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

Frogman Ok, you win

However which debate is it that I should refrain from interrupting? The current debate about how and what to debate? Or the actual debate when it starts...Although wether or not there will be a debate is still debatable...

ok ok, I'll behave, I'll stop de baiting

Pete

 

Here is a suggested format. Choose a topic and choose two debators. Give 24 hours notice and after that time, each debator should post his position. The posts should be limited to 500 words.
Next, each debator should post a 300 word response to the other.
Next, each debator asks three questions of the other.
Next, each debator can respond in two hundred words to each of the three questions.
During all of this, observers can e-mail questions to the moderator. These questions are limited to 25 words. At the conclusion of the debators responses to each other, the moderator posts five general questions to each which they can answer in 200 words or less.
Finally, the non-calvinist is declared the winner (yes, this was pre-ordained).
For an idea of the length of a 200 word post, this post consists of 146 words.

 

Having just read this for the first time, what is the point?? If two of you want to have a debate, then have it. Notify the moderators and we will keep the others out. Come up with your format and let me know.

As for moderators, as has been repeatedly said to the few who have complained, moderation in this forum deals only with demeanor (i.e., personal attacks and general rudeness). At no time has anyone's theology ever been edited because of their theology. Having an arminian moderator wouldn't change that a bit. An arminian moderator would still only edit for demeanor and it's not going to make the arminian position look any better.

This whole issue of moderating is very fascinating. Start looking back at the number of posts that have been edited and whose they have been and why they have been edited. I think the results will be very shocking to you and it will cause you to stop this foolish talk of unfair moderating. There is very little editing/moderating going on.

If you guys would police yourselves, avoid the stupid personal comments (that came up again in this thread that probably should be edited -- Bro. Bill ), then things would run a lot smoother. Keep you comments confined to the ideas and topics, not to the people.

 

Then it shouldn't matter to you if we have an Arminian moderator should it?????

I can distinctly remember you rebuking Ray and another time rebuking Yelsew about misrepresenting Calvinism and you mentioned your "moderator" status or threatened them. Its been a while ago so I know it would take me some time to locate them but can other Arminians or honest Calvinists confirm that they have seen Larry do this?

Can you tell me exactly what "stupid personal comments" that I made that "should be edited?"

And I can't believe in the same post that you tell us their is no Calvinistic bias on this board you tell ME to "keep my comments confined to the ideas and topics, not to people."

I could fill up 50 pages of Nick Petreley's negative "personal comments" about me alone. Yet, not once have I ever seen you ask him to keep his comments confined to the ideas and topics. I've told him that a few hundred times, but as a moderator you fail to do that.

You edited Romanbear several weeks ago because he alluded to the fact that Calvinists had depraved minds. I disagreed with his comments, but I've seen FAR more demeaning comments concerning Armininans on this board. Nick has called my arguments "from the pit" on numerous occasions, yet if any of us said that about Calvinism you would jump all over them and you know it.

If moderators are doing what they are supposed to do they will be consistant. You have yet to rebuke or edit a Calvinist to my knowledge.

 

Personally, Swaimj I would like to see you and Pastor Larry debate it out. You both seem knowledgable of the scripture and fairly confident in your understanding of the system you represent. As much as I would love to do that I think in many ways I've "worn out my welcome" with many of these guys. You're a fresh face and seem to be quite competent in defeating the pastor.

What do you say?

I believe the issue of Total Depravity is at the very heart of this debate. Why not start there?

 

No it wouldn't. If there was a qualified arminian, it would bother me in the least.

You would have to show this to me. I don't recall this. I make it a practice to edit only for personal demeanor. I have never edited for theology. I have edited for being off topic of the forum. That is the one stipulation I forgot to mention this morning.

I have expressed my disappointment at those who do not listen and do not accurately reflect their opponents views. That is a function of me as a participant, not as a moderator. I believe I have been consistent on that. The burden of proof to show me wrong would be on you. YOu might be able to ... I really don't know. But I would seriously doubt it. My practice is to edit for personal attacks and personal demeanor as well as for being off topic. I do not edit for anything else, as much as I would like to sometimes.

Your list on the previous page regarding Nicholas and debating him.

That comment was directed to "you" as in plural meaning everybody; not you as in singular. If you note the first line of the paragraph in question, it was addressed to "you guys" (not to exclude our female friends here). A clearer wording would have been in order in retrospect and I will edit it to reflect my intent more clearly. Your post to Nicholas was the first time I remember seeing you say something of the depths that you did (but I don't read all your posts so it may have happened other times as well). IT was completely out of place and the little smiley face at the end did not offset that.

Feel free to email those links. I cannot read everything that is posted here. I have rebuked calvinistic posters before and I will do it again.

But I am not going to edit for every little slight that someone might feel. We are all adults here. Let's act like it. Do not feel like you have to return evil for evil. Ray, for all of his bad theology and mistaken thought processes, very rarely if every responds out of anger or retorts to someone with a slam. It makes his posts very unremarkable but it is commendable. Now if he would only straighten out his theology

Unfortunately Romanbear has a history. I wish he didn't. To say that a calvinist has a depraved mind is a personal attack because it is about a person. To say that a calvinist misunderstands or doesn't properly reckon with a teaching of Scripture is a whole different issue. I have not seen a calvinism say that an arminian is an arminian because of his depraved mind. (Remember theologically, we all have depraved minds ... but I am not saying that as an attack on someone). Romanbear's posted contributed nothing of substance to the conversation. It was purely namecalling.

