Hey, remember that one time when arminians didn't build a strawman?

Good question. I've been asking that question since I got on this board. It only seems fair, but since when have Calvinist cared about what seems fair.

 

[warning: this post is not for the humor-impaired]

My nominations for the arminian side hinge on the rules for the debate.

If the debate is confined to what scripture does NOT say, then I nominate Mr. Bill.

If the debate assumes scripture is errant except for what's printed in red ink, then I nominate Yelsew.

If the debate is about the sordid history of Calvinism, I nominate romanbear.

If the debate is restricted to picking on semantics in order to avoid answering any of the issues, I nominate swaimj.

If the debate must be confined to analogies involving what God would say to your precious daughter, etc, I nominate Mr. Bill and/or a participant whose handle I'm currently blanking on...sorry...but someone else should recall who that was.

If the debate must be confined to arguments with scriptural support, I nominate the idea that we wait until an arminian shows up who actually takes that approach.

 

Brother Bill... Fairness is my middle name and I have asked the same question to the webmaster and have been willing to step down for another... But the webmaster runs the BB not me... Address your questions to him... I would gladly see one of you Arminian brethren even the playing field but moderators are chosen by the BB to moderate not me... It's not as one sided as you think and to moderate a forum is more complex than you know... Moderators are nominated by other moderators when the need arises or the webmaster... You Arminian brethren have someone in mind?... Contact headquarters or better yet they will probably contact you after reading this ... Brother Glen The Primitive Bapist and C/A Debate Forum Co-Moderator

 

Brethren,

I do not feel worthy of such a challenge. I do believe the Word of God, however, is worthy and up to the challenge. I do not fear a loss because of ANY inadequacy in the TRUTH.

If all agree I accept the nomination on the condition that prayer be made for the humble submission of Frogman to the Sovereign Will of God. For God cannot be changed and prayer does not work upon HIM to effect change, but will certainly serve to purge Bro. Dallas from any fleshly desires. In our community a Baptist preacher and a Campbellite habitually feed their radio ministries off each other and neither acheive the edification of anything but their own ego. Recently the Baptist preacher attempted to disprove baptismal regeneration and in his efforts to do so he started from Mark 16.16 and effectively eliminated water baptism in his blind effort to disprove the Campbellite error. In my own radio program I refrain from even listening to other preachers, especially those in my area of Hart Co. Ky, for the reason that I would rather God provide the message than denominational battlements. Even hearing the man before me in order, preach on something I have been given is enough to give me second thoughts, so I rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to provide that which the saints are in need of and as you may guess I don't ask any to "come" to Christ nor to phone or write me of the "results" of their "decision."

This being said:
I would submit also that a poll be taken to determine the topic to be considered. And further that in this poll neither myself nor bro. Bill participate.

Would this be suitable?

Bro. Dallas

 

I would have to change my nomination if the debate is confined to these aspects:

1. Demeaning personal attacks,
2. Drawing absurd conclusions to create straw men
3. Lacking objectivity when dealing with other's arguments
4. MUMBO JUMBO
5. MORE MUMBO JUMBO
6. Claiming that others argue from silence while holding to a position that argues from silence on the same issues.
7. Rudeness
8. The most unChristlike behavior that is possible without getting deleted from the board
9. Labelling people's arguments you disagree with as "from the pit," so as to dismiss them and run away from them for weeks.

Yes, if you want this debate to go right into the mud from the very first post and avoid the issues being discussed your man is Nicholas Petreley.

 

Npetreley is suitable to me.

I think each of us, on either side can draw up instances in which we have not been Christlike in our debates here.

The debate floor at times does get hot with passion. Yet it is honourable for men to defend that which they hold by conviction. It is the man who will not stand by his conviction I do not respect.

I would pray for either brother chosen that such honourable methods would be pursued for the Praise of the Glory of His Grace.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

I would nominate Ray as a moderator. Shoot as objective as Russell55 has been in dealing with our arguments I would even be satisfied with having her as a moderator.

I wonder why you all have passed by her as a "champion"? Couldn't have a woman champion your cause?

 

Already trying to dodge the issues?

If this thing is a serious consideration for anyone, someone develop a list of nominees. As far as I am concerned this forum is not the church, therefore I would have no problem with Russell55 holding the position. To be consistent, If I insisted upon her disqualification in this, I would be compelled to do the same in any other post she submits in this forum.

