Has BB changed your views?

[12strings]

I'm Just curious...in all our debating...has anyone come to a debate on ANY topic on the BaptistBoard, and been persuaded BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE to change your position on that topic? If so, what was it?

(P.S. "Every" in the Poll Question should be "EVER")

 

[Greektim]

I'm Just curious...in all our debating...has anyone come to a debate on ANY topic on the BaptistBoard, and been persuaded BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE to change your position on that topic? If so, what was it?

(P.S. "Every" in the Poll Question should be "EVER")

I have wanted to ask this question for a while. I doubt very much any of us has done much to convince the others. Yet here we are (here I am) still at it.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I have had a number pm me in the past dozen years that the discussions caused them to "rethink" assumed positions and given insights they had not known/seen.

Most in the early days of the "versions" discussions. Many were accepting sans theological base positions they'd heard or been taught.

 

[Amy.G]

I changed my view on the depravity of man because of the arguments about man being born good and becoming a sinner later. It just didn't add up based on scripture and observations in life. This led me to the DoG.

 

[Skandelon]

I changed my view on the depravity of man because of the arguments about man being born good and becoming a sinner later. It just didn't add up based on scripture and observations in life. This led me to the DoG.

Amy, I hope you know there is not a non-Calvinist scholar alive, worth his salt, who believes 'men are born good and become a sinner later.' I hope that is not the only reason you adopted the so called DoGs.

 

[Skandelon]

When I first came here I was a 5 point Calvinist (ten years ago). Debates here, along with a lot of personal study, led me away from the overly individualized approach of Western Christianity in it's understanding of predestination and election (i.e. God chose for certain individuals from every nation to become believers), to a more corporate understanding (i.e. God chose to save whosoever believes, regardless of their nationality).

Calvinists think God predestines individuals to become believers, but the scripture never says that. It says that God predestines to adopt and conform those who believe. I've learned that perspective and adopted it. I used to think Arminianism was just the weird idea that God looks down the corridors of time to see who would believe and thus chose them (foreseen faith), which is why I rejected it without much real consideration. That is a false understanding and yet most Calvinists seem to think that is all their opponents believe. They are in error.

 

[12strings]

So it sounds like it was really the Arminians who convinced AmyG to reject Arminianism, and it was the calvinists who convinced Skan to reject Calvinism!

 

[Jon-Marc]

I know what I believe and am convinced it's the truth, although I could be wrong. :godisgood:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Can't yet say I have "changed" my views on things yet....but as a relatively new member however, some of my views have been called into question, and I have at least begun to "re-think" some of them....or at least modify them somewhat. I voted "Yes" in that, I think many who do not think they yet understand everything are in fact "open" to alternative viewpoints and they learn from them through debate. It has already caused me, at least, to be open to consideration of new ideas such as the "corporate" election view, which, I do not subscribe to, having always thought "election" to be individual, and have thus understood only from that perspective, but I have now become intrigued by the idea at least, and am willing to re-think it if it were to "prove" to be sound.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm Just curious...in all our debating...has anyone come to a debate on ANY topic on the BaptistBoard, and been persuaded BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE to change your position on that topic? If so, what was it?

(P.S. "Every" in the Poll Question should be "EVER")

Would say that I have becoming more mediating as to the rapture timing question, still pre trib, but can see other views

More of a 5 pointer now in regards to DoG

Now no longer a Baptistcostalist, as see the signs/wonder/sign gifts no longer for today!

 

[humblethinker]

Just a clarifier on my vote... (I saw that so many had voted 'no' and reconsidered the question): If a third option were available I would have selected, "Though not THE deciding factor, BaptistBoard has influenced and informed my current beliefs."

I am very glad this board exists.

 

[humblethinker]

Just a clarifier on my vote... (I saw that so many had voted 'no' and reconsidered the question): If a third option were available I would have selected, "Though not THE deciding factor, BaptistBoard has influenced and informed my current beliefs."

I am very glad this board exists.

oh, I voted 'yes', btw.

Soon after rejecting KJVO-ism I was confronted with a real-life issue regarding Calvinism and I think that's when/why I found and joined BB.

Since then this board has been very helpful in analyzing views that weren't my own at the time. It has helped me to realize that my knee-jerk rejection of other views based on logical necessity may not be so logical or justifiable as my understanding required them to be... and that it may be the case that I am wrong. I've learned to better considered and weigh other views regardless of what I previously believed or was taught. Of course I still have big and strong opinions but it seems realizing that you have been or could be wrong about things so central to your passions has a way of humbling you.

Paradigm shift and sea change can be torturous and costly. Having experienced it once, it seems that few are willing to enter again into endeavors that may lead to such change.

 

[Skandelon]

Can't yet say I have "changed" my views on things yet....but as a relatively new member however, some of my views have been called into question, and I have at least begun to "re-think" some of them....or at least modify them somewhat. I voted "Yes" in that, I think many who do not think they yet understand everything are in fact "open" to alternative viewpoints and they learn from them through debate. It has already caused me, at least, to be open to consideration of new ideas such as the "corporate" election view, which, I do not subscribe to, having always thought "election" to be individual, and have thus understood only from that perspective, but I have now become intrigued by the idea at least, and am willing to re-think it if it were to "prove" to be sound.

Heir, let's talk sometime! :thumbs: I had reservations about the 'corporate' view as well because I wrongly thought that it didn't involve individuals. I dismissed it, as many Calvinists do here, by saying something like, "Well, nations are made up of individuals, so you really have to accept individual election either way." Such a response fails to understand this view from its proper perspective.

The corporate view does indeed involve individuals. It merely changes the perspective for the basis of election. For example, suppose the Republicans overwhelming win the election in November and Romney says in his speech to the RNC, "This country has chosen us to lead this country." One can understand that sentence from a corporate view or a individual view.

