Can We Talk?

[utilyan]

Look brother, unfortunately you are starting on the wrong foot... and you know that. These types of discussions need to be handeled very calmly and deliberately.

Your going to tell me there is no insult in the first post with a straight face? But when I flip it to explain there is, you want my head on a silver platter?

Read that second sentence of the first post and come back and tell me there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[utilyan]

I can say NON-Calvinist don't eat babies.

That doesn't automatically mean Calvinist eat babies.



When you want to get on the subject we are ready.

 

[Don]

Why?

Because unless one is willing to entertain another point of view, and that perhaps one's own view needs to be adjusted--then it's not a discussion. It's merely a one-sided dialog meant to convince others why one position is correct and all others are wrong.

 

[Don]

I rest the weight of my soul on my biblical beliefs regarding these matters, so no, I do not accept the idea that God's sovereignty in election is not true. That does not preclude honest, rational debate, however.

And thus, you've started with the assumption that non-cals do not hold to God's sovereignty, and therefore cannot be correct. And thus, this is not a discussion or a debate, but an opportunity for you to explain to why you're right and non-cals are wrong.

Nothing illogical, irrational, or dishonest. Just an analysis.

 

[TCassidy]

Because unless one is willing to entertain another point of view,

I can entertain another point of view, even realize there is reasonable, logical, and scriptural support for that view without my point of view being wrong.

and that perhaps one's own view needs to be adjusted-

My view can be adjusted without it being wrong.

It's merely a one-sided dialog

You realize that is an oxymoron, right? A dialog is a conversation between two or more people.

one position is correct and all others are wrong.

Well, if there are two diametrically opposed positions it seems reasonable to me that one is wrong. (Unless, of course, both are wrong.)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Because unless one is willing to entertain another point of view, and that perhaps one's own view needs to be adjusted--then it's not a discussion. It's merely a one-sided dialog meant to convince others why one position is correct and all others are wrong.

So you view it as a sales pitch?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So you view it as a sales pitch?

Yes it could be an exchange of information, perception, culture etc. it doesn’t have me trying to persuade me or my attempting to persuade. If we could take heightened emotions out of the equation, we might both benefit from the exchange.... or not.

 

[agedman]

As I have posted more than once, I basically am in agreement with a modified Doctrines of Grace approach.

Like TCassidy, the grace of God will always accomplish that which it is purposed by God to accomplish. Sometimes the term(s) labels can stifle conversation in favor of reactionary rejection.

I do also (as most recent threads attest) suggest that the more Scriptural way to address the "limit" is not that of blood, but of redemption. So, I like "limited redemption" rather than "limited atonement," but it is a work in progress as far as terms.

 

[Don]

Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies. Haven't been feeling well, and medication has made things worse. Please forgive any offenses I may have caused.

 

[thatbrian]

And thus, you've started with the assumption that non-cals do not hold to God's sovereignty, and therefore cannot be correct. And thus, this is not a discussion or a debate, but an opportunity for you to explain to why you're right and non-cals are wrong.

Nothing illogical, irrational, or dishonest. Just an analysis.

Again you've proven that you don't read with care, so I don't have any hope of rational discussion with you regarding these matters without the frustration of dealing with repeating myself and strawmen.

I'm done, but I'll correct you for those looking on. I said "God's sovereignty in election", not simple, God's sovereignty.

Feel better.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm done, but I'll correct you for those looking on. I said "God's sovereignty in election", not simple, God's sovereignty.

God is sovereign in everything. No need to add "in election". Superfluous.




Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your going to tell me there is no insult in the first post with a straight face? But when I flip it to explain there is, you want my head on a silver platter?

Read that second sentence of the first post and come back and tell me there is nothing wrong with it.

I’m not asking for your head on a platter; what I’m asking you to do is remove it from your butt...then quit being so hypersensitive. Capich.

 

[utilyan]

I’m not asking for your head on a platter; what I’m asking you to do is remove it from your butt...then quit being so hypersensitive. Capich.