Ken, do you think 10 paces is sufficient 'squirming' distance for our Armenian brethren. Actually ten probably suits them fine, isn't this the number of human government? Or am I wrong? I could be, but God cannot.

Bro. Dallas

 

Sorry, I don't think I can live up to those requirements. That's only how I behave on my good days.

 

The "issues" haven't even been presented yet.

What if this were the church? Why couldn't she still "hold the position" of debating soteriology?

One could argue that this is a form of a church in that we are believers gathered together to discuss God's Word.

From my perspective I've not been the one "squirming" when presented with issues that haven't been fully studied.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that response on the issue of "envy".

 

I thought you dismissed that issue because of my beginning in Romans 9.

One can argue this is the church, but that doesn't or will not make this the church. One can also argue with a fence post for the right-of-way, but the fence post still will not move of its own power.

I sincerely make an attempt to not squirm and do not dismiss anyone's argument except for those who refuse to present scripture, believe scripture, or pretend scripture is particular only in areas in support of a thesis they have developed and wish to propagate.

As I said in my earlier post, I do not believe this is the church, this should be obvious, which two of us would submit to the 'faith and order' of the other, there may be among us a hand-full and there may not. The church is not made up of a 'motley crew' of believers constantly engaged in doubtful disputations, nor is it made of those who hold to Sovereignty of God as opposed to those hoping for the decisional sovereignty of man. No, as much as it would be nice to call this the church I cannot view it as such. If you want to that is fine with me.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

It just seemed inconsistant to me for you to allow a woman to defend soteriology on this board but not in your church. We are all believers. We are all the bride of Christ. Why would Russell55's opinion be any less valuable to her church than it is to us?


I bet this is why she goes by her last name.

 

I have told you before Brother Bill my belief concerning the church is not the mainstream. I do not wish to offend Russell55, nor anyone else, including my own conscience. If I am less than honest I do not have to wonder if Brother Bill is sleeping ok, but it is the conscience of Frogman I must deal with.

I would rather remain honest in my presentation of what I believe the Bible teaches, even on the church, by doing this all others can hopefully honestly present their own beliefs and the Spirit can provide the discernment of truth.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

Yikes! I didn't even know this conversation was here.

Bill, I appreciate your defense of me, but I think I actually have the same view Frogman does on the place of women teachers in the church. (I say "I think" because I am not completely sure what his viewpoint is). But I don't see this as the "assembly", but a discussion board, and as such it is an appropriate place for women who are interested in this sort of thing.

I think the debate idea is a great idea. As for my nomination, well....I am just too tired and my life's too complicated right now to take on anything formal like that.

How would this work for running it though? A moderator could start thread, but keep it locked so that it wouldn't be posted on by others. The participants could PM their arguments to the moderator, who could check it out for snide remarks, name-calling, etc before it is posted by the moderator onto the thread.

Oh, and another suggestion: I think their should be a word limit for each part of the debate--sort of like the time limit in a regular debate.

 

ooooo kaaayyy...I think I understand...This is the debate about what to debate about what to...

Pete

 

we are still debating whether or not to open the debate in order that the debate can be debated.

Does that help you to understand the nature of the debate, the purpose of the debate and finally what is intended to be proven through the debate? Oh, yea, unless you have something meaningful to add to the debate, please refrain from interrupting the debate, once this occurs those actively engaged in the debate become entangled and confused and then it becomes necessary to renew the debate, which means the entire debate is begun anew. As you might imagine this is not only frustrating to those who are actively involved in the debate, but it is also detrimental to the intended purposes of the debate. Above all else we must continue to pursue a productive, congenial debate.

Bro. Dallas

 

So, the debate cannot take place without debators and unbiased moderation. Cancel the debate!

 

Just what are you trying to say here?

 

Yeah!... What are you implying?... That the moderation of the debate will be controlled to agree with the position of the moderator ... Yelsew... Have you ever been witness to a true debate or even read one?... You ought to be with a thought like that... Your flesh is showing I'll wait on Pastor Larry and get his input ... Brother Glen The Primitive Baptist

 

What specific issue within the differences of our systems would be debated?