The corporate view would mean, as it clearly does, that the voters chose the Republican party and their values to lead, but certainly there were individual politicians chosen to carry out that charge on behalf of the party.

The individual view would have this mean that the voters individually chose each and every republican to be leaders of our country, which is clearly not the intent.

Both views involve individuals, but its a shift in perspective to understand the authors intent. Was Paul intending to say that God has chosen certain individual from every nation to irresistibly become believers and thus be saved? Or was Paul intending to say that God has chosen to save whosoever becomes a believer regardless of their nationality? I believe the latter perspective better aligns with the teaching of all scripture.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Heir, let's talk sometime! :thumbs: I had reservations about the 'corporate' view as well because I wrongly thought that it didn't involve individuals. I dismissed it, as many Calvinists do here, by saying something like, "Well, nations are made up of individuals, so you really have to accept individual election either way." Such a response fails to understand this view from its proper perspective.

The corporate view does indeed involve individuals. It merely changes the perspective for the basis of election. For example, suppose the Republicans overwhelming win the election in November and Romney says in his speech to the RNC, "This country has chosen us to lead this country." One can understand that sentence from a corporate view or a individual view.

The corporate view would mean, as it clearly does, that the voters chose the Republican party and their values to lead, but certainly there were individual politicians chosen to carry out that charge on behalf of the party.

The individual view would have this mean that the voters individually chose each and every republican to be leaders of our country, which is clearly not the intent.

Both views involve individuals, but its a shift in perspective to understand the authors intent. Was Paul intending to say that God has chosen certain individual from every nation to irresistibly become believers and thus be saved? Or was Paul intending to say that God has chosen to save whosoever becomes a believer regardless of their nationality? I believe the latter perspective better aligns with the teaching of all scripture.

We shall indeed, I hope talk....in that, I would love for someone to explain that P.O.V. better to me sometime. I am ostensibly completely ignorant of it, and I have already developed a thought system which understands "election" as individual...Hence my move towards Molinism...But I am decidedly open to an explanation which better explains the Scriptures. A thread for true "seekers" about the topic may be in order....that is, where some of us who are curious (and actually convincible) might learn about it!! :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

We shall indeed, I hope talk....in that, I would love for someone to explain that P.O.V. better to me sometime. I am ostensibly completely ignorant of it, and I have already developed a thought system which understands "election" as individual...Hence my move towards Molinism...But I am decidedly open to an explanation which better explains the Scriptures. A thread for true "seekers" about the topic may be in order....that is, where some of us who are curious (and actually convincible) might learn about it!! :thumbs:

Well, I would like to know what you think about what I've explained thus far in the last two posts. Is it clear or do you have questions? I did just start a thread on the subject, so if you want to pick this discussion up there that would be great...

 

[convicted1]

Well, when I first came on here, I was COMPLETELY against christians drinking alcohol period. There was no need to talk to me about it, I had it made up in my mind I was right, and everyone else who opposed me was wrong. Now, in the "reformed and alcohol" thread, you can see I have changed my tune. I had come to find out that it wasn't a sin to drink, though I have no desire to drink, and wish others wouldn't due to the ill effects it can have in one's life, and I believe their witnessing, but I would never run anyone outta town who drank.

I used to have a mixed up view of the Trinity, where they were three, but Jesus was not God, neither was the Holy Ghost. I had God as God, Jesus as the Son of God, yet not God, and the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost, yet not God. It was over time, that I read a lot of posts where people discussed the biblical view of the Trinity, and then one day, by His grace, it "clicked", and I saw the Trinity in the correct view. I never debated my view, but I did read what others had to say about. So yes, BB has been IMMENSELY helpful to me.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Certainly it has strengthen my resolve for orthodox theology and served to confirm man's sinful nature.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When I first came here I was a 5 point Calvinist (ten years ago). Debates here, along with a lot of personal study, led me away from the overly individualized approach of Western Christianity in it's understanding of predestination and election (i.e. God chose for certain individuals from every nation to become believers), to a more corporate understanding (i.e. God chose to save whosoever believes, regardless of their nationality).

Calvinists think God predestines individuals to become believers, but the scripture never says that. It says that God predestines to adopt and conform those who believe. I've learned that perspective and adopted it. I used to think Arminianism was just the weird idea that God looks down the corridors of time to see who would believe and thus chose them (foreseen faith), which is why I rejected it without much real consideration. That is a false understanding and yet most Calvinists seem to think that is all their opponents believe. They are in error.

Actually it's comments like this that drives me toward Calvinistic beliefs as opposed to moving away from it. Keep up the good work:thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, I would like to know what you think about what I've explained thus far in the last two posts. Is it clear or do you have questions? I did just start a thread on the subject, so if you want to pick this discussion up there that would be great...

Your Corporate Election seems to be based upon the Corporate election of isreal, as he had a special covenant with the jewish peoples, and still needed to be of the faith to be part of the covenant body?

Also seems to tie into barth, as he saw jesus being THE elect,of god, and that ALL peoples were elcted and chosen in him?

BIG problem is that the NT would have individual basis of the election in christ we are saved one at a time, based upon the predestined/foreknowledge of God...

Also, corporate election fails to deal witht the truth that sinners cannot chose by themselves to become part of the elect body, church, as sinners will not come to christ on their own efforts and resolve!

have to go one step back, and deal witht the effects of the fall to us, and how unable to get to god on our own, before getting to corporate election!

 

[Skandelon]

Actually it's comments like this that drives me toward Calvinistic beliefs as opposed to moving away from it. Keep up the good work:thumbsup:

A good example of biblical hardening. This is why we are told to dust our feet and move on. My comments are not for you, but for those who actually still have a heart that is willing to learn, but thanks for participating. :thumbsup: