Calvinism and how to discuss it without debate

[S0l0m0n]

I'm actually for atpollard's idea.
No drastic change really.

 

[tyndale1946]

I agree there will always be disagreements over the crossing of "Ts" and the dotting of "Is". However, I believe we should approach the matter with the assumption of god will on the other side. One lesson I learned in dealing with Evangelical Christian-BaptistsJust because I see something clearly taught in Scripture it doesn't mean the brother sitting opposite will also.

2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

Brother Glen

 

[MB]

Elect means the people of God the Jews. There are no Gentiles ever called elect in scripture.
MB

 

[Iconoclast]

There are many times when I wish to discuss theological ideas that will end up sounding too 'Calvinist'. The thread would then inevitably turn into a 'debate', and it would derail the thread. My only option is to post in the 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' forum, where I am not looking for a debate or to provoke anyone into an argument.

And so I ask the Admins if it is possible to have a 'Calvinist' theology forum, in addition to the 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' forum.
Where ideas of predestination and such, can be argued among those who wish to build up others with the same ideas, without having to defend the absolute basics of their theological thought process at every single turn.

I do not think this is a good idea.
I do not think it is necessary.
[Edited]

 

[MartyF]

folks didn't treat the debate as a zero-sum matter. Where there is only a winner and a loser. And the winner only accepts unconditional surrenders. This is Baptist Board, not WW2.

'Pelagianism'

Solomon, you are obliviously completely missing the point.

If Calvinists start a thread, the opposition doesn't interfere with it unless they are attacking the other side either directly or indirectly.

Did anyone mess with your thread on Calvinist sources? Think about why.

And yes, if someone says something negative about me directly or indirectly, I should have the ability to defend myself.

Your comment made this zero-sum.

No one here believes in Pelagianism or even knows what it is. We don't know what it is because all of his books were burnt and those who wrote about him confessed to bearing false witness. No one here says they are a Pelagianist. Once a Calvinist accuses someone of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, he is entering a zero-sum game.

This is a devious underhanded way of calling the other side Satan-worshipping heretics. It's like I previously said,

Invariably, a Calvinist will say something which will offend a literate person or vice versa.

As I showed, it just takes a little word change to insult and offend someone. Although I thought the sentence was crafted well enough to show that I was trying to make a point about how easy it was to offend. I do not believe Calvinists are illiterate.

When someone gets offended, it's better to just let them have their say and move on. If you silence them and start a Calvinist-only forum, you will only cause the divisions to deepen.

 

[Van]

"those who accept the bible without alteration"

Like the Mormons, who started over with a fresh revelation, or the Catholic Church with its rich tradition to help it "correctly divide" the word according to Apostolic authority?

EVERYONE believes they have correctly interpreted the bible without alteration, so to set yourself above THEOLOGY is just hubris.

And once again we have petty insult rather than dialog. Matthew 23:13 has people entering the kingdom which means they have some spiritual ability. Therefore the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability requires biblical alteration. I could go on and on. The result will be more personal attacks, and no biblical support.

 

[atpollard]

And once again we have petty insult rather than dialog. Matthew 23:13 has people entering the kingdom which means they have some spiritual ability. Therefore the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability requires biblical alteration. I could go on and on. The result will be more personal attacks, and no biblical support.

[1Co 2:12-14 NASB] 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual [thoughts] with spiritual [words.] 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Were you born a natural man or a spirit man?
(Let’s see if your complaint about dialogue is genuine or just posturing?)

 

[Van]

[1Co 2:12-14 NASB] 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual [thoughts] with spiritual [words.] 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Were you born a natural man or a spirit man?
(Let’s see if your complaint about dialogue is genuine or just posturing?)

Answer, I was born a natural person, not indwelt, just like every other person. I was spiritually dead because I was separated from God for I was made a sinner as a consequence of Adam's sin.

In the passage cited, note verse 14 which says "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." Does this mean "all the things" or just some of the things? Based on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, this refers to "some of the things" spiritual solid food (meat) but does not refer to spiritual milk, which men of flesh can accept and understand.

 

[atpollard]

Based on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, this refers to "some of the things" spiritual solid food (meat) but does not refer to spiritual milk, which men of flesh can accept and understand.

I acknowledge that the immediate context for verse 14 was ‘spiritual meat’, but in the spirit of your not interpreting anything into the Bible (like not assuming that natural men cannot accept and understand spiritual milk either, as those holding to Total Inability would), do you have a verse that explicitly teaches that the natural man can understand ‘spiritual milk’ (obviously, it is unlikely to be presented in those exact terms, I simply desire the explicit teaching you claim negates the need for interpretation of scripture beyond the explicit.)

