Unity

I'm not sure this board ever had "unity," and it hasn't in the couple of years I've posted here. To say that a certain group of people disturbed this supposed unity is...silly.

I don't know what an "intruth" is.

Your assertion that your views are biblical is a tautology. I think the word "biblical" is useless in theological discussions, especially discussions on this board. Most people use the word as a dressed-up adjective for their own views which is what you have done here.

We differ on the gist of preaching. You enjoy being a maverick, and you have demonstrated to me a solipsistic attitude that holds others past and present in contempt for either agreeing or disagreeing with you. If I recall your theology helps fuel this position where people throughout Church history have gradually grown in their knowledge of the Lord. Thus, you know more than those before you. I think your view is contemptible while you hold those before you in contempt.

You have to earn the right to tell things not clearly seen. Until you can demonstrate that you've earned that right by studying the basics of theology (especially historical theology) and examining the state of the question, your insights look presumptuous to other people like me. When you fail to honestly examine the state of the question your fallacious methodology is usually exposed: i.e., your insights, while new to you, may have already come up and been rejected for good reasons. Or they may be indeed new and indeed true, but the shortcut theological method and your attitude in presenting them hurts their reception.

There, I've been honest.

I don't feel the need to address the free will/sovereignty issue since it's irrelevant for this thread. Although I will say that I don't think there's much of a gap between moderate "calvinist" and "arminian" views on the matter since the reality of it is beyond us. That topic has bored me for some time.

 

Huh? I don't remember that coming up.

Yes, and no, respectively, from MY perspective. But the free-willer would, if he/she were honest, have to say that what he/she did was more than I did and take credit for it. Hence the pride.

 

We should all come together around Christ.
HE is the whole point.

My only gripe about this forum is that is seems like
everything is C vs A debate over and over and over
ad nauseum. But that's just a personal opinion, I'm
not going to engage in argument over it.

Again, we should all come together around Christ.

 

Yeah, you're right, and I just threw that in there to see if it would get a rise out of anybody.

The main point was, though, that unity and harmony are possible only in a local congregation.

 

Dream on, my brother. We on the Baptist Board are about as together around Christ as one can get. We agree pretty much on Christ's deity, his attributes, the standard stuff. I suspect that most of the non-Baptists agree with Baptists about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I also suspect that most of us here agree on what the gospel is--the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ--Baptist or otherwise.

Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, even Catholics, can gather around those truths.

But, ask a couple of questions and it's off in different directions.

Such as, how does one come into a right relationship with God?

And, for whom did Christ die?

Once those questions are on the table, all unity bets are off.

 

Skypair,

It appears that you want unity as long as everyone agrees with you. I guess we all would like that kind of unity, uh? And your insinuation that Calvinists are do-nothings in ministry is insulting and once again, off-base.

 

We are unified around the essentials of the Gospel - the person of Jesus Christ, his death, burial and resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc. But if you are hoping to find some sort of unity on how you and I differ on the definition of God's sovereignty or election or man's depravity, then it is a fool's errand. There will be no unity on these issues until one of us changes our mind, because our views are different when you dissect the details.

So any real discussion of unity must be based upon what we already agree upon. That's why it comes across that your discussion of unity is really just another attempt to 'convince' the other side is wrong in their thinking. It would be like me going up to a Catholic and saying, "Hey, you and I can be unified if you would only concede that you are wrong about some things, like infant baptism, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, purgatory, and several other doctrines. Now, if you would just reconsider that you are wrong about all of those things and I am right, then we can be unified! Hurray!"

In the end, you are making a false argument or false distinction of what "unity" really is.

 

Skypair,

When did I ever say that God causes man to sin? I'm done with you - it is obvious that you want to keep lying about my beliefs, so I am at a loss as to what to do. I really believe you need to repent for your lack of love and dishonesty.

 

You have the argument the wrong way round skypair. Instead of telling people what they believe after they have told you they do not believe what you say they believe you should ask why? If you think Calvinism logically concludes in God being the Author of sin why do you not ask why they do not believe this instead of insisting they do? Mainstream Calvinism has spent a long time and serious effort in explaining how God keeps His Hands clean and you should understand their view before you say they are wrong.

For God has bound all men over to disobedience... Rom 11:32 says it all doesn't it? Doctrinal rigidity is scriptural integrity isn't it and that is not worth selling out for a pretended unity?

john.

 

skypair.

That's worrying.

Why?

Did he? And what was your answer to that?

Yes? Good isn't it? Compelled to disbelieve. No problem. [obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will (Strong)]

That is not scriptural, just your imagination. Scripture refutes you to your face, PS 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

PS 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

Ok. God is interferring with men's will regardless of when though. To bind sinners over to sin isn't so difficult after all. Why bother?

I do not. A little yeast works through the whole batch.

A strange question from a Christian.

john.

 

So you believe babies are bound over because they are defiant of the truth or you do not believe all men are bound over, which? For God has bound all men...
It is strange that you think God binds men over to unbelief because they do not believe but why? After all, He bound them over so that He could have mercy on them all. You are saying that the binding over is a punishment for unbelief but God says the binding over is so that He can have mercy.

Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

'So that', not because of anything.

john.