Disturbing trend on BB

[glfredrick]

Fear would drive a person to use guilt by association arguments, rather than a specific discussion of the topic.

Fear of being wrong would cause a person to speak in generalities, rather than specifics, to copy and paste rather than post personal bible study efforts.

And fear would cause a person to bury their head in the sand, rather than study what the Bible actually says concerning doctrine.

Van, it has been said now almost universally by the entire board; your exegesis skills are seriously lacking, and you make no real arguments with which to engage. We would be as apt to engage the lies of a cultist as much of what you post. Note that I am not saying this because I (or we)cannot engage you, but because you are so far off the mark it is not worth the time.

In other words, engage what? You bring your own contrived doctrines to the table and expect the rest of us to take valuable time to refute them, and we have, but as soon as we do, you accuse us of attacking you, when in fact, you are constantly bringing the attack to everyone else.

Ever hear it said that if you are right and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong, that you just may have a problem?
:tonofbricks:

 

[Skandelon]

I am just as adamant against deterministic hyper-Calvinism as I am against semi- or full Pelagianism.

Yet you post 1000 times more against our views than you do those of hard determinists? I only recall you correcting Luke once or twice and even then it wasn't near as "adamant" as your dealings with us.

I've also noted that Van is against your position. How is that you two get along well only when you are both attacking those with a Reformed doctrine?

I have addressed my contentions with Van in several posts, but I'm not claiming to be as "adamant" against our differences as I am Calvinism. And I'm certainly not labeling him heretical. Most of our difference, IMO, are somewhat semantic or inconsequential to the larger points of the discussion.

As to why we get along well? We both follow Jesus and are striving to have civil and meaningful discussions about biblical doctrine. One common trait is that we both begin threads and discussions with a civil and on topic intent. We return kindness with kindness and remain on subject with those who deal with us honestly, civilly and objectively. When attacked personally we call people on it and sometimes it gets heated, but rarely, if ever have we been the instigators of such blatantly uncivil discourse. Maybe that is the difference you are seeing?

 

[Van]

2fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

10For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

As can be seen Glfredrick misquotes scripture, then questions my skills and points to other Calvinists who question by qualifications and character, as somehow a valid view of my work.

The question remains, what are the Calvinists afraid of? The Truth!

 

[mandym]

JD....Your observation that more posts trend towards OT is certainly true......what do you think it is about Calvinism that makes them rabidly anti-Calvinist?

Arrogance__________________

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I've notice lately that many of the posts by non-cals on BB has trended toward Open Theism with some saying that God doesn't know all things, others implying that things happen over which God has no control, etc.

Jacob Arminius and John Wesley would turn over in their graves if they heard some of the things being said around here.

I think some folks are just so rabidly anti-calvinist that they'll embrace any argument that seems to counter it, no matter how irrational. Very sad.

I agree and that is one of the main reasons I haven't been participating in a lot of these threads. Some views on here are downright heretical. Open Theism is heresy and there are no two ways about it.

The view dishonors God. Those who hold the view probably aren't even saved.

Many of the threads here that espouse the open theism view make me feel dirty. It deeply offends the Spirit within me and makes an utter mockery of the scriptures.

 

[Skandelon]

Van, it has been said now almost universally by the entire board; your exegesis skills are seriously lacking,

What non-Calvinist has made this claim? (I didn't ask which non-Calvinists disagrees with him, but which ones made the claim about his "exegesis skills," cause I'd like to read that)

BTW, Calvinists have made this accusation about every non-Calvinist on this board at one time or another.

Note that I am not saying this because I (or we)cannot engage you, but because you are so far off the mark it is not worth the time.

Yet you take all this time to personally attack him? Interesting.

In other words, engage what? You bring your own contrived doctrines to the table and expect the rest of us to take valuable time to refute them, and we have, but as soon as we do, you accuse us of attacking you, when in fact, you are constantly bringing the attack to everyone else

Almost always (maybe less so recently because he does seem provoked) Van's 'attacks' have been on doctrinal topics suited for a Baptist Debate Forum. The attacks personally have come, for the most part, from the Calvinistic side. Just read back through the threads he has started and see for yourself. It is very clear who is striving to stay on topic and who is resorting to personal attacks.

