-
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!
Calvinism/Arminianism Forum - Finally Imploded?
- Thread starter JohnB
- Start date
Robert J Hutton
New Member
I seem to recall that in the C v A forum Dave Hunt was accused of lying; perhaps that is what Larry meant by unChristian behaviour.
Kind regards to all.
Bob
Kind regards to all.
Bob
This is how I believe any debate ought to be--
It ought to be like the old World Wrestlin' Federation---you get in the ring---you wrestle your opponent---you stir the crowd up---then when you pen him to the mat--the ref raises your hand for the win---then when its all over---you and your opponent go to the dressin' room--you shower up---then you both go out and buy steak dinner together for your families!!
In the Calvin/Arminian debates---I never understood the reasoning to "get mad" at anyone---when all things considered both Calvin and Armeaus both were a little bit less than infallable and inerrant in their theology!!!
Now--as far as debate goes---I'll debate anybody--just like I'll wrestle anybody---and the loser buys steak dinner after the match/debate---and I'll be your buddy whether you beat me or I beat you!! See??
But all of the name calling and the "He's a liar!" "No I'm not--you're a liar!" garbage is unChristlike--whether you're a 1000point Calvin or a no point Arminian--and also stupid and childish--thats why it was closed!!
Blackbird
It ought to be like the old World Wrestlin' Federation---you get in the ring---you wrestle your opponent---you stir the crowd up---then when you pen him to the mat--the ref raises your hand for the win---then when its all over---you and your opponent go to the dressin' room--you shower up---then you both go out and buy steak dinner together for your families!!
In the Calvin/Arminian debates---I never understood the reasoning to "get mad" at anyone---when all things considered both Calvin and Armeaus both were a little bit less than infallable and inerrant in their theology!!!
Now--as far as debate goes---I'll debate anybody--just like I'll wrestle anybody---and the loser buys steak dinner after the match/debate---and I'll be your buddy whether you beat me or I beat you!! See??
But all of the name calling and the "He's a liar!" "No I'm not--you're a liar!" garbage is unChristlike--whether you're a 1000point Calvin or a no point Arminian--and also stupid and childish--thats why it was closed!!
Blackbird
When lies are told, it is certainly unChristian. It is not unChristian to point them out, but when such charges are made they should be clearly documented. This issue of Hunt had nothing to do with the decision.
There is certianly nothing wrong with a good healthy discussion. But it should stop at that. Unfortunately, it didn't.
Mark Osgatharp
New Member
This is a flat contradiction of Paul's rout of the "no-resurrection" heresy found in I Corinthians. How man of the resurrection deniers would have said that:
1. Their faith was vain.
2. The gosepl was a lie.
3. Christians were the most miserable people in the world.
4. All who died believing in Christ went to hell.
5. Baptism was a fraud.
6. Suffering for Jesus sake was a vanity.
7. The apostles were all liars.
Paul took what the heretics did say - that there will be no resurrection of the dead - and showed the inescapable logical ramifications of the heresy. That is what happened in the Calvinist/Arminian forum - the unavoidable implications of Calvinism were laid bare.
And how many of the Jews would have said God was not their Father and that they did not believe Moses' writings? And yet Jesus proved that by denying Him they exposed their lack of faith in the Father and the Scriptures of Moses.
Mark Osgatharp
Good points Mark. I hadn't thought about it that way.
I think the difference would be that most Calvinists and non-Calvinists grudgingly consider each other brothers in Christ.
Paul's opponents were unbelievers, as were the Pharisees.
One can be accept Calvinism soteriology and still be a Christian. One cannot deny the resurrection and claim the same.
I think the difference would be that most Calvinists and non-Calvinists grudgingly consider each other brothers in Christ.
Paul's opponents were unbelievers, as were the Pharisees.
One can be accept Calvinism soteriology and still be a Christian. One cannot deny the resurrection and claim the same.
Personally, I consider non-Calvinists brothers in Christ, and not grudgingly. I don't think I should separate from a brother who has taken the name of Christ just because he may be wrong about how that came to pass. And, I know that if I am wrong about how that came to pass then I would like to have the same courtesy extended to me.
Mark,
The biggest problem with your point is that it is inaccurate comparison. Paul did not mischaracterize the opponents' view. They denied the resurrection. Paul did not accuse them of anything else. So your whole point breaks down. It isn't a valid comparison. Your tactic in teh CvA forum was to mischaracterize the views of your opponents, and then try to draw conclusions based on a wrong premise. Paul never did that.
Secondly, your attempts to show "inescapable logical implications" were faulty because they were based on illegitimate grounds. That was made clear to you ad nauseum and you refused to accept it. Now you are trying to do the same thing. Any conclusion that is drawn from a faulty basis is a faulty conclusion. You don't get to make up your own premise. That is unethical in debate. If you characterize my position properly, then you can try to refute it. That was the point. Even here, you mischaracterized my argument and took off from there. That is simply wrong. It should not be done.
If you disagree with something, then disagree with it. But disagree with it. Don't make something up that no one believes, disagree with that, and then act like you killed the big one.
