Calvinism needs to be Redefined

Hello icthus. Forgive me for butting in but I am doing a bit of reading about the Servetus incident in Geneva at the moment and I came across this statement that is cogent.

WE now come within the shadow of a great tragedy. But the horror which the act we are about to narrate awakens is, in truth, a homage to Protestantism. If a deed which not only called forth no condemnation from the age in which it was done, a few personal enemies of Calvin excepted, but which, on the contrary, was pronounced by the best and most enlightened men then living to be just and necessary, awakens our abhorrence–that abhorrence is, in fact, the measure of our advance in toleration since the sixteenth century. But it is Protestantism that we have to thank for that advance.

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/History.Protestant.v2.b14.html#CHAPTER%2021

Toleration. Let God deal with His detractors or we will end up copying Rome and bonefire night will come round more often that once a year.

john.

 

Very true John. By the way, thanks for the links. Will read them.

I sure hope these "unfounded" charges of blasphemy against God, etc. aren't directed at me. Nowhere have I blasphemed against God. I myself have been defending his character, nature, etc. the best I know how according to who I believe God is. Don't go thinking you have the monopoly on truth Icthus.

And if this blasphemy "banter" is about me then let me introduce you all to a new word:

new word of the day: LIBEL
meaning: go look it up

As for this comment Larry: "I, quite frankly, am tired of those who would remove God from his throne and replace him with depraved humanity"...be tired all you want. That statement has no basis in fact for nobody here removes God from His throne. Remember...libel.

Also remember...gentleness and humility. Besides, nobody COULD remove God from His throne...or is your oft-quoted "sovereignty" line just lip service? Really...you guys are too easy.

 

The point is that if I edited stuff that was an attack on God, or offensive to God, virtually all of your posts would be removed. I don't edit on those bases.

 

Frankly, I think it's wrong that anyone can edit someone else's posts. If they cross the line, suspend them. If they persist, ban them. This is not a newspaper in the business of making money. I don't believe grown adults need to be "edited".

 

I wish it were so that all participants were gentle and humble enough to need no editing. However, experience has taught us that depravity rules, even in the cyber world (or especially in the cyber world perhaps). If you believe that grown adults don't need to be edited, then you should read a little more here.

We have a process here which you agreed to. Suspension and banning is a last resort. If your idea was put to practice, you would no longer be able to post here. However, because our policy is different, we are willing to edit, and give you a second, third, fourth, sometimes tenth chance to get it right. We have a vested interest in trying to keep the conversation and decorum here as reasonable as we can. We aren't prudes or overly sensitive. We do try to keep things under control.

 

Larry...I disagree. I haven't done ANYTHING to warrant being suspended or banned. Two warnings is ALL I've had (and yours wasn't even necessary)and I haven't done anything else after that. I do not appreciate the doubt cast on my character as a result of you saying "If your idea was put to practice, you would no longer be able to post here."

I am beginning to think you have a personality clash with me and if that's the case...that's fine. I'm not here to be liked. I am not here to break the rules. But once again, I EXPECT to be treated with the same gentleness and humility as everyone else. There should not be one standard for Calvinists and a higher one for non-Calvinists.

 

"Do you not consider any form of attacrs, or insults on God to be worth having the person banned, without any warning?"

Icthus, the problem with that is it is subjective. My non-Calvinism is "an attack" on God according to you and that is just too subjective.

 

Icthus,

KJ has it right. Your standard, Icthus, is subjective. You define "attack on God" as things that disagree with your own position. If I used your standard as the standard for editing, you would not be allowed to post. I can't edit as "a pastor." I edit as a moderator. As a pastor, I would never allow much of the stuff said in here to go on. If someone in my church wanted to teach a class or lead a Bible study, they would not be permitted to hold your position. I believe that to be an attack on God, his character, his revelation, and his purposes in human history. But I don't use that standard for moderating. You are allowed to espouse your opinion, and you are allowed to challenge the views and opinions of others.

I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that there have been a few people banned for their views on theology and theological issues. But they have been far outside the mainstream of evangelicalism. No one here has crossed that line. I have had to inform sevearl people that they could not post in this forum because they did not hold to an evangelical position on the gospel.

Simply put, it is too subjective for me to start trying to edit "attacks on God." And for that, you should be glad. It means you can still post here.

 

I didn't cast doubt on your character. I applied your standard to the current situation. You were edited for violation of board rules. You claimed that you didn't want editing, that people should just be suspended or banned. I pointed out that if your standard was in place, you would not have been edited; you would have been banned.

You are correct that you did nothing worthy of being suspended or banned under the current system. You did something worthy of being edited. As I pointed out, it is good for your sake that your own idea about no editing, only suspension and banning wasn't in place.

To be honest, I don't know even remember hardly anything you have said. I have no personality clash with you at all. In fact, if you did not keep bringing this up, it would have been buried on the top of the last page and been long forgotten.

You are and will be.

There is not. As I have pointed out many times, including in this very conversation, theology is never the basis for editing. I am typically harder on Calvinists than Arminians. I expect everyone to be decent. I don't micromanage. The discussion is such that it gets heated and that is fine, but we must maintain respectability and decency towards one another.

 

Ok Larry...I understand. Thanks.

I will try to be decent to everyone...I hope they will do the same.

 

Pastor Larry,
You have done a very good job defending yourself in this thread. I am impressed with how you have handled the continuous bombardment ...

I do have a question...If salvation comes only through Jesus Christ and faith in Him, how do babies get salvation? I understand and agree with (I think) your all children who die are elect thoughts. Does this also apply to someone on a remote island who NEVER has the opportunity to hear about Christ (just looking for your thoughts if you understand my question).

What about you Arminians (nonCalvinists), how can all those babies (or any baby) get to heaven without a personal relationship with Jesus - if Faith comes by hearing....

[ June 22, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Jensen...I don't believe I was being childish. I have been defending myself and I was simply asking Larry for his "reasons". I no longer have an issue with him. So...if you are calling me childish I think you are just trying to stir the pot.

How can all those babies get to heaven without a personal relationship with Jesus? Easy. God knows us even before we're born and He can whisper into a little baby's ear and put faith in his heart just as easily as He does it for grownups. After all, that is how He does it for grownups according to Calvinism, no?

Also, we have the statement from Jesus Himself when He said "let the little children come unto me" and similar statements to that effect.

 

I think I actually agree with you on that Icthus...but you know the Holy Hounds will be after you now eh?

 

Amen Icthus! LOL my bad...I thought you were a Calvinist. My apologies.

 

You have finally done it. After 11 pages, you have brought up the legitimate issue. I said several times that in the midst of all of Icthus misunderstandings and misidentification of problems, he was missing the actual problem.

The problem with my position is that it results in people going to heaven without faith in Christ (cf. Rom 10:17). It opens the door to adults in places that have not heard of Christ. To be honest, I don't have a complete answer to that. I believe that babies go to heaven, based largely on 1 Sam 14. I believe people who have never heard of Christ go to hell as stated in Rom 1 because they reject what they do know.

For all those who accuse Calvinists of being driven by logic, this is clear evidence that many of us are not. If I was driven by logic, I would say that babies go to hell because they do not have faith. But I am willing to let the tension stand.