 

[glfredrick]

Yet you post 1000 times more against our views than you do those of hard determinisms? I only recall you correcting Luke once or twice and even then it wasn't near as "adamant" as your dealings with us.


I have addressed my contentions with Van in several posts, but I'm not claiming to be as "adamant" against our differences as I am Calvinism. And I'm certainly not labeling him heretical. Most of our difference, IMO, are somewhat semantic or inconsequential to the larger points of the discussion.

As to why we get along well? We both follow Jesus and are striving to have civil and meaningful discussions about biblical doctrine. One common trait is that we both begin threads and discussions with a civil and on topic intent. We return kindness with kindness and remain on subject with those who deal with us honestly, civilly and objectively. When attacked personally we call people on it and sometimes it gets heated, but rarely, if ever have we been the instigators of such blatantly uncivil discourse. Maybe that is the difference you are seeing?

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. I believe that most will not. But, Luke is on the right track and he argues FOR God's ultimate sovereignty in ALL THINGS, as do I. It is, between us, a matter of degree or as you state above, semantics. I find the shading of variance in theological language to be the most exacting science, and the nuances of words do have an impact on what is being said or left un-said.

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?

You, sir, have an agenda that is published for all the world to see, and that agenda is the defeat of Calvinism. You do not argue to gain knowledge, to further understand the Scriptures or the workings of our Sovereign Lord. You argue for one reason -- to defeat horrific Calvinism. Others don't have your same motive, but you project your motive to all who engage you, as does Van, your new partner in this effort. Good job... I'm sure God is most pleased. :BangHead:

 

[mandym]

What is equally disturbing is the ungodly doctrine that God created some men who He never intended to offer grace to but only to destroy them in hell with no opportunity for grace, the cross, or heaven. Probably the worst doctrine ever created by man. Worse than OT

 

[glfredrick]

What is equally disturbing is the ungodly doctrine that God created some men who He never intended to offer grace to but only to destroy them in hell with no opportunity for grace, the cross, or heaven. Probably the worst doctrine ever created by man. Worse than OT

Are you attempting to number the elect? Who tells us that there are a certain number?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

What is equally disturbing is the ungodly doctrine that God created some men who He never intended to offer grace to but only to destroy them in hell with no opportunity for grace, the cross, or heaven. Probably the worst doctrine ever created by man. Worse than OT

The bible says that he created some as vessles of wrath. We should not go beyond what is written and we shouldn't go short of what is written either.

Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit answered your objections on this VERY SUBJECT and the truth is that you don't have the ability to judge those people. You just assume that God is injust. However we are assured by the bible that there is no injustice in God and that we are in no position to judge him at all.

Romans 9:19-23 ESV
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

God's words are eternal they will never go away. They must be dealt with and not ignored.

 

[Amy.G]

Both sides have those who lean to the extreme. So neither side is innocent. I wish we could talk about something else. I've noticed the positive threads like "what are you thankful for?", or "how has God blessed you?" get very little response.


On this thread I did read a comment that stuck out to me.

Van, if I'm not mistaken, has made the point that God may choose not to know some things (as Jesus didn't know the times of his coming), but I've never seen anyone argue that God lacked the ability. Can you point that out since you are the one making the accusation?

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

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

What non-Calvinist has made this claim? (I didn't ask which non-Calvinists disagrees with him, but which ones made the claim about his "exegesis skills," cause I'd like to read that)

BTW, Calvinists have made this accusation about every non-Calvinist on this board at one time or another.

Yet you take all this time to personally attack him? Interesting.

Almost always (maybe less so recently because he does seem provoked) Van's 'attacks' have been on doctrinal topics suited for a Baptist Debate Forum. The attacks personally have come, for the most part, from the Calvinistic side. Just read back through the threads he has started and see for yourself. It is very clear who is striving to stay on topic and who is resorting to personal attacks.