The forum was not shut down because Calvinism was losing. Anyone can read and see that wasn't the case. There were a few good discussions going on, and an awful lot unethical arguments and personal attacks. That was unacceptable, and still is. I hope one day that the forum will be able to reopen with people committed to civil and honest discussion. Until then, we have taken this step.
I don't view arminians grudgingly as brothers in Christ. I think many of them are saved and love God more than I do. I think many Calvinists are also saved. It is too bad that some refuse to talk to one another as if they are brothers in Christ.
The biggest problem with your point is that it is inaccurate comparison. Paul did not mischaracterize the opponents' view. They denied the resurrection. Paul did not accuse them of anything else. So your whole point breaks down. It isn't a valid comparison. Your tactic in teh CvA forum was to mischaracterize the views of your opponents, and then try to draw conclusions based on a wrong premise. Paul never did that.
Secondly, your attempts to show "inescapable logical implications" were faulty because they were based on illegitimate grounds. That was made clear to you ad nauseum and you refused to accept it. Now you are trying to do the same thing. Any conclusion that is drawn from a faulty basis is a faulty conclusion. You don't get to make up your own premise. That is unethical in debate. If you characterize my position properly, then you can try to refute it. That was the point. Even here, you mischaracterized my argument and took off from there. That is simply wrong. It should not be done.
If you disagree with something, then disagree with it. But disagree with it. Don't make something up that no one believes, disagree with that, and then act like you killed the big one.
The forum was not shut down because Calvinism was losing. Anyone can read and see that wasn't the case. There were a few good discussions going on, and an awful lot unethical arguments and personal attacks. That was unacceptable, and still is. I hope one day that the forum will be able to reopen with people committed to civil and honest discussion. Until then, we have taken this step.
I don't view arminians grudgingly as brothers in Christ. I think many of them are saved and love God more than I do. I think many Calvinists are also saved. It is too bad that some refuse to talk to one another as if they are brothers in Christ.
I think a comparison to the "no-resurrection" heresy found in I Corinthians is a poor comparison of this debate. Someone who denies the Resurrection is Not a Christian.
In the Calvinism vs. Arminian Debate (OR Calvinism vs. Non Calvinist Debate) it has not been a debate over whether One or the other were Christians. God has used Arminians such as the Anabaptists, General Baptists, John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, John Wesley, Billy Graham and he has used Calvinists such as John Calvin, John Knox, Particular Baptists, John Bunyan, William Carey, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John MacArthur.
I think this demonizing of either side as being from the pits of Hell adds nothing to the debate. Non Calvinist Baptists need to admit and acknowledge that most of your Baptist forefathers were 5 point Calvinists and quit trying to make up history. Calvinist Baptists need to admit that the first generation of Baptists were 5 point Arminians and not do away with the first 30 years of Baptist history. We are all children of our Baptist Heritage (Both General and Particular Baptists)
I will say, it has been my observation in the C vs A debate that many (Not All) Non Calvinists especially don't know their subject, in attacking Calvinism and have probably read little by Calvinist authors.
When we start using the term HERETIC
then the conversation will go into the gutter. Baptists are the worst in the world in my opinion in using the term Heretic too lightly.
In the Calvinism vs. Arminian Debate (OR Calvinism vs. Non Calvinist Debate) it has not been a debate over whether One or the other were Christians. God has used Arminians such as the Anabaptists, General Baptists, John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, John Wesley, Billy Graham and he has used Calvinists such as John Calvin, John Knox, Particular Baptists, John Bunyan, William Carey, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John MacArthur.
I think this demonizing of either side as being from the pits of Hell adds nothing to the debate. Non Calvinist Baptists need to admit and acknowledge that most of your Baptist forefathers were 5 point Calvinists and quit trying to make up history. Calvinist Baptists need to admit that the first generation of Baptists were 5 point Arminians and not do away with the first 30 years of Baptist history. We are all children of our Baptist Heritage (Both General and Particular Baptists)
I will say, it has been my observation in the C vs A debate that many (Not All) Non Calvinists especially don't know their subject, in attacking Calvinism and have probably read little by Calvinist authors.
When we start using the term HERETIC
then the conversation will go into the gutter. Baptists are the worst in the world in my opinion in using the term Heretic too lightly.Well said, Kiffen.
Are you discriminating against everyone not a calvinist? Like a "secret club"
</font>[/QUOTE]haha nah.
Dan
Mark Osgatharp
New Member
JohnB,
I was not questioning whether or not a Calvinist is true believer. I was showing that exposing the ramifications of your opponents opinions, whether he accepts them or not, is a fair, honest, and Scriptural debate tactic.
By the way, there were apparently some at Corinth who were real believers and yet denied the resurrection - not the resurrection of Jesus but that the saints would rise from the dead. That was the basis on which Paul exposed the fallacy of their heresy - they believed that Jesus rose from the dead but denied that we would.
Mark Osgatharp
This is true ... but only if those ramifications are legitimate. In many cases, they were not. They were built from faulty foundations and thus were illegitimate.