Calvinism has been said to be from the pit, from the depths of hell, etc on numerous occasions. If you search, you can still find them because they were not edited. And when you find them, you will know that I apply the editing equally to all. I will not bail you or anyone else out of the problems their own position causes.

"From the pit" is a stupid argument, no matter who uses it. It is useless because it does not deal with any issues in a substantive way. I wish it wouldn't be used. But to edit it sets a precedent I dno't want to set because 1) it is not a personal attack, 2) it is not particularly rude, and 3) it is not off topic per se.

You should have been around longer than you have been ... I have done it before. If you feel there is a situation that warrants it, please feel free to point it out. I may or may not agree but I will look at it.

I really don't read everything that is posted here. I do not have the kind of time. I have a method that I use in reading (which shall remain known only to me ). I really wish there was no need for a moderator. I wish you guys would police yourselves and call each other on the the carpet when something out of place is said. But it will take a concerted effort from all of you.

 

Develope a bulletized or numbered list of specific items that each require a statement from each of the debators!

Allow the debators one 7-day week to respond to the list. Then after the reponses are posted, Post a new topic for each of the listed items that include the responses of the debators so that all may comment on that specific topic.

The list of items must be the specific doctrine where disagreement between Calvin and Armenius exists. No other commentary allowed.

 

I wasn't trying to win yet...I'm still debating.

BTW, what is a strawman??
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Oh, I had in mind the 'scarecrow' you know in the garden, the one who is put out there to 'scare' away the crows and prevent the carrying away...well read Gen. 15.

Thanks.

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman,

A typical arminian straw man argument: If calvinism is true, then God will say "I just didn't feel like electing her to salvation" when you ask why your precious daughter is burning in hell.

 

It is a valid inference from Calvinism, though, isn't it, that God didn't feel like electing the non-elect to salvation?

Because if He had felt like it, He would have done it, wouldn't He?

Helen/AITB

 

So it remains consistant with the Arminian view that God is subject to human emotion.

So, this view makes the promise of God of 'wiping away all tears' of no effect.

Bro. Dallas

 

God saves everyone He wills to be saved, and it doesn't matter whether we humans can understand why God chooses one and not another. The error in the arminian straw man is that we assume that the precious daughter deserves to be saved, and it is unfair that she is not. We have no such knowledge, and therefore have no right to propose such a claim against the justice of God.

This is what I was trying to get at with the other thread on Job. Did Job deserve to be tortured by satan? The surprising answer is "He deserved far worse. It is only by the grace and mercy of God that Job was blessed." Even Job realized that at the end when God humbled him with his series of questions.

If we all start out deserving the worst - and we do - then it is impossible for the arminian straw man to occur. There is no such thing as a problem that someone who deserved to go to heaven got sent to hell.

 

It's amazing how someone who throws out a term like "non-sovereigntists" can speak of a "straw man" as if only the other side uses them. And perhaps the real question is "remember that one time Calvinists weren't triumphalistic?"

 

It is more than sick how people can speak about a 'little girl' being worthy or unworthy of Hell, and that said people can lay this at the feet of Jesus, as to being uncaring, unjust and autocratic in His ways.

If any one of us spent one half hour in Hell we would never accuse God of damning the non-elect and favoring His elected people. Anyway, thank God-- some on this board are not judge of who goes to Heaven and Hell. As I read Jesus words He lets us know up front, that He alone will judge and dispatch people to Heaven and Hell. [John 5:22] 'For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.'

 

That wasn't actually spelled out in the example. Maybe the father was simply asking a question based on his suffering in knowing his daughter was in hell.

When we're in pain don't we often ask 'why???' It doesn't necessarily mean we've assumed anything.

Like I said, it wasn't actually written into the example.

I don't really think that's the main point of Job, that "Gee, you're fortunate I didn't do worse to you, Job!"

I think Job got what he wanted which was to *see* God. I think once you've *seen* God, once you know you can trust Him, your question kind of melt away. If there's anything wrong with the example of the father asking 'why???' that's probably it - that something about being in God's direct presence is satisfying and joyful enough that our questions kind of melt away. It's here on earth that we ask the agonizing 'why???' questions.

When I read what Calvinists wrote I wonder how God could ever have made man and said "That's very good!!!" The continual focus on how awful we are and how we deserve nothing isn't what I see in Scripture, quite frankly.

Am I hinting at having some heretical view of human nature? Not necessarily; I'm just trying to be open to the whole counsel of God which includes God's joy at creation and especially at the creation of human beings.

Helen/AITB

 

I really can't see any difference of a baby burning in hell or an old man... Unless I'm missing something in the declaration of the angel to Mary... Which btw told her that she would bring forth a son and thou shall call his name... JESUS!... For he shall save his people from their sins... I see no reason to not believe what was said... Do you?... All the Father gave him to save will be saved... Unless the Bible lied... The written word of God... Jesus lied... The Son Of God... And God the Father lied... He will save all his children just like he said he would!... And just like I've been saying on this board since I joined a year and a half ago!... Brother Glen The Primitive Baptist

 

That was a reference to one of your Arminian pals that used to post in this forum that used that analogy to slander Calvinism. I don't recall his name for certain right now.

 

It is any argument an arminian comes up with.

Seriously, it is.

No, really seriously, it is purposely misrepresenting the other side only to tear it down. It makes one side seem foolish and the other side strong. </font>[/QUOTE]strawman:
a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: "The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man."