Sure thing. Just note if the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn't be asking you to behave as a christian, i'd be asking God to make you behave as a christian.

Ultimately you are not debating me at all, because I am merely following God's absolute sovereign will.

 

[utilyan]

The thing I am going to pinpoint is the order of things, Like when regeneration occurs in relation to hearing the gospel.

I'm going to show you a set of verses you tell me if they say the same thing, If they don't tell me what is different.
I'm going to LET YOU explain what is one verse saying and what is the other saying.


1 Corinthians 1

21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to cause belief in them that he saved.


Romans 10

10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

10for with the heart a person believes after he is made righteous, and with the mouth he confesses, as a result of salvation.


Ephesians 1

13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—after you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, you believed.


Romans 5

2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by grace into this faith in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Again,
I'm going to LET YOU explain what is one verse saying and what is the other saying.

Then I want to hear if regeneration occurs BEFORE or AFTER the sinner HEARS the Gospel.

 

[HankD]

Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies. Haven't been feeling well, and medication has made things worse. Please forgive any offenses I may have caused.

Been there, done that. You are not alone and I don't mean just me.

HankD

 

[rsr]

In fact, this subject is always hotly debated, but from what I can see, in general, the Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but.

Here's the thing, since almost all Calvinists were once Arminian or semi-pelagian, we understand both sides of this debate, while almost all of our opponents do not. That should cause any rational person to at least try to understand the Calvinist position rather than assuming they know it. Strawmen abound here, and the same posters resurrect the same strawmen that were corrected in the last thread.

Is there a non-Cal in the house who would truly like to discuss the subject, or are there just going to be personal attacks and the same old strawmen?

I have to agree with Don. You've already posited that "Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but." You say Calvinists understand the other side of the debate "but almost all of our opponents do not." Then you challenge posters to debate without "personal attacks and the same old strawmen."

I've been around here long enough to have endured some pretty rank Calvinists treating their opponents not as brothers with different opinions but as the minions of Satan, if not worse.

You framed the debate so as to not elicit debate about Calvinism but about the relative merits of its proponents and opponents. No wonder the thread is about the latter and not the former.

As Derek Rishmawy said:

"But these are still prima facie good questions that other Bible-reading, Jesus-loving, sin-hating Christians can and do wrestle with—and often answer differently for sane, godly, and intelligent reasons. The plain fact of the matter is that much of Reformed theology is counterintuitive and difficult to embrace at first, especially for those of us raised in the modern West. ... "

"Some of you might be wondering, 'Why go into all of this? This is obvious. Who would question that?' Let's be honest and say a lot of Calvinists won't admit this difficulty, and it comes out in the condescending, aggressive, abrasive, and unhelpful way they approach theological engagement with people who disagree. You know the kind. You can find them in Bible studies, blog comment sections, insular Reformed churches that nobody visits; the archetypical newbie who presents masterfully botched iterations of Reformed doctrines, as if they were the most obvious truths of God that only a perversely obstinate fool could miss; the crusty expert who adds in just enough condescension and sneering to belie all his talk of grace."

"Let me put it this way: if you're really a Calvinist and believe you've received knowledge of the truth by the sheer grace of God, which is what a Reformed view of knowledge teaches, then be patient with those who don't see it. God has been (and is currently being) patient with you in some area as well. So stop sneering and ask God to humble you enough to be helpful to those offended at or wrestling with those doctrines you now hold dear."

Sneering Calvinists

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Jumpin' flamin' flapjacks! Excuse the phrase, my daddy was a chef from the south and some of the things he said, have stuck.

This is not a good start.

I am not ashamed of the label 'Calvinist', but prefer reformed believer. The reason is more practical than spiritual. The name Calvin gives people an excuse to dismiss him out of kind. I'm not a paedobaptists either.

