Disturbing trend on BB

[Skandelon]

You = Van -- Me = Luke.

What you can't know (and I will not make public) are the number of private messages I sent back and forth with Luke. I will say publicly that I will not carry Calvinism to the same place he carries it.

Yet, you claimed to be as adamantly apposed to the deterministic perspective that we both know he argued for. But, for some unknown reason, you don't take the "courtesy" to address our differences in private. Aren't we both "heretics" according to your last post?

Van, on the other hand, has vigorously attacked Arminianism, your ensconced position. You also have argued far askance of classical Arminianism, and when I have made attempts to qualify the source of your Arminian holdings, you have been resistant. Is it Wesleyan, pure Arminius, Remonstrance, or what?

1. I have made it clear that labels must be defined because each carry a different connotation to each individual. I believe many "Calvinists" here feel the same way.

2. I can't every remember being resistant to give you names of good scholars that I admire or read. Adam Clarke is one I have referred to quite regularly. I also enjoy much of what Wesley and Arminius have written. Like Calvinists, there are some points of disagreement or various ways I might nuance my view that would differ from some of the scholars I respect.

You, sir, have an agenda that is published for all the world to see, and that agenda is the defeat of Calvinism.

You keep saying this, but where does anything I have ever published say "the defeat of Calvinism?"

My blog, which I don't even reference anymore, is called 'critiquing calvinism," and I have always been very respectful and Christlike to those who disagree with me on that site.

My agenda is to "DEBATE" points of doctrinal disagreement, most of which do surround the subject of soteriology. If you have a problem with that "agenda" I would suggest you avoid visiting a "BAPTIST DEBATE FORUM" > "THEOLOGY" web site. So, my agenda is simple. To debate doctrine, and in doing so I do learn and come to a better understanding of scripture, and since I have changed once from being a Calvinist to an Arminian while on this very board, I would submit that I have proven myself more willing to learn and change than you.

And is your "agenda" in coming hear so much more noble? If so, why? Cause you think your right? Let's be objective brother.

 

[Skandelon]

How would God know which things He should choose not to know if He didn't know all things to begin with?

I'm not one who holds to this view, so I probably should allow those who believe it to speak for themselves. However, from my reading and study of the issue, the concept is that God chooses not not know free moral choices.

Some believe that he can't know them because they haven't been created yet and so he can only know what is 'knowable' and a free choice, haven't not been created yet, isn't knowable.

Others say that it is all knowable (or at least predictable by someone who knows as much as God) but that God chooses not to know that which he holds men to account for so as to give them the freedom to make that determination for themselves. So, to answer your question, God would choose not to foreknow that which is morally accountable. An example one might use is that of Abraham and sacrificing of his son.

I don't believe that foreknowledge necessitates predetermination or in any way removes true free will, thus I don't believe such explanations are necessary or fully revealed.

 

[Skandelon]

No actually none of the words were meant to disparage Van & they were simply a recognition that 2 parties can disagree & still respect each other-- & agree to disagree—but what it was--- was a warning for you on who you side up with—especially considering your own admission of:

God Bless!

Point taken, but can you point to just one of Van's posts where his views are so blatantly contradictory to my view that such warning would be merited?

 

[Benjamin]

The Op is nothing more than a strawman attempt at a personal attack.
Problem here is many think they are debating but they are really just engaging in a type of street arguing. It is rare to see a tread stay on topic because there is no enforcement to keep things on topic. Personal attacks run rabid because that is most people’s typical way of arguing. Many will even drop in just to cast out a one liner personal attack without adding anything else into a structured type of debate. Again, there is no enforcement against personal attacks/or staying on topic (unless maybe it is blatantly questioning another’s salvation) and those who wish to be high jacking treads with what they consider debate simply have their way. Generally not worth my time to get into a serious discussion here.
Others will end up being forced to spend their time defending against the personal attacks or calling them out to no prevail. That's what I find disturbing...

:type:

 

[percho]

Let me ask both sides. This may not be considered relative to the OP but I think it is.

God created Adam and gave him some instructions, then he made a help meet from him.

At this point in time can we assume God had a knowing relationship with all of mankind? Yes or No

I am not sure what I mean by knowing but I think maybe I mean covenant or the kind of a relationship between husband and wife.

Now answer that same question for these points in time and lets compare the answers.

Noah
Abram before name change
Abraham after name change
Moses
When Herod became king
70 AD
Presently

My answers are, yes followed by seven no's.