Skandelon— although I often disagree with you---you actually do not overly distort Scripture, you actually know the terminology you use, you never pretend to be something your not, & at least you attempt biblical exegesis instead of relying on your own logical eisegesis----None of these things can be said about Van--------I thnk I’d find a new “robin” if I were you “batman”!

 

[mandym]

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

This is what you get when you try to explain things about God not revealed by God. And it happens on both sides.

 

[StefanM]

Or lumping all non-cals together by calling them "Armenians" when many clearly are not.

This most definitely is a disturbing trend! :laugh:

"Armenian" designates an ethnicity from the land of Armenia.

As one of Armenian heritage, I can consistently claim to be an Armenian Calvinist.

 

[jbh28]

What is equally disturbing is the ungodly doctrine that God created some men who He never intended to offer grace to but only to destroy them in hell with no opportunity for grace, the cross, or heaven. Probably the worst doctrine ever created by man. Worse than OT

And what problem would that be? Was God obligated to offer mercy? We go to hell because of our sin. God didn't have to offer grace, the cross or heaven. He could have sent us to hell, but he has offered grace to all that believe.

 

[Tom Bryant]

This most definitely is a disturbing trend! :laugh:

"Armenian" designates an ethnicity from the land of Armenia.

As one of Armenian heritage, I can consistently claim to be an Armenian Calvinist.

:laugh: That's funny.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon— although I often disagree with you---you actually do not overly distort Scripture, you actually know the terminology you use, you never pretend to be something your not, & at least you attempt biblical exegesis instead of relying on your own logical eisegesis----None of these things can be said about Van--------I thnk I’d find a new “robin” if I were you “batman”!

1. I haven't read all that Van has argued on this board, so I can't and won't defend all that he has said. He doesn't need that from me anyway.

2. Those are kind words from you. But, I'll be honest, I suspect it is flattery being used as a weapon against Van. Why? Because I've been accused of all those things by other Calvinists on this board at one time or another. I know how it feels to be ganged up on and personally attacked while the subject (for the most part) goes unaddressed. But, to be fair, we have not had much dealings with each other so I admit, I do not know you real intent here. I'm just being honest with how it makes me feel based upon my experience with others.

3. Van is no "side kick" to anyone. I think you know that such an insinuation is a round about way to insult him yet again. I don't think that is necessary or deserved.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This most definitely is a disturbing trend! :laugh:

"Armenian" designates an ethnicity from the land of Armenia.

As one of Armenian heritage, I can consistently claim to be an Armenian Calvinist.

Now thats funny..:laugh:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

1. I haven't read all that Van has argued on this board, so I can't and won't defend all that he has said. He doesn't need that from me anyway.

2. Those are kind words from you. But, I'll be honest, I suspect it is flattery being used as a weapon against Van. Why? Because I've been accused of all those things by other Calvinists on this board at one time or another. I know how it feels to be ganged up on and personally attacked while the subject (for the most part) goes unaddressed. But, to be fair, we have not had much dealings with each other so I admit, I do not know you real intent here. I'm just being honest with how it makes me feel based upon my experience with others.

3. Van is no "side kick" to anyone. I think you know that such an insinuation is a round about way to insult him yet again. I don't think that is necessary or deserved.

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:

I haven't read all that Van has argued on this board, so I can't and won't defend all that he has said

God Bless!

 

[Old Union Brother]

The question was what is it about Calvinism that would seem to be making the posters rabidly anti-Calvinist. That may be a good answer to another question, but it doesnt address that one.

Plus for someone who claims no title his answers clearly reflect a Calvinist viewpoint.

I susppose you are talking about me.....

I carry neither title! The title I do carry is Baptist! In particular I am an Old Regular Baptist! If you want to read the Articles of Faith I stand by go here Which makes me way more conservative and way more fundamental than most of you on this board....If you don't want me here just say so....