into the nuances of the debate and most of your responses are very short (which may be wise). But, I don't think you need to apologize for anything.

I second the motion for you to be a moderator! If you're interested I will nominate you. :thumbs:

Thanks for those kind words, Skandelon! I think I will have to say no to being a moderator, at least for the time being. Even as an ordinary poster, I have been finding myself spending far too long on the BB, and this sometimes results in there being not enough time for my church responsibilities, so you will notice that my rate of posting goes down in the future.

Thanks again, and God bless you richly!

 

[Skandelon]

Thanks for those kind words, Skandelon! I think I will have to say no to being a moderator, at least for the time being. Even as an ordinary poster, I have been finding myself spending far too long on the BB, and this sometimes results in there being not enough time for my church responsibilities, so you will notice that my rate of posting goes down in the future.

Thanks again, and God bless you richly!

Again, you prove yourself to be a wise man.... :applause:

 

[thomas15]

........I reiterate, there's people whose skin is too thin to be on a debate forum.

(I'm sure IQ comes in play somewhere also)

Quick! Emesis basins, where are they?

 

[Crabtownboy]

(I'm sure IQ comes in play somewhere also)

I agree with you and I believe that those who respond with insults show their IQ is low enough that they cannot get their point across rationally and with politeness. :wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks for those kind words, Skandelon! I think I will have to say no to being a moderator, at least for the time being. Even as an ordinary poster, I have been finding myself spending far too long on the BB, and this sometimes results in there being not enough time for my church responsibilities, so you will notice that my rate of posting goes down in the future.

Thanks again, and God bless you richly!

Smart Move!!!

 

[DaChaser1]

If it is God's will that man makes a free choice (meaning being willingly able to accept or reject) then it is NOT US doing the 'elevating.' In fact, it is God's will and plan for salvation. So, accusing us of doing the 'elevating' assumes that our doctrine is false and not 'of God's doing.' Suppose God WANTS free moral creatures. Are you suggesting He couldn't create free moral creatures if that was His desire? Are you suggesting that if indeed he did will to create libertarianly free creatures that His will would be subverted or subjected by creating what he wanted? See what I'm saying? Our view doesn't elevate anything. Our view is simply that this is what God wanted, so He created it this way.

Secondly, I've explained how I believe it is the Calvinistic view that actually 'elevates' the view of lost mankind. Which is worse: A person who rejects God because he was born that way, or a person who freely rejects God despite God's provisions, love and genuine appeals for reconciliation? I say the latter, what do you think?

The basic problem with your held views regarding this is that it would apply to Man, but ONLY would work in pre fall state for/of Adam!

he could 'freely" choose to obey the Lord or not, after His sin, he lost his free moral agency, and that is our state now...

mankind NOT free moral agents any longer, so God must save us by act of His divine Will, and elect us to be enabled to even be able to accept Christ!