What Others Believe

[JonC]

jonc, are there consequences for certain beliefs? I mean if you believe what calvinists teach about election can you say the conclusion of that is fatalism? If you believe what arminians teach about free will then can you say that ultimately salvation rests on what the person does? I mean arent those consequences of the belief systems?

I think we can say what we believe to be logical conclusions and allow the other to respond.

Our beliefs do not have to fit within the logical consequences of things. Atheists can argue the logical conclusion to dying on a cross is remaining dead on the fourth day. I would acknowledge that view and then explain why I believe otherwise.

 

[1689Dave]

No one likes to have words put in their mouth or accused of being something they are not. This presents problems when discussing theology. How do you articulate your disagreement with someone on a point of theology without labeling them? Is it even possible?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I think the ideal is to state your case. And then those who disagree state their's. And let the reader decide. This happens rarely and normally ends up in frustration. But I try to stick to it as much as possible.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one likes to have words put in their mouth or accused of being something they are not. This presents problems when discussing theology. How do you articulate your disagreement with someone on a point of theology without labeling them? Is it even possible?

Sel meant...nt from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Labeling is a requirement for discussion, just as long as we both would agree on what the label has been seen as meaning.

I hold to Reformed Sotierology, so why would I not welcome being labeled a Calvinist?

 

[37818]

It is always a problem of not understanding or knowing the presuppositions of the other party.

And can be a personal problem of not understanding or knowing what one's own presuppsitions are as well.

Also when it comes to reading Scripture, separating what the text is saying from interpretations of the text.

Both sides of a Biblical argument often believe the same text. But understanding the text differently do to different interpretation of the very same text.

 

[David Kent]

Labeling is a requirement for discussion, just as long as we both would agree on what the label has been seen as meaning.

I hold to Reformed Sotierology, so why would I not welcome being labeled a Calvinist?

I don't think Calvin would have appreciated anyone being called a Calvinist, as he wished to be buried in an unmarked grave, so no one could honour him.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think Calvin would have appreciated anyone being called a Calvinist, as he wished to be buried in an unmarked grave, so no one could honour him.

Luther no doubt felt the same of his followers, but history decided otherwise!

 

[JonC]

I don't think Calvin would have appreciated anyone being called a Calvinist, as he wished to be buried in an unmarked grave, so no one could honour him.

He did not like the term (it was given by Lutherans regarding Calvin's view of communion) and preferred "Reformed".

 

[Yeshua1]

He did not like the term (it was given by Lutherans regarding Calvin's view of communion) and preferred "Reformed".

In similar light, many Baptists prefer particular Baptists...

 

[agedman]

Labeling does often bring a certain amount of misconceptions, even unwanted luggage that clutters the threads.

There is a problem with the label "Calvinist" or "non-calvinist" is because not all hold to the exact same thinking of the various items.

For example, when it comes to what constitutes the limit to atonement there is a range of acceptance (toleration) that many outside the camp of "Calvinists" don't recognize when one is branded with a label.

"Reformed" has the connotation of emerging from some institution that needed realignment. For the most part, Baptist folks don't consider themselves ever having been aligned with the RCC, or even some protestant grouping.

Application of labels has always been a problem for the Baptists, though they do like to use them against others, they do not easily accept a label that is not self applied.

On the BB, getting to know a person's views takes time. And though respect is willingly given to all "newbies" the matter of esteem is built over time. That someone has a history and a certain style is important. We wouldn't need two of the same types on the BB. Can you imagine two agedman?

There is one problem that I don't know this thread has yet to explore as it concerns "what others believe..."

That is when a poster points out and actually quotes from the writing of another poster, and yet the one quoted goes into denial.

How would be an effective way of responding?
ignoring?
confronting?
place the quote in bold?

Why is it hard for some to say, "Yes, that was a bad position in which I no longer hold, and am willing to openly admit was mistaken?"

Psychologically, such is just not allowable in certain personality types.
It presents a certain weakness.
It presents an opening for shame.
I presents a vulnerability for humiliation.
(and so forth)

What the BB should represent is that such admission can and does take place in the fellowship of support and understanding pouring from the truly educated. That rejoicing breaks forth in abundance of support.

 

[canadyjd]

Labeling is a requirement for discussion, just as long as we both would agree on what the label has been seen as meaning.

I hold to Reformed Sotierology, so why would I not welcome being labeled a Calvinist?

One problem pointed out by RevMitchell is your opponent claiming to know the motivation for your belief.

People might claim the reason you hold to reformed beliefs is because you think your better than, or smarter than, or have Holy Spirit giving you better discernment than those that disagree.

That’s a huge problem for civil discussion among Christians.

peace to you

 

[Yeshua1]

One problem pointed out by RevMitchell is your opponent claiming to know the motivation for your belief.