We can cover the why's later if anyone is interested.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Point taken, but can you point to just one of Van's posts where his views are so blatantly contradictory to my view that such warning would be merited?

Well lets start with his insistence on not being a Greek scholar—then insisting his way to interpret the Greek is always correct b/c it makes logical sense (ie pretending to be something he is not), then his dangerously close flirtation with open theism, his statements about individual election occurring during our lifetime, his syncretism in picking & choosing opposing theological view points & combining even them when they contradict, his constant ad hom’s & refusal to answer when you offer him truly difficult questions, & the list goes on---The truth of the matter is---Van might end up being a very sound theologian in the end---but he raises a lot of red flags that I would certainly scrutinize before I felt like he was on my team. Just as non-Cals & Cals/Reformed oppose each other—they need to filter out those who take their particular theology to far---ie the cals/Reformed need to watch out for the hypers (double predestine non missionary types) & the non-cals be as adamantly opposed to open theism (ie attacks on God’s sovereignty/omniscience) as they are to the Cals. Van just talks to much out of both sides of his mouth for my personal taste---esp with his lack of Greek knowledge yet consistent use of Greek to prove points & although he denies it—I really think he’s more of an open theist than he realizes----hey maybe in the end I’ll be wrong abut him—I hope I am—but I know before I joined up with him I’d really research all he has said. God Bless!

 

[jbh28]

The Op is nothing more than a strawman attempt at a personal attack]

It's not a straw man. There has tended to be some(not all) that are against Calvinism and have promoted Open theism. I've been told by more than one person that when God tested Abraham, he didn't know what Abraham would do before Abraham did it.

 

[sag38]

The Op is nothing more than a strawman attempt at a personal attack.
Problem here is many think they are debating but they are really just engaging in a type of street arguing. It is rare to see a tread stay on topic because there is no enforcement to keep things on topic. Personal attacks run rabid because that is most people’s typical way of arguing. Many will even drop in just to cast out a one liner personal attack without adding anything else into a structured type of debate. Again, there is no enforcement against personal attacks/or staying on topic (unless maybe it is blatantly questioning another’s salvation) and those who wish to be high jacking treads with what they consider debate simply have their way. Generally not worth my time to get into a serious discussion here.
Others will end up being forced to spend their time defending against the personal attacks or calling them out to no prevail. That's what I find disturbing...


You don't have to defend against a personal attack. The best response is no response. That will shut down personal attacks very quickly in most cases. The thread will move on and the comments made are very soon forgotten as we move on to beating another dead horse for the umpteen time.

 

[webdog]

It's not a straw man. There has tended to be some(not all) that are against Calvinism and have promoted Open theism. I've been told by more than one person that when God tested Abraham, he didn't know what Abraham would do before Abraham did it.

The op is bathed in straw, arrogance, and ignorance. Realizing there are tensions in Scripture that our feeble minds (well at least mine...JD seems to have it all figured out) cannot grasp doesn't mean one is an open theist. I know we disagree on this, but Christ being fully God while also being fully man did NOT know the day or hour of His return. I already know that you maintain this is the "man" side of Christ, but the hypo-static union cannot be explained away this easily with a wave of the hand. You won't admit it, but there is a mystery and a tension there. Admitting this does not mean you are an open theist, it means you are finite and cannot understand fully how God chooses to interact with His creation. At least Van is honest in recognizing this. If the "non arm's" would admit such tensions instead needing a system to understand everything, things would be much smoother.

 

[Van]

Gabriel misrepresents me, in post after post. Did I insist my way of understanding Greek is always correct? No quote will be forthcoming. This both is bearing false witness against me and slandering me. Then I flirt with Open Theism, yet another falsehood. I have posted a detailed response to Open Theism and shown biblically why it takes scripture too far. But the name dropping, the guilt by association efforts continue, slandering me once again. I have said our individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime, and supported that view with Ephesians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2. None of my views contradict with the rest of my views but my views do contradict both Arminianism and Calvinism.

I do not talk out of both sides of my mouth, and when something I said creates that impression, I explain my view more fully. So yet another slander.

I do not use Greek to prove my points, I refute the false charges that my view violates Greek by showing how my view is consistent with Greek. For example, I said "apo" does not mean "before". I said no lexicon supports that view that I have seen. No lexicon was brought forward saying apo means before. What was done was to show that some translations translate apo as before, but they are rare, and inconsistent with the rest of the translations.