Doesn't Calvinism Deserve Its Own Forum?

Gee, I thought you were talking about the Calvinists when you referred to the "patients." Some of the patients are seriously deranged you know.

 

One more thought:

The manner in which the threads on the theology section of the board are being moderated contributes to the civility of the interaction on these threads. Specifically, I don't see moderators actually participating on these threads and getting into arguments over the issues being discussed. As I recall, several moderators (and I don't remember specifically who) on the old C/A section regularly got into the arguments on the threads. By doing this they were trying to be both moderate (keeping things civil) and immoderate (getting into the arguments). Consequently, when they took action against a participant they were accused of bias. I felt at the time that what they were doing was unwise and I think I said so. If a new C/A thread was opened and it was moderated properly (i.e. like this one) it probably would not "catch on fire" like the old one did. My 2 cents--adjusted for inflation.

 

Pipe,

Don't you think starting a thread like this could be adding to the controversy and generating heat rather than light and a spirit of reconciliation and peace? The metaphors you are using in this thread while creative could be very offensive to those who hold Calvinist doctrine.

Instead, labor for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and strive for peace among brethren. I have not met hardly anyone on this board that isn't passionate about what they believe and seeks to defend the truth they beleive in.

Take the example of George Whitefield and his response to Mr. Wesley. I think he serves as an example to those on both sides of the issue of how to communicate and "debate" the issue.

As a response to your suggestion, that Calvinism and Calvinists should be quarenteened and "committed" as if they were insane people and the doctrine insane and dangerous is reprehensible. What is so scary or threatening about open and public dialogue on the subject? Surely if you think its false its not a threat to truth is it? And if you believe your brothers to be in error why not gently and lovingly correct them?

I am a convinced Calvinist. If my doctrine in this area is in error then I would expect my brethren to help me out of it. I don't expect to be slapped in the face (metaphorically) quaranteened, committed, ostracized or marginalized.

Since I am a convinced Calvinist, and those doctrines are meat and not milk, and are Gospel truths, then why should I be ashamed to openly teach them and my comments on a variety of subjects not be satuarted with them?

I have found people on both sides of the subject very happy with Spurgeon's illustration:

(paraphrase) Going into the gates of heaven we read "Whosover will, let him come." After repenting of our sin and running to Christ (the gate) we turn back and read: "Chosen before the foundation of the world."

For many who do not want to mine the depths of this biblical doctrine or wrestle with its philosphical implication this illustration can be a comfort and bring peace to two clear biblical doctrines that appear to have some tension between them.

RB

 

Calvinism does have it's own forum. Its called "sports."

 

Personally, I suspect that they do it on purpose, thinking that they have to convert everyone else to their theology. There are some that tend to bring up the same old topics everywhere. I vote yes, give it a rest.

 

If the doctrines of grace should be marginalized then so should the other views. When evangelical arminianism comes out through various topics it should also be relagated somewhere else.

There is none here (unless extremely biblical illiterate) that would say the Bible doesn't teach predestination, election, atonement, perseverance, the condition of man, or God's drawing of individuals to salvation.

Pipe...you are entertaining a pipedream to think this topic can be avoided or compartmentalized. lol pun intended.

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it ............ lol.

 

The CvA forum was closed down because of the demeanor of the participants and the manner in which the conversation was carried on. There was continual repetition of the same things, including the continual misrepresentation of others' positions, which could only be considered as deliberate dishonesty, since "others' positions" had been clearly defined by the others. When someone has said they don't believe A, and you then accuse them of believing A, you are being knowingly dishonest. Unfortunately, that continues here in the threads that I have read.

There were many who were content to be civil in discussion and to fairly and decently have a discussion, but there were a few who refused, even after multiple PMs and public appeals requesting them them to change.

At the time, it was recommended that no discussions be allowed and that we simply allow the archives to stand to be read by those who were interested in the topic, similar to what we did with creationism a few years ago. That idea was rejected, and the conversations migrated to these forums.

It's generally not the Calvinists who start the name calling, and "intractable arrogance" is prima facie evidence of the tactics that are used by many to name call against Calvinists. The non-Cals quite often question the salvation of Calvinists. You can't complain about the Calvinists name calling while calling them "intractably arrogan[t]." That is the type of thing I don't understand. Why would you do that?

The moderating was never biased. It was never carried out on the basis of theology, but rather on the basis of demeanor, usually in view of a person's history. When someone had a history of unacceptable demeanor, they were edited with more regularity than those who were occasional or first time offenders.

The discussions here are not particularly edifying or useful. They continue to be repetitions of everything that has already been said, with continued animosity, ungentlemanly behavior, misrepresentations, and false conceptions. That will not change if the topic is relegated to its own forum. It will probably get worse.

My recommendation continues to be that we should ban all conversations on the topic for a year or more and let the archives stand as material for those who want to know what has been said.

 

how is this different from what's taking place here

Not true in the least...but why would I expect you to say differently...

Again, not true. When both moderators are calvinists...and are involved in the debate, there is no way the moderating can be anything but biased.

Let's see...we can also ban all alcohol threads, Bible translation discussions, eternal security, etc.

 

Ban the topic and I will withdraw from this community.

 

In this particular thread? Not much perhaps. Not sure.

It's absolutely true. Calvinists are not the only ones who start the name calling. and callign someone "intractably arrogant" is name calling. How can you have a productive conversation with someone you have just called intractably arrogant? (I know you didn't say it; it is a generic question.)

I can't speak for the other moderator, but for myself, I can say without any worry of contradiction that the moderating was never biased. I never edited anyone because of their theology. Go back and look at the number of posts you have in that forum and you will realize that. The only thing I edited for was demeanor. The idea that one cannot participate in a conversation and remain unbiased about demeanor is simply not true.

Bible translation discussions were greatly changed a while back. They are very tightly moderated. Eternal security and alcohol (that I have seen) have never generated the kind of heat that CvA has. But I have no problem bannign those topics if they are creating the kind of trouble this has and is.

Ultimately, we need to get the people involved to change, but some have shown little willingness to change their approach.

I would be disappointed if that happens, but with due respect, I don't see how we can tolerate this kind of wrong behavior in order to keep one person here posting. There are plenty of other discussions you can get involved in and you can probably continue to discuss CvA because I don't imagine my suggestion will be taken. I have simply made it.

CvA seems to bring out the worst in people for some reason, and they feel justified in saying things that are knowingly false, and they say things in ways that they would be very upset if someone said to them. I wish it weren't that way. I wish it would change, but it has to be the will of the people involved to change.

 

I think more than one person would leave, but I don't think the issue is keeping people here or letting them go. Soteriology, particularly free will vs. election, is something people will always want to debate. If the problem is behavior, then kick the people who won't behave after being warned. But don't lose the whole subject just because of some trouble makers.

 

Amen! That's what I said when they first closed the forum...

 

I haven no problem with that.

 

So maybe there is something to this Calvinism thing. After all, people don't get so worked up debating about the tooth fairy.

 

It's called fighting for truth. Has nothing to do with the "truth" of calvinism.

 

I don't think the topic can be banned and decent discussion go on. All people who believe -- fall on one side or the other whether they know they do or not. That's a problem and when it, even inadvertently, comes up, well, it's come up. It's not something we can pussy foot around once it's come up without sounding like a bunch of biblical imbeciles.

 

This is true, but we can insist on common decency can't we?