Calvinism and how to discuss it without debate

[Dave G]

Oh no the Calvinist are organizing. Anti Calvinist run for your lives. They'll be like Calvin and all of them will want to be Pope. We will have to convert or die.

Please see the history of the religious wars, circa 1400-1800.
I think that you have man-made religion confused with the faith once delivered unto the saints ( Jude 1:3 ).

From my research,
The religious establishment of the day was so "anti-Calvinist" that they tortured thousands, and burned further thousands at the stake for heresy.
If you think that what happened at Geneva under John Calvin was bad, try looking at what happened in England, France and Spain at the hands of the "anti-Calvinist" authorities during that time period.

In addition, please see the Canons of Trent:
~The Council of Trent - Session 6~

I encourage you to educate yourself, MB...

I think It will help to avoid future mis-characterizations of those you call "Calvinists".
Finally, I know of no one on this board who identifies with John Calvin or his teachings, as being their source of biblical understanding and doctrine.
Rather, all the ones that I have seen who post in favor of God saving whom He wills, confesses Scripture as their only guide.



May God be pleased you bless you with many things, especially the ability to discern between truth and error.

 

[37818]

However, taking ones argument to its logical conclusion is completely appropriate.

Sure if the conclusion is really true. A false conclusion is still false.

 

[Dave G]

However, taking ones argument to its logical conclusion is completely appropriate.

Sure if the conclusion is really true. A false conclusion is still false.

I'd prefer leaving logic where it belongs, myself...
In the garbage can.

Let's just stick to God's word by faith.

 

[Reformed1689]

Sure if the conclusion is really true. A false conclusion is still false.

And, of course, the one who is being put in their place will always say the conclusion was false.

 

[Revmitchell]

And, of course, the one who is being put in their place will always say the conclusion was false.

What does that mean being put in their place?

 

[Reformed1689]

What does that mean being put in their place?

Take it how you want it

 

[Van]

If Calvinism is false doctrine, to ask for it to be "tolerated" is bogus.

If Calvinism is true, why is it defended by ITL arguments 1-5?

 

[S0l0m0n]

And going back to the thread's topic...

Would the Admins enforce at least what atpollard suggested?

Then a Calvinist could post in the 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' forum without the thread degenerating to down to the 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' level; with all the constructive ideas and edification being thrown out the window.

For the Baptist Forums, a simple explanation of policy that a topic identified [Particular Baptist Only] or [General Baptist Only] would be expected to be restricted to discussions of those views by those holding those views. [Calvinist Only] and [Arminian Only] would work as well, but some anti-Calvinists object to being called “Arminian”.

 

[Reynolds]

I actually like this idea. But the Arminians would also need their own forum as well. This would also require another safeguard.

@Squire Robertsson is this even possible? I know if someone is not baptist there are forums here they cannot even see or post to. Is it possible to do that sort of declaration with Calvinist/Arminian as well?

Good luck with that. It will be a mess.

 

[Reynolds]

On another board that I moderate (non religious), we have a simpler mechanism for such discussions. We simply prefix the title with a limiting identifier in brackets.

For example ...
[WW1 Only] Naval Tactics

This would announce to all participants that the topic of Naval Tactics is restricted to the WW1 era and comments on Naval Tactics in thee 1970’s would be unwelcome. Off topic posts violating the WW1 topic restriction would simply be reported and deleted.

For the Baptist Forums, a simple explanation of policy that a topic identified [Particular Baptist Only] or [General Baptist Only] would be expected to be restricted to discussions of those views by those holding those views. [Calvinist Only] and [Arminian Only] would work as well, but some anti-Calvinists object to being called “Arminian”.

They object to being called "Arminian" because they are not Arminian. About half the particular Baptist object to the term Calvinist.

 

[JonC]

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 am only speaking for myself (not for the @Squire Robertsson or any other member), but I see pro’s and con’s to this type of thinking.

The pros are that it will allow Calvinists to discuss issues within Calvinism (e.g., sublapsarian and infralapsarian, covenant theology and dispensationalism within Reformed Theology, etc).

But I think that there are important negatives to keep in mind – primarily that it is always dangerous to seek an echo chamber in examining doctrine. Often those who hold opposing views hold a view you will never hold – BUT this does not mean their observations are necessarily irrelevant or should not be carefully considered. For example, there would be no Reformed Baptists if Baptists had not considered Reformed doctrine OR Reformed Christians had not considered baptistic thought (depending on how you think it occurred).

This is a Baptist Board (we have a section open to other faiths, but for the most part the discussion is within a Baptist context). My personal view is that this is narrow enough (except perhaps we could move the topic to the Baptist section of the forum). There are forums dedicated to Calvinism, Arminianism, “Classic Calvinism”, Reformation Arminianism, Wesylean Arminianism, Compatabilism, etc. Just making a Calvinism non-Calvinism is not good enough (there are far too many positions if we want to get specific, and Calvinism is not the measuring stick).


And, @tyndale1946 , I was here long before you came to the forum (two days, but they were long days ).

 

[S0l0m0n]

I am only speaking for myself (not for the @Squire Robertsson or any other member), but I see pro’s and con’s to this type of thinking.

The pros are that it will allow Calvinists to discuss issues within Calvinism (e.g., sublapsarian and infralapsarian, covenant theology and dispensationalism within Reformed Theology, etc).

