Concerning Calvinism

[Gina B]

Ok ok, I think I just realized what's going on in this forum. The cal/arm forum is gone now so people are posting everything here about it. Wow. Ok, I can deal with that.

Obviously, I'm not always the most brilliant person.

With that in mind, can I make a proposition? Instead of a bunch of threads that are unclear, take one vaguely related verse and turn it into a debate on a major point, why not have five different threads, each dealing with one petal? That way everyone will know what is being spoken of and everyone knows exactly what is being discussed and why.

1. Total depravity

2. Unconditional Election

3. Limited Atonement

4. Irresistable Grace

5. Perserverance of Saints

Maybe a mod can start it, or I can...or anyone, as apparently we all know how to type.

That way it'll be much easier to read and discuss. Anyone else like this idea?

 

[Dale-c]

I think just about every aspect of soteriology has been discussed and re-discussed on here.
However, it isn't such a bad idea. I would actually like to see a moderated debate. One that only certain members can post on, like the "battle of the Bobs" DrBob vs Bro Bob on unconditional election etc.
That way there would be no rabbit trails. BUt there would of course be parallel threads where anyone could post.

 

[Jarthur001]

I think just about every aspect of soteriology has been discussed and re-discussed on here.
However, it isn't such a bad idea. I would actually like to see a moderated debate. One that only certain members can post on, like the "battle of the Bobs" DrBob vs Bro Bob on unconditional election etc.
That way there would be no rabbit trails. BUt there would of course be parallel threads where anyone could post.

I have longed for this as well. No fly-by-posting. Pick two persons and let them have at it and let others just read and comment about the on another thread. I'm not sure the BB can limit threads for only two people to post and at the same time have all others be able to read the post. It would be a welcomed change and something that would limit the heated fights. However, I guess you would still have the "heat" in the comments thread.

It should bring other readers to the sight once would got out.

 

[Rippon]

I think just about every aspect of soteriology has been discussed and re-discussed on here.
However, it isn't such a bad idea. I would actually like to see a moderated debate. One that only certain members can post on, like the "battle of the Bobs" DrBob vs Bro Bob on unconditional election etc.
That way there would be no rabbit trails. BUt there would of course be parallel threads where anyone could post.

I agree with you Dale-c. I think a two-persons only thread should be between mods only. Perhaps Pastor Larry vs. Pastor Bob for instance.You can think of other couplings.

 

[J.D.]

I agree with you Dale-c. I think a two-persons only thread should be between mods only. Perhaps Pastor Larry vs. Pastor Bob for instance.You can think of other couplings.

I've seen some other boards try to do a formal debate forum, and it didn't work. There's a lot more to it than meets the eye. It's better done in a chat room environment.

 

[jdlongmire]

Here ya go!

T
U
L
I
P

Adapted from the former blog of Joel Barnes; the explanations of TULIP and corresponding biblical text arrangements have been adapted from David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism (Second Edition), P and R Publishing, 2004, pp. 17-71. Further explanation adapted from James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom, Calvary Press Publishing, 2000, pp. 135-151.

Full text here.

 

[donnA]

I've seen some other boards try to do a formal debate forum, and it didn't work. There's a lot more to it than meets the eye. It's better done in a chat room environment.

It was tried here once also, also didn't work.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It was tried here once also, also didn't work.

The reason it didn't work was because of "refined name-calling" and just outright name calling. Then there were the insinuations and direct accusations that one or the other side were either (a) worshipping a weak God, (b) had demeaned the God that both sides know, (c) stupid, and such like.

And then there was the subtle insult, personal and collective, which some here on this board have almost made an art.
And the use of sarcasm, which some here seem to be so proud of, they even use <sarcasm> sarcasm here </sarcasm>.
We might as well meet at high noon and settle the debate with six-shooters.

The debate should be brotherly, in love, scholarly, and above all, Scripture-based, not insinuating on one or the other's eternal standing, love for God, and so on.

But among Baptists ?

What do you think.

 

[David Lamb]

Here ya go!

T
U
L
I
P

Adapted from the former blog of Joel Barnes; the explanations of TULIP and corresponding biblical text arrangements have been adapted from David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism (Second Edition), P and R Publishing, 2004, pp. 17-71. Further explanation adapted from James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom, Calvary Press Publishing, 2000, pp. 135-151.

