This is a terrible mistake

[Luke2427]

If I understand it correctly the goal here was to move the Calvinism debate off of the theology debate thread to quell the dominance of the topic.

I suppose then that I cannot start a thread on Calvinism in the traditional location where the subject would be debated.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Separating soteriology from the rest of theology is like taking all the meat out of a ham.

Pretending to have a legitimate theology debate section where soteriology is excluded is absurd in the highest degree.

And it makes no financial sense either. Rigorous debate "pays the bills" here I'd bet.

Make this a boring "fellowship site" and you have killed it.

We fellowship in our churches and under the fellowship section of this site.

We ought to be able to debate rigorously on the "DEBATE" sites.

If you want to clean up the mess in these debates that truly does need to be addressed then make rules against ad hominem, drive by posting, not staying on topic and logical fallacies.

That's the answer.

 

[preacher4truth]

If I understand it correctly the goal here was to move the Calvinism debate off of the theology debate thread to quell the dominance of the topic.

I suppose then that I cannot start a thread on Calvinism in the traditional location where the subject would be debated.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Separating soteriology from the rest of theology is like taking all the meat out of a ham.

Pretending to have a legitimate theology debate section where soteriology is excluded is absurd in the highest degree.

And it makes no financial sense either. Rigorous debate "pays the bills" here I'd bet.

Make this a boring "fellowship site" and you have killed it.

We fellowship in our churches and under the fellowship section of this site.

We ought to be able to debate rigorously on the "DEBATE" sites.

If you want to clean up the mess in these debates that truly does need to be addressed then make rules against ad hominem, drive by posting, not staying on topic and logical fallacies.

That's the answer.

Agreed. And make rules against the threads intended to bait others into a brawl in order intimidate those of a certain camp, whilst denying said glaringly obvious objective, i.e., those 'numerous' threads made simply to sow discord.

 

[Luke2427]

And how do you find this section without pulling up Skandelon's post on the theology debate thread and then clicking on the link in his post?

 

[preacher4truth]

And how do you find this section without pulling up Skandelon's post on the theology debate thread and then clicking on the link in his post?

Honestly I am not sure where to find it. I saw his numerous threads but didn't find the straw man arguments he presented of worthwhile engagement.

 

[Herald]

I am surprised this thread has not been locked or deleted yet.

 

[Iconoclast]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke2427 View Post
If I understand it correctly the goal here was to move the Calvinism debate off of the theology debate thread to quell the dominance of the topic.

I suppose then that I cannot start a thread on Calvinism in the traditional location where the subject would be debated.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Separating soteriology from the rest of theology is like taking all the meat out of a ham.

Pretending to have a legitimate theology debate section where soteriology is excluded is absurd in the highest degree.

And it makes no financial sense either. Rigorous debate "pays the bills" here I'd bet.

Make this a boring "fellowship site" and you have killed it.

We fellowship in our churches and under the fellowship section of this site.

We ought to be able to debate rigorously on the "DEBATE" sites.

If you want to clean up the mess in these debates that truly does need to be addressed then make rules against ad hominem, drive by posting, not staying on topic and logical fallacies.

That's the answer.
Agreed. And make rules against the threads intended to bait others into a brawl in order intimidate those of a certain camp, whilst denying said glaringly obvious objective, i.e., those 'numerous' threads made simply to sow discord.

What this reminds me off is when people who shy away from study feel uncomfortable when doctrinal issues arise so they try and come up with a compromise plan....

you know....let's study this later on, or at the Saturday morning study...

I think both of you have raised valid points.
Protestant's thread was quickly shut down,All he did was quote several of the non biblical responses....I believe he was simply trying to demonstrate the futility of offering good verses ,only to be answered with no scripture at all....nothing that could be of much value.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This froum is here because the Administrative Council thought the topic was best served in the Christian DEBATE Forums (All Christians) section of the board. "Baptist Theology & Bible Study"is in the Baptist only section.
Please note: I am moderating this forum fairly closely.

 

[Luke2427]

This froum is here because the Administrative Council thought the topic was best served in the Christian DEBATE Forums (All Christians) section of the board. "Baptist Theology & Bible Study"is in the Baptist only section.
Please note: I am moderating this forum fairly closely.

Yea, Brother, but the greatest item of debate in the last 400 years of BAPTIST history has been Arminianism VS Calvinism.

Why not let BOTH sections discuss the issue?

The issue is the BIGGEST issue in the largest Baptist movement today.

It is absolutely SENSELESS to ban it from BAPTIST DEBATE.

You simply cannot argue with my logic here, Squire.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Don't plan on arguing it. I plan on moderating this debate. Which using your statistics is a theological tar baby.

Yea, Brother, but the greatest item of debate in the last 400 years of BAPTIST history has been Arminianism VS Calvinism.

Why not let BOTH sections discuss the issue?

The issue is the BIGGEST issue in the largest Baptist movement today.

It is absolutely SENSELESS to ban it from BAPTIST DEBATE.

You simply cannot argue with my logic here, Squire.

 

[Luke2427]

Don't plan on arguing it. I plan on moderating this debate. Which using your statistics is a theological tar baby.

Really, so far, it is not a debate. Everybody willing to discuss the issue is in agreement with me.

I dare say that no one WANTS to argue for the other side of the issue because it has no ground whatsoever.

 

[preacher4truth]

What this reminds me off is when people who shy away from study feel uncomfortable when doctrinal issues arise so they try and come up with a compromise plan....

you know....let's study this later on, or at the Saturday morning study...