People might claim the reason you hold to reformed beliefs is because you think your better than, or smarter than, or have Holy Spirit giving you better discernment than those that disagree.

That’s a huge problem for civil discussion among Christians.

peace to you

I am just suggesting that is is a proper label, as we all pretty much agree on what that refers to!

 

[canadyjd]

I am just suggesting that is is a proper label, as we all pretty much agree on what that refers to!

Yes, as long as everyone agrees on the definition...... ok, what are the chances everyone agrees?

Do you agree that we shouldn’t assign motives to another’s beliefs?

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

Y

Do you agree that we shouldn’t assign motives to another’s beliefs?

peace to you

Or to the way someone posts

 

[Son of Robert]

That is when a poster points out and actually quotes from the writing of another poster, and yet the one quoted goes into denial.

How would be an effective way of responding?
ignoring?
confronting?
place the quote in bold?

Good morning and Happy New Year!

It depends on the person. Some people just don't want to be pinned down on what they believe. My grandfather used to tell me it always gives them room to escape if it looks like they are on the wrong side of the conversation. In that case, you have to consider whether to continue in the conversation. In my experience challenging or confronting them seldom works. It just makes for a more polarised discussion.

 

[Revmitchell]

Good morning and Happy New Year!

It depends on the person. Some people just don't want to be pinned down on what they believe. My grandfather used to tell me it always gives them room to escape if it looks like they are on the wrong side of the conversation.

And you know this how? Did they tell you this or is this more mind reading? Is this based on you trying to pin them down on your terms and your labels?

 

[Son of Robert]

And you know this how? Did they tell you this or is this more mind reading? Is this based on you trying to pin them down on your terms and your labels?

Sir, as I said in my post, "It depends on the person." You see this in politics all the time. In the United States, if a politician believes in tax and spend policies and supports abortion, don't you call them liberal regardless of the party they're a member of? Don't you call them a liberal even if they deny being one? Don't we live in a word full of labels?

 

[Iconoclast]

↑SON Of Robert said;

Good morning and Happy New Year!

It depends on the person. Some people just don't want to be pinned down on what they believe. My grandfather used to tell me it always gives them room to escape if it looks like they are on the wrong side of the conversation.

RM replied;
[QUOTE]And you know this how? Did they tell you this or is this more mind reading?[/QUOTE]

Mind Reading??? No need for that. He just read some of your posts.

Even as a new member, Son of Robert has read some of your posts as we all have.
You avoid and evade any searching question, and yet at the same time you are not shy about asking questions, or calling names, or accusing others.

Is this based on you trying to pin them down on your terms and your labels?

Labels are used to save time by most people.Staying intentionally vague and mysterious is not an asset or prize to be coveted.
Secret agent believers are hiding something.

 

[InTheLight]

you are not shy about asking questions, or calling names, or accusing others.

Secret agent believers are hiding something.

Good thing you don't accuse others, call them names, or perform mind reading, eh?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Son of Robert]

↑SON Of Robert said;


RM replied;
[QUOTE]And you know this how? Did they tell you this or is this more mind reading?

Mind Reading??? No need for that. He just read some of your posts.

Even as a new member, Son of Robert has read some of your posts as we all have.
You avoid and evade any searching question, and yet at the same time you are not shy about asking questions, or calling names, or accusing others.



Labels are used to save time by most people.Staying intentionally vague and mysterious is not an asset or prize to be coveted.
Secret agent believers are hiding something.[/QUOTE]

Sir, I'm not looking to get into a row with anyone. I don't know much about @Revmitchell other than the few posts I have read. I'm assuming he's a person who doesn't like labels. He's not alone in that. Many people share that view. Speaking only for myself, while I appreciate his view, I'm of a different opinion. I'm happy to let that stand as a disagreement between us if it can't be reconciled but I'm certainly not looking to make it a point of contention. As much as possible we should seek to be at peace with all men, Rom. 12.18.

 

[Iconoclast]

Good thing you don't accuse others, call them names, or perform mind reading, eh?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Correct ITL,

I just know what I see posted.

I know what questions were asked.

I know when someone takes evasive action and I comment on it directly and openly.

If I call a name it is descriptive.

People call me names but I know that can happen on such boards, I do not lose sleep over it.

I have posted on several boards and have seen the same patterns repeated, just by different people. It is like watching cops, or live PD shows.
The perpetrator never knows who lent them the car with the gun in the glove compartment, they do not know how the crack rocks got in their pants pockets, in fact they are not sure it is their pants at all.

That is about as accurate as a noncal who demnads that cals disclose scripture and reasons for what they believe, but go into the WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM AND DISAPPEAR when asked the same questions of their view.