 

[Van]

I acknowledge that the immediate context for verse 14 was ‘spiritual meat’, but in the spirit of your not interpreting anything into the Bible (like not assuming that natural men cannot accept and understand spiritual milk either, as those holding to Total Inability would), do you have a verse that explicitly teaches that the natural man can understand ‘spiritual milk’ (obviously, it is unlikely to be presented in those exact terms, I simply desire the explicit teaching you claim negates the need for interpretation of scripture beyond the explicit.)

Well, that is a start. How could "natural men" understand spiritual milk with no spiritual ability?
Why did Paul speak to the immature Christians in the same manner he spoke to "men of flesh?" My answer is that immature Christians and non-Christians can understand and accept spiritual milk, indicating they have "limited spiritual ability."

So the passage that teaches this limited spiritual ability is 1 Cor. 2:14 to 1 Cor. 3:3 with emphasis on 1 Cor. 3:1.

 

[37818]

In the passage cited, not verse 14 which says "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." Does this mean "all the things" or just some of the things? Based on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, this refers to "some of the things" spiritual solid food (meat) but does not refer to spiritual milk, which men of flesh can accept and understand.

I am not so sure. One is saved yet being "cardnal" is yet the same as the yet unsaved "natural" man in not understanding the things of God. Which would, I think, include the milk of the word.

1 Corinthians 2:12-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, ". . .
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [ But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. [ I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? . . ."



So please explain how you are understanding this, where you seem to get the notion the natural man receives "some" of the things of God. Or explain what you mean.

Maybe I am undersanding what you mean backwards. And you actual are saying "natural" man does not understand any of it. The carnal Christian only understands "some" of it. If that is what you mean?

 

[Van]

I am not so sure. One is saved yet being "cardnal" is yet the same as the yet unsaved "natural" man in not understanding the things of God. Which would, I think, include the milk of the word.

1 Corinthians 2:12-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, ". . .

So please explain how you are understanding this, where you seem to get the notion the natural man receives "some" of the things of God. Or explain what you mean.

Maybe I am understanding what you mean backwards. And you actual are saying "natural" man does not understand any of it. The carnal Christian only understands "some" of it. If that is what you mean?

First let us drop "carnal" because it is used to mean two different things. Lets go with those who are not indwelt (natural men, men of flesh) and immature Christians (indwelt but have not grown so they can understand spiritual solid food.) However Paul spoke to the immature Christians in the same manner he spoke to men of flesh using spiritual milk.

The natural man cannot understand the (spiritual solid food) things of the Spirit of God. But they can understand and respond to spiritual milk.

 

[37818]

The natural man cannot understand the (spiritual solid food) things of the Spirit of God. But they can understand and respond to spiritual milk.

This thinking regarding "spiritual milk" being, what seems you are saying, to be the same thing as preaching the gospel. I am not so sure I can agree with that equivalence. The gospel message, I agree, is found within the "milk of the word." The milk is for those who are already saved, as I understand "milk."

So please make your case.

 

[Van]

This thinking regarding "spiritual milk" being, what seems you are saying, to be the same thing as preaching the gospel. I am not so sure I can agree with that equivalence. The gospel message, I agree, is found within the "milk of the word." The milk is for those who are already saved, as I understand "milk."

So please make your case.

Why did Paul speak to immature Christians as to men of flesh? The only way I can see to understand this is to believe men of flesh can also understand and grow on spiritual milk.

 

[37818]

Why did Paul speak to immature Christians as to men of flesh? The only way I can see to understand this is to believe men of flesh can also understand and grow on spiritual milk.

I guess that works for your understanding. I am not understanding your argument. Since I see a distinction between the lost "natural man" and Christians who have been given the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16) and have a problem being carnal (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). Compare Hebrews 5:12-14.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Back in my days living in the dorms at MBBC, we had a sign posted which read:

Before you say something ask yourself:​

• Is it true?
• Is it kind?
• Is it necessary?

 

[Iconoclast]

Squire Robertsson,

Back in my days living in the dorms at MBBC, we had a sign posted which read:

Before you say something ask yourself:​

• Is it true?

By true, you mean not a lie, slander, or false witness?

• Is it kind?

It should not turn personal where the poster makes
snide remarks, questioning a persons education, or profession,

• Is it necessary?

Does it attempt to edify?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually, it's what you are about to say yourself. Something may be true and kind but not necessary. Or something maybe kind and necessary but not true (The age-old question of what does a husband say when his wife asks him does this dress make me look fat?) Problems arise when something is true and necessary but not kind.

 

[JonC]

Back in my days living in the dorms at MBBC, we had a sign posted which read:

Before you say something ask yourself:​

• Is it true?
• Is it kind?
• Is it necessary?

Bernard Meltzer, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Bernard Meltzer, if I'm not mistaken.

Looks close. He also hedged with a "maybe."

"Before you speak ask yourself if what you are going to say is true, is kind, is necessary, is helpful. If the answer is no, maybe what you are about to say should be left unsaid." –Bernard Meltzer