I think both of you have raised valid points.
Protestant's thread was quickly shut down,All he did was quote several of the non biblical responses....I believe he was simply trying to demonstrate the futility of offering good verses ,only to be answered with no scripture at all....nothing that could be of much value.

I didn't have a problem with the quoting of those responses at all. Actually I liked that they were exposed. They were shown for what they were, and persons are quoted here all the time. And furthermore THOSE types of quotes and 'defense' need, and should be exposed for what they are, not buried IMO. Also, I don't see how quoting a persons answer is attacking a personality.

 

[Herald]

I didn't have a problem with the quoting of those responses at all. Actually I liked that they were exposed. They were shown for what they were, and persons are quoted here all the time. And furthermore THOSE types of quotes and 'defense' need, and should be exposed for what they are, not buried IMO. Also, I don't see how quoting a persons answer is attacking a personality.

Brother, my problem with Protestant's thread is that it had nothing to do with an ongoing discussion. It would have had relevance if he was showing the inconsistency of a certain poster who is engaged in an active thread. Protestant's thread came from out of the blue. IMHO it was just begging for a fight.

 

[Herald]

Rick,

The powers that be have made their decision and moved the discussion of soteriology to the Outer Rim. So be it. It is a bit humorous that even some of the moderators forgot this obscure forum exists. They posted Calvinism threads back in the other debate forum, which only goes to show you that this is a less than an ideal solution. You cannot even find the forum unless you bookmark the link. No one among the moderators or administrators has said so, but that seems to be on purpose as well. Make it hard to find and maybe the topic will be less discussed. But since Calvinism vs. Arminianism is the most debated topic among Baptists it is not going away anytime soon. But as far as the BB is concerned; hey, it is what it is. I will acquiesce to the rules.

The truth is that Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) has a far greater reach then just soteriology. That is why separating it from general theological debate is a bit disjointed. God's sovereignty is at work in every aspect of theology. The discussion does not have to center on predestination and election in order for God's sovereignty to take center stage.

 

[Luke2427]

Really, so far, it is not a debate. Everybody willing to discuss the issue is in agreement with me.

I dare say that no one WANTS to argue for the other side of the issue because it has no ground whatsoever.

Hmmm.........

 

[Luke2427]

Rick,

The powers that be have made their decision and moved the discussion of soteriology to the Outer Rim. So be it. It is a bit humorous that even some of the moderators forgot this obscure forum exists. They posted Calvinism threads back in the other debate forum, which only goes to show you that this is a less than an ideal solution. You cannot even find the forum unless you bookmark the link. No one among the moderators or administrators has said so, but that seems to be on purpose as well. Make it hard to find and maybe the topic will be less discussed. But since Calvinism vs. Arminianism is the most debated topic among Baptists it is not going away anytime soon. But as far as the BB is concerned; hey, it is what it is. I will acquiesce to the rules.

The truth is that Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) has a far greater reach then just soteriology. That is why separating it from general theological debate is a bit disjointed. God's sovereignty is at work in every aspect of theology. The discussion does not have to center on predestination and election in order for God's sovereignty to take center stage.

You are absolutely right. And I'm going to tell you what I think. I think Calvinists have, especially as of the last year or so, been absolutely beating the stuffing out of non-calvinism in these debates.

What is happening all across the nation, is happening here on bb. The old guard of shallow theology is giving way to the younger generation that longs for depth and substance. The thing is that depth and substance in theology are practically SYNONYMOUS with Calvinism. That's why Calvinism is on the rise.

 

[Skandelon]

It's difficult for me to say much here because I actually agree with many of Luke's statements. I'm one who spoke out against having it moved, but it is what it is. I insisted that they at least make a link to this forum on the main page (which they did, but for some reason its under the general forums and not the baptist only. I don't know why.)

I do admit that this issue can over shadow and drowned out other topics, so I was ok with it having its own forum, but I believe it needs to be in a predominate and easy to find location.

 

[Luke2427]

It's difficult for me to say much here because I actually agree with many of Luke's statements. I'm one who spoke out against having it moved, but it is what it is. I insisted that they at least make a link to this forum on the main page (which they did, but for some reason its under the general forums and not the baptist only. I don't know why.)

I do admit that this issue can over shadow and drowned out other topics, so I was ok with it having its own forum, but I believe it needs to be in a predominate and easy to find location.

Absolutely

___________

 

[Revmitchell]

How pathetic, why does it need to be in the Baptist only section? It serves no purpose and it is not the issue some want it to be.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, I didn't see this before I wrote my last post...

You are absolutely right. And I'm going to tell you what I think. I think Calvinists have, especially as of the last year or so, been absolutely beating the stuffing out of non-calvinism in these debates.

Yes, I have been gone a while. :laugh:

You crack me up, Luke.

What is happening all across the nation, is happening here on bb. The old guard of shallow theology is giving way to the younger generation that longs for depth and substance. The thing is that depth and substance in theology are practically SYNONYMOUS with Calvinism. That's why Calvinism is on the rise.

Or, the young are less educated, more naive and unaware of the alternative scholarly views of such doctrines as predestination and election, thus are more prone to accept whatever the latest fad cool preacher type is selling.:saint:

 

[Iconoclast]

You are absolutely right. And I'm going to tell you what I think. I think Calvinists have, especially as of the last year or so, been absolutely beating the stuffing out of non-calvinism in these debates.

What is happening all across the nation, is happening here on bb. The old guard of shallow theology is giving way to the younger generation that longs for depth and substance. The thing is that depth and substance in theology are practically SYNONYMOUS with Calvinism. That's why Calvinism is on the rise.

When it happens in a local church...the cals are accused of starting a split.They are just studying and asking questions ....when they move to suppress them it grows even more.