preacher4truth
Active Member
That's good news brother. I am happy for all of you!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
That's good news brother. I am happy for all of you!
Again, this tread is not about your personal issues with my theology.
Rhetoric about what you don't agree with about my doctrine is not an answer to the simple question I presented. Re-read post #64 if this is not clear.
Originally Posted by Benjamin
I would say the title you offer me is not a true statement, the tiltle I offer you is. IOW's you suggested my doctrine equals something it does not, what does the title I offered you suggest that is not true according to you?
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
You're correct, it's been about yours against others.
But continue leaning your thoughts on a different subject as if you're on track with the OP, and it will keep you from facing facts. It's a rather simplistic scheme you're being lead to follow to keeping you from facing truth.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion concerning the OP or question #64 which directly addresses the OP? Again, the topic is not about your personal issues with me or my theology.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Tell you what, I'll add more as soon as you admit your name-calling is a work of the flesh and unnecessary, and, is a behavior you practice on here often, and when you apologize for resorting to these things. For you to do so would be to "man-up."
Other than that, the distinguishing factor you will get is that your theology differs little from Copelands, that is, that God is unable, and only enabled when man acts.
Thus Calvinism would be deemed "Sovereign Grace" and arminianism "Freewill Empowerment" the latter being a fallacy.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Says the one levelling name calling on and against others. :wavey:
I sense a bit of "sorry for you" feelings.
You post an obviously in the flesh remark in over sized print and then, when the same is repeated back, you want to defend yourself by deflection and repetition.
Whether both statements are true (which they may be) or not, we aren't attacking the statement, but your attitude. I thought that, by producing a similar statement that was as accurate as yours, it would show you with a smidgen of sarcasm a bit of insight.
Why not merely take the OP seriously and provide something that would be more helpful.
It really would be appreciated and I do value your wisdom.
Tom Butler
New Member
Greektim's post was #34
This one is #90.
Best I can tell we've had 56 posts up since then, and not one of them addressed the OP since Greektim did.
BTW, I like monergism. Maybe we can combine your suggestion with mine (DoG) and describe us Calvinists as Monergist DoGs.
Maybe our Non-Cal friends can be Synergist Freewillies.
I have been thinking about that.
The problem being everyone would think I had some kind of disease, fungus, or something.
Monergistic coupled with DoG would be a bit redundant, wouldn't it?
"Independent Monergist" - well at least it would be attention getting.
"The Monergist Baptist Church" - the world would soon degrade the name to the Orneriest Baptist Church or Odor-iest Baptist Church.
But it is worth consideration.
My point exactly. I'm not interested in any of your or anyone elses personal issues against me, this is a debate forum and I have presented a claim, lets address the issues and avoid (Fallacious Ad Hominem accusations such as I have posted in the flesh and whatknot because of the method I used to draw your attention to a title statement using big letters) I made a valid point when I compared my title statement to the title statement that you offered which I would contest as not being true. I contend what the oposition presented was an unfair comparison used as a rhetorical device to avoid admitting that the title I presented was not only accurate but more to the point; therefore more truthful and thereby more honest than calling ones doctrine the “THE” Doctrine of Grace” which is a subjectively stated title as there are differences in opinion about the means of grace. That is my claim.
If my title statement is not truthfully reflecting your position then it should be easy for you to tell me what you consider not to be true about it and my contention that is more accurate than simply calling one’s doctrine “THE Doctrine of Grace” will be withdrawn. Back to the subject of the premise:
Simple question:
1) How does the title of “Doctrine of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace” not accurately or truthfully (same thing) reflect the view the of the OP’s doctrine?
Again, this is not about anyone’s personal issues with me or conflicts one has with the other’s doctrine. It is a matter of if the title I presented is a not only accurate, but more accurate description of the doctrines of grace that the opposition preaches, or not?
Last edited by a moderator:
Think what you will about honesty, truthful... It doesn't really matter.
If you desire to discuss the means of God's unmerited favor (Grace) then that is fine. I suggest you start another thread about the topic.
As was expressed by more than just me, it wasn't whether a the post was truthful, it was the attitude expressed by the over sized type. The part you missed is that no one argued with you over whether it was the truth or not.
Frankly, I don't know that it would. Is there some related ground work already done using that statement outside the BB?
Would the statement immediately cause division and slander rather than discussion in working toward unity?