Reformed, I believe, has become a collective word to mean many things. I once saw a hyper Calvinist trying to form a mob to extinguish John Piper so his 'continuist' beliefs wouldn't taint the rest of us. I'm thinking Matt Chandler was included.

I'd love to participate in any such discussion that is conducted in accordance with Ephesians 4:29.

 

[TCassidy]

"Let me put it this way: if you're really a Calvinist and believe you've received knowledge of the truth by the sheer grace of God,

Where in the world did that accusation come from? I am an old man. I have been reading, studying, and teaching Systematic Theology for decades and I have NEVER seen any Reformed preacher or writer claim they received knowledge of the truth by the sheer grace of God. All that I am familiar with say, like me, that our knowledge comes the hard way, through study of the word of God.

which is what a Reformed view of knowledge teaches,

Where does any Reformed theological work say such a thing? This is entirely new to me.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies. Haven't been feeling well, and medication has made things worse. Please forgive any offenses I may have caused.

Your a good guy Don and a true gentleman

Sure thing. Just note if the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn't be asking you to behave as a christian, i'd be asking God to make you behave as a christian.

Ultimately you are not debating me at all, because I am merely following God's absolute sovereign will.

no I am not debating you... what I’m doing rather is warning you. I won’t make that mistake again. Good bye.

 

[thatbrian]

I have to agree with Don. You've already posited that "Calvinists are calm, cool, and collected, while the opposing side is anything but." You say Calvinists understand the other side of the debate "but almost all of our opponents do not." Then you challenge posters to debate without "personal attacks and the same old strawmen."

I've been around here long enough to have endured some pretty rank Calvinists treating their opponents not as brothers with different opinions but as the minions of Satan, if not worse.

You framed the debate so as to not elicit debate about Calvinism but about the relative merits of its proponents and opponents. No wonder the thread is about the latter and not the former.

As Derek Rishmawy said:

"But these are still prima facie good questions that other Bible-reading, Jesus-loving, sin-hating Christians can and do wrestle with—and often answer differently for sane, godly, and intelligent reasons. The plain fact of the matter is that much of Reformed theology is counterintuitive and difficult to embrace at first, especially for those of us raised in the modern West. ... "

"Some of you might be wondering, 'Why go into all of this? This is obvious. Who would question that?' Let's be honest and say a lot of Calvinists won't admit this difficulty, and it comes out in the condescending, aggressive, abrasive, and unhelpful way they approach theological engagement with people who disagree. You know the kind. You can find them in Bible studies, blog comment sections, insular Reformed churches that nobody visits; the archetypical newbie who presents masterfully botched iterations of Reformed doctrines, as if they were the most obvious truths of God that only a perversely obstinate fool could miss; the crusty expert who adds in just enough condescension and sneering to belie all his talk of grace."

"Let me put it this way: if you're really a Calvinist and believe you've received knowledge of the truth by the sheer grace of God, which is what a Reformed view of knowledge teaches, then be patient with those who don't see it. God has been (and is currently being) patient with you in some area as well. So stop sneering and ask God to humble you enough to be helpful to those offended at or wrestling with those doctrines you now hold dear."

Sneering Calvinists

This is at least part of the reason why a debate is nearly impossible, people don't read/listen well.

My initial statement was based on my experience here and in other forums, and it was QUALIFIED with two statements, which you passed right over in your rush to judgment.

First, I said that it was from my perspective, i.e., what I've seen here, and secondly, it is indisputable that almost all Calvinists were once Arminians or semi-Pelagians for years or many decades prior to becoming Calvinists, so ALMOST ALL (that's a qualifying statement, FYI) Calvinists understand both sides of the debate. However, The same can't be said, FOR THE MOST PART, of our opposition here. Have you lived as a Calvinist for 25 years prior to becoming an Arminian??? In general (qualifying statement) Calvinists understand both sides of this debate extremely well because we have lived both sides, not that we have read a book written by a Calvinists describing the Arminian position, but because we've held the position.