But I think that there are important negatives to keep in mind – primarily that it is always dangerous to seek an echo chamber in examining doctrine. Often those who hold opposing views hold a view you will never hold – BUT this does not mean their observations are necessarily irrelevant or should not be carefully considered. For example, there would be no Reformed Baptists if Baptists had not considered Reformed doctrine OR Reformed Christians had not considered baptistic thought (depending on how you think it occurred).

This is a Baptist Board (we have a section open to other faiths, but for the most part the discussion is within a Baptist context). My personal view is that this is narrow enough (except perhaps we could move the topic to the Baptist section of the forum). There are forums dedicated to Calvinism, Arminianism, “Classic Calvinism”, Reformation Arminianism, Wesylean Arminianism, Compatabilism, etc. Just making a Calvinism non-Calvinism is not good enough (there are far too many positions if we want to get specific, and Calvinism is not the measuring stick).


And, @tyndale1946 , I was here long before you came to the forum (two days, but they were long days ).

I appreciate the insight. (And maybe an entire forum may be too much; I'm not trying to 'reform' things here. Mostly, I'm asking if boundaries for certain discussions are possible.)
Also, not to be too repetitive, but...
would something like atpollard's idea be easier to implement and keep order in?

For the Baptist Forums, a simple explanation of policy that a topic identified [Particular Baptist Only] or [General Baptist Only] would be expected to be restricted to discussions of those views by those holding those views. [Calvinist Only] and [Arminian Only] would work as well, but some anti-Calvinists object to being called “Arminian”.

 

[Revmitchell]

I appreciate the insight. (And maybe an entire forum may be too much; I'm not trying to 'reform' things here. Mostly, I'm asking if boundaries for certain discussions are possible.)
Also, not to be too repetitive, but...
would something like atpollard's idea be easier to implement and keep order in?

Its likely you will not get anyone to change the board itself but you could try what he said. Warning though anytime I have tried to set the topic very barrow people ignore it and become agitated when you insist. For example if you want to talk about a change of heart someone is likely to start talking about heart surgery insisting its on topic because you mentioned "heart".

 

[JonC]

I appreciate the insight. (And maybe an entire forum may be too much; I'm not trying to 'reform' things here. Mostly, I'm asking if boundaries for certain discussions are possible.)
Also, not to be too repetitive, but...
would something like atpollard's idea be easier to implement and keep order in?

I suppose it would work, but I am not sure where it would end. We have IFB and SBC folk who have specific interests within their respective groups. We have Calvinists but not all non-Calvinisrt are Arminians. And there are disoensationalists, Covenant theologians, and the inbetween. I just do not know that it is workable.

We could (and have) had threads specifically for a particular purpose (e. g., Reformed only). But the problem is that others may read, learn, and question what is posted.

These are just thoughts (not an answer in any form).

Years ago I wanted a section for debates where participants were held accountable to an academic standard (moderator check fallacies, presuppositions are declared, assumptions evidenced, ect.). But I know that would not work either.

 

[Reformed]

I suppose it would work, but I am not sure where it would end. We have IFB and SBC folk who have specific interests within their respective groups. We have Calvinists but not all non-Calvinisrt are Arminians. And there are disoensationalists, Covenant theologians, and the inbetween. I just do not know that it is workable.

We could (and have) had threads specifically for a particular purpose (e. g., Reformed only). But the problem is that others may read, learn, and question what is posted.

These are just thoughts (not an answer in any form).

Years ago I wanted a section for debates where participants were held accountable to an academic standard (moderator check fallacies, presuppositions are declared, assumptions evidenced, ect.). But I know that would not work either.

If any of these changes are instituted it will be the moderators who will have to police it.

 

[JonC]

If any of these changes are instituted it will be the moderators who will have to police it.

Yep. (My bright idea was before I was a moderator. In hindsight it was a terrible idea).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

IMO, the temperature of the debate would lower if

• 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.
• folks realize forests of trees and oceans of ink have been already used in the debate over the last four hundred plus years by both sides. So, we aren't going to resolve the debate in this life.
• Which brings me to folks on both sides love the Lord and are bought with His blood. They both seek with all their hearts to know and obey His Word. If either side of the debate was as clear as its supporters say it is there would be no debate.

 

[1689Dave]

Have you noticed those who attack Calvinism do so based on ignorance?

They cannot see it so they say it doesn't exist in scripture. This alone lowers the bar on hubris.

The Russian cosmonauts did this too while orbiting earth for the first time. They didn’t see God so they said he doesn’t exist.

 

[Reformed]

Have you noticed those who attack Calvinism do so based on ignorance?

They cannot see it so they say it doesn't exist in scripture. This alone lowers the bar on hubris.

Dave, not every critic of Calvinism is ignorant. I have engaged the topic with those on the opposite side who were well-informed, articulate, and respectful. We just disagreed. However, those that "attack Calvinism" are a different breed. Their agenda is not about the quest for truth. I have seen the same attitude in some Calvinists who do not miss any opportunity to attack those on the Arminian side. So, let me ask you this question. When you encounter a post where Calvinism is being attacked, how should you respond to it?

 

[Reformed]

If either side of the debate was as clear as its supporters say it is there would be no debate.

Brother, I agree with your post except for this one part. In theology, there will always be differences of opinion as well as debate. The Internet has made debate more prevalent and reduced reaction time. When Luther debated Erasmus it was through snail mail. It took time to craft a response. Today all it takes is a few keystrokes. I am thankful for the good debates I have listened to. I have learned from them and sometimes changed my view.