I sat in a pulpit committee as an adviser, a number of years ago, that expressed a need for greater understanding of the different views of pastors they were considering. It was amazing how much agreement and unity of the brethren was had throughout the discussion. After nearly two hours, the term Calvin and Arminian emerged. At that point, unity disintegrated, lines were drawn and all agreement over the scriptures and principles were forgotten. The problem was that none on the committee knew what they were talking about, but merely the titles were enough to be divisive.
Possibly, and if you start another thread about that topic, perhaps it can be truly evaluated. To claim it as accurate would allow for just the same claim to be made of the statement pertaining to the Arminian view.
Tom brought up Greek's suggestion of monergism.
What do you think of that idea?
Truth matters to me. You continue to avoid the issues and seem to think revealing your true position in your title would be a divisive thing to do. I agree, people would and do flee from the "truth" of your doctrine. It is no wonder to me that you can't or refuse to answer the simple question I presented in regards to the truth of your position.
I like mine better.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because you presume far more than appropriate in your post, I will respond to your assumptions.
I was not asked to advise on what "I" believed, nor did I offer - it would have been inappropriate. I was there as a resource to advise the committee on how to work through what various pastors held as Scriptural to the many questions the committee asked. We all had Scriptures at hand and searched for what agreement to the Scriptures each pastor provided.
None of the questions asked used the term Calvin or Arminian. And it wasn't until the very words were spoken in a phone conversation with one of the pastor finalists that division and confusion badly divided the group. There was no "fleeing." But the unity was lost, and sadly years later there are some who cannot get past the hurtful expressions made to each other.
I was not asking, nor did I even suggest the "truth" of one doctrine over another. Again, to have done so would have been dishonest and inappropriate to what the committee desired by inviting me.
You presume I did not answer the question. Though I did in at least two posts, and encouraged you to start another thread if you wanted to further the discussion on the accuracy of the statement.
So, because there are those who only want to see through their own preconceptions, I will restate. It is possible that the statement is correct, just as the statement of the Arminian view is correct. However, it also is more likely to create further division and not work for the unity of the brethren.
More to the point of the OP, would you agree with "synergism" as a word supporting your view?
Oh, and are you kidding me, not hardly, I repeatedly asked my opponents to address the issues and not me. Trying to justify yours and others actions because of me using big letters is rediculus and the only reason I used them was because you said you might of missed any title suggestions and it was done in humor. But you and others certainly missed the part that this is "supposed" to be a debate board and apparently many here do not no how to get past street arguments.
No, I know you did not answer the questions with anything other than rhetorical devises disigned to avoid them.
Enough said, I tire of the chase.
Aw, looks like "monergism" is already taken:
From the Orthodox Church in America website:
Colin J. D. Greene notes that monergism and monotheletism were condemned as heretical at the Third Council of Constantinople [Sixth Ecumenical Council].
From the Orthodox Church in America website:
Colin J. D. Greene notes that monergism and monotheletism were condemned as heretical at the Third Council of Constantinople [Sixth Ecumenical Council].
Your language more often than not, does not seem to match God's declarations of truth in scripture. like this;
In scripture God sets His love on His elect people. In love He draws them. You make it sound distorted sometimes.....not just you...but all of Team Jihad who call God names that they should not[ author of sin,monster,respector of persons,etc.]
All the biblical revelation has a divine plan and purpose because it is God given....not man made. It is sin to attempt to speak against or diminish what God has purposed to do...as He always does right.
Calvinism seeks to trust in this God given revelation,knowing Him to be holy ,just, and good.
Benjamin,
Did you not see that the "opponents" considered your post in size 7 type as an over the top attempt of attacking.
Throughout the many posts following, you never mentioned that it was done in "humor." Rather, the responses you offered were taken as more validation that you were somewhat of a bully in demanding approval or not and why. You may not have meant it that way.
I made a more dangerous misstep and was approached by a moderator, and rightfully so. My use of biting sarcasm was easily mistaken and I have to remember not to use such an approach without indicating that is in fact sarcasm. Such things can be easily misunderstood when all you have is script and know nothing of the baggage and the body language of the reader.
This is a debate board - not a street fight. There is to be a certain amount of decorum to which occasionally we remind each other.
I have encouraged you at least two or more times to start a thread with your statement and seek debate upon the topic. I have no doubt it would be lively.
- Status