4His_glory
New Member
Good remarks Kiffen! It would be nice to see a Christlike spirit in dealing with these issues.
My only comment on the whole debate is that the Bible is inerrant - theologians are not
That is of course what makes these debates fun - if we take ourselves to seriously, or think that we have the only orthodox positon on a topic that can interpreted more than one way, we raise our blood pressure for nothing
That is of course what makes these debates fun - if we take ourselves to seriously, or think that we have the only orthodox positon on a topic that can interpreted more than one way, we raise our blood pressure for nothing
Mark,
Thanks again for your comments. I think you make good points.
You said:
"I was showing that exposing the ramifications of your opponents opinions, whether he accepts them or not, is a fair, honest, and Scriptural debate tactic."
Then Larry said:
"This is true ... but only if those ramifications are legitimate. In many cases, they were not. They were built from faulty foundations and thus were illegitimate."
I say:
What are we to do if the opposition (Calvinists) never accept any critiques as valid? Just keeping shouting at them?
I am trying to think of when a Calvinist has admitted legitimate faults in their theology.
And how wrong does someone need to be about theology before it gets serious? Cleary, denying the fundamentals is unbelief.
But why is Calvinism accepted by most as a legitimate difference of opinion as opposed to say, the Catholic veneration of Mary?
I don't suppose that many Calvinists would hesitate to condemn Mariolatry, yet Catholics would put up what they consider a perfectly good defense.
Is there any way to ever overcome the subjectivity of where to place the line in the sand in theology, what's good, what's tolerated, what's bad and what's over the line?
That's why I said earlier that all these accusation of dishonesty and misrepresentation are part and parcel of arguing theology. Sin is part of us, and as long as we are part of the process, it will be sinful.
Thanks again for your comments. I think you make good points.
You said:
"I was showing that exposing the ramifications of your opponents opinions, whether he accepts them or not, is a fair, honest, and Scriptural debate tactic."
Then Larry said:
"This is true ... but only if those ramifications are legitimate. In many cases, they were not. They were built from faulty foundations and thus were illegitimate."
I say:
What are we to do if the opposition (Calvinists) never accept any critiques as valid? Just keeping shouting at them?
I am trying to think of when a Calvinist has admitted legitimate faults in their theology.
And how wrong does someone need to be about theology before it gets serious? Cleary, denying the fundamentals is unbelief.
But why is Calvinism accepted by most as a legitimate difference of opinion as opposed to say, the Catholic veneration of Mary?
I don't suppose that many Calvinists would hesitate to condemn Mariolatry, yet Catholics would put up what they consider a perfectly good defense.
Is there any way to ever overcome the subjectivity of where to place the line in the sand in theology, what's good, what's tolerated, what's bad and what's over the line?
That's why I said earlier that all these accusation of dishonesty and misrepresentation are part and parcel of arguing theology. Sin is part of us, and as long as we are part of the process, it will be sinful.
Kiffen said :
"I will say, it has been my observation in the C vs A debate that many (Not All) Non Calvinists especially don't know their subject, in attacking Calvinism and have probably read little by Calvinist authors."
This is a comment that typifies my frustration in dealing with "Calvinists." It goes like this:
"Once you truly understand Calvinism, you will accept it. (like effectual grace.) If you don't accept it, it is because you don't adequately understand it."
And, for Calvinism, you can insert the word Leninist, Roman Catholic, etc. Every belief system could claim this.
It's not hard to be accused of lacking understanding when there are such a wide range of Calvinists who don't even agree with each other. Pink vs Calvin vs Sproul vs. Piper vs MacArthur vs. Spurgeon. Supra, infra, equal ultimacy, asymmetrical reprobabtion, single, double predestination, the sincere offer vs no sincere offer, comon grace, no common grace, etc. One's head spins with all the variations within "Calvinism."
I have raised this challenge before, and I will raise it again, could any Calvinist here cite one book where you feel the author adequately understands and represents Calvinism, yet makes a cogent argument against it?
"I will say, it has been my observation in the C vs A debate that many (Not All) Non Calvinists especially don't know their subject, in attacking Calvinism and have probably read little by Calvinist authors."
This is a comment that typifies my frustration in dealing with "Calvinists." It goes like this:
"Once you truly understand Calvinism, you will accept it. (like effectual grace.) If you don't accept it, it is because you don't adequately understand it."
And, for Calvinism, you can insert the word Leninist, Roman Catholic, etc. Every belief system could claim this.
It's not hard to be accused of lacking understanding when there are such a wide range of Calvinists who don't even agree with each other. Pink vs Calvin vs Sproul vs. Piper vs MacArthur vs. Spurgeon. Supra, infra, equal ultimacy, asymmetrical reprobabtion, single, double predestination, the sincere offer vs no sincere offer, comon grace, no common grace, etc. One's head spins with all the variations within "Calvinism."
I have raised this challenge before, and I will raise it again, could any Calvinist here cite one book where you feel the author adequately understands and represents Calvinism, yet makes a cogent argument against it?