Full text here.

But "T.U.L.I.P." is not the sum total of Calvinism. The "Five Points" were formulated in 1618-19 in response to the the five main points made by the followers of Jacobus Arminius, the Remonstrants. These Remonstrants did not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth of Jesus, the inerrancy of the bible, heaven and hell, the need for spreading the gospel... and that is why we ended up with the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism". If those Remonstrants had denied the resurrection of the Saviour, the omnipotence of God, the existence of sin, and eternal life, then we might have ended up with a R.O.S.E.

 

[jdlongmire]

But "T.U.L.I.P." is not the sum total of Calvinism. The "Five Points" were formulated in 1618-19 in response to the the five main points made by the followers of Jacobus Arminius, the Remonstrants. These Remonstrants did not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth of Jesus, the inerrancy of the bible, heaven and hell, the need for spreading the gospel... and that is why we ended up with the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism". If those Remonstrants had denied the resurrection of the Saviour, the omnipotence of God, the existence of sin, and eternal life, then we might have ended up with a R.O.S.E.

Quite true - "Calvinism" itself is a theological systematic that begins and ends with the glory of God.

A systematic that many believe captures the essence of the breadth of Scripture into the clearest, most consistent, God-honoring, non-Man centered doctrine.

It has a clear path of development: from Jesus to Paul to Augustine to Calvin, etc...

Unfortunately or fortunately, the rebuttal to the 5 Arminian principles has become the spoke around which the debate revolves.

Lots around the "L" and "U". Which are the linchpin to synergistic vs monergistic theologies.

 

[J.D.]

The reason it didn't work was because of "refined name-calling" and just outright name calling. Then there were the insinuations and direct accusations that one or the other side were either (a) worshipping a weak God, (b) had demeaned the God that both sides know, (c) stupid, and such like.

And then there was the subtle insult, personal and collective, which some here on this board have almost made an art.
And the use of sarcasm, which some here seem to be so proud of, they even use <sarcasm> sarcasm here </sarcasm>.
We might as well meet at high noon and settle the debate with six-shooters.

The debate should be brotherly, in love, scholarly, and above all, Scripture-based, not insinuating on one or the other's eternal standing, love for God, and so on.

But among Baptists ?

What do you think.

The issue I had in mind was a formal debating forum, which is a whole different ball of wax than what goes on in a regular forum. Even if you could get people to behave themselves, the logistics are too expensive to bring it all together. A time period would have to be set, a dedicated moderator would have to be available, it would need to be advertised to attract a large audience to make the cost worth the benefit, rules would have to be established and enforced, etc. Difficult to impossible to do on a discussion board or even a chat room.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The issue I had in mind was a formal debating forum, which is a whole different ball of wax than what goes on in a regular forum. Even if you could get people to behave themselves, the logistics are too expensive to bring it all together. A time period would have to be set, a dedicated moderator would have to be available, it would need to be advertised to attract a large audience to make the cost worth the benefit, rules would have to be established and enforced, etc. Difficult to impossible to do on a discussion board or even a chat room.

It really is a good idea, J.D.
But I doubt it could happen here on BB (but who knows ?).
I would suggest maybe putting up a separate website or something, and sending out invitations for the audience and also clearly defining the rules.

Also, I think it will help one side understand where the other side is coming from, and that happening, find in their hearts love for one another.

 

[4His_glory]

I was once a mod on a board for a debate forum as has been described. I think it does work if certain guidelines are followed. Such as:

There must be a time limit for the debate (say on week)
There must be an established posting format such as:

Opening comments by person 1
Opening comments by person 2
Rebuttal by person 1
Rebuttal by person 2
Closing statement by person 1
Closing statement by person 2

Such a format can be a useful and civil manner of conveying opposing viewpoints.

 

[Jarthur001]

bump

My words are to short so this line was added in order to post BUMP and a smile​

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How about just read Dave Hunt Vs. James White in their book, Debating Calvinism...lol

 

[DrRandyGrace]

You may already know about this, but coming to First Baptist, Woodstock, GA, November 6-7, 2008, Jerry Vines is hosting a conference on Calvinism. You can check the details at www.jerryvines.com