Why does Calvinism vs. Armianism dominate every thread?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

AH yes ...the good squire has not found a thread that can remain open....

he has professed several times that he thinks it is a waste of computer space and that no one will change.....that sounds like unbelief in the work of the Spirit.

sounds like a plan.

 

[canadyjd]

Yes, it's silly to say men are enslaved by a sin nature and free at the same time.

I agree. That is why I believe "freedom" is an illusion, so I can't accept compatibilism as you defined it.

Truth is, men are not enslaved by a sin nature. The Philipian jailer was not regenerated, he had not believed and been born again, yet he desired to be saved.

Paul says men are slaves to sin several times in Romans. (6:6,17,20 etc.)

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The Philipian jailer could not have been regenerated, because he had not believed yet. He didn't even know he had to believe. Yet he desired to be saved.

So, you are saying because the jailer wasn't "regenerated" yet, he hadn't expressed faith in Christ, that disproves compatibilism (and the sin nature theology) because he was seeking God prior to regeneration?

This just shows the jailer was under conviction of the Holy Spirit... the "drawing" if you will. Such intervention by God must take place prior to faith, imho.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ouch.do you think he has been enjoying the pub fellowship too much?

You can never enjoy pub fellowship tooo much. There, people are real.

 

[Inspector Javert]

AH yes ...the good squire has not found a thread that can remain open....

he has professed several times that he thinks it is a waste of computer space and that no one will change.....that sounds like unbelief in the work of the Spirit.

Well...people WILL actually change. You and I both know that.
There are definitely folks from an Arminian prospective who have essentially "Gone Cal"...and (to your credit I admit) none whom I know of who went from Cal to Arminian...

That doesn't bother me....

If the Scriptures are truly on your side as you explain them...then let the debate flow...God's Word is what we want to hear. And if you Calvies have a better explanation than us Arms...so be it...let the best man win :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Scripture tells us that God desires all men (and women) everywhere to repent and believe, so I must agree with scripture that God desires all men (and women) to believe.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us not all are going to be saved.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us no one can come unless God draws him.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us that only Christ's sheep, which He calls by name, will come.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us that those who don't believe are in that state of being because they are not Christ's sheep.

All these teachings are difficult to reconcile, but must be held in some tension because they are taught by God in His Word.

I have found that Reformed theology, though not a perfect understanding by any stretch, does the best job of reconciling the various teachings of scripture concerning these issues.

Such is where I stand

Walls addresses this view in that video. You would probably not appreciate what he says, he says Calvinists tend to "punt" and defer to "mystery" whenever they are confronted with contradictions in their doctrine.

I agree with him

I also must agree with scripture that tells us not all are going to be saved.

God calls men, but many refuse to come.

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us no one can come unless God draws him.

Jesus said he would draw all men to him.

Mat 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us that only Christ's sheep, which He calls by name, will come.

Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not. Therefore he also knew from the beginning who would believe. The sheep are those that hear his voice and he knows them.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Note that Jesus knows them AFTER they hear his voice.

Jhn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Again, note what Jesus says about his sheep, "and they shall hear my voice". Jesus's sheep are those persons in his foreknowledge whom he knew would listen to him and believe his words.

I also must agree with scripture that tells us that those who don't believe are in that state of being because they are not Christ's sheep.

He doesn't know him because they never heard his voice (believed).

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

These facts are not so difficult to reconcile after all are they?

 

[Inspector Javert]

You can never enjoy pub fellowship tooo much. There, people are real.

Yes you can...once you say that you can't enjoy it "tooo" much....

Then, you've enjoyed it "too much".

I like a good brew as much as the next guy...I like to sit in a pub and talk Theology as much as the next guy....

I do that as well, and I do it with a Brew or a fine wine as much as the next guy...

But, when I lose my faculties, I've lost my faculties....and that is a sin. That does not honor Christ.
We must be careful sir.

 

[JamesL]

Winman...he's lying to you...

He wants you to break it down in "your own words" only because he thinks he can twist them in such a way that your position is compromised...
That's why he doesn't respond to direct statements by Walls or anyone else....and he always want's "YOUR WORDS"....

It's because he is lying in wait to take issue with some minor turn of phraseology and twist it to his own ends...don't fall for it.

Calvies know their Philosophical pre-suppositions and so does he......

He wants to debate YOU...and not Walls, because he thinks you are an easier target inasmuch as you might have a less perfectly nuanced command of the English Language as Walls does...and he'll use it to get you caught up...

He's trying to trick you.

You shouldn't be so quick to judge motives. A little while back, Iconoclast and I were debating an issue, and I sort of demanded that he refrain from posting links, and simply present his case for himself. He thought the same, that I simply wanted to pounce on any shortcomings in verbiage, to sort of "win the day"

I assured him that was not the case, and we started a good, honest exchange.

My motive was simply that we are called to be ready to give an answer, not be ready to point to someone else's answer. What if i disagreed with the content in the link? Who should I argue against? The one who wrote the content, or the one who posted it?

In addition, what if he understood the linked argument differently from me? Then we're arguing apples and oranges.

I'd like to think that Icon and I developed a little more respect for each other through that exchange, idea for idea.

It didn't get resolved, because of the previously mentioned swift-handed mod, but it was good while it lasted.

And it started with Icon taking a risk that I was being honest with my motive. And that meant a lot to me

 

[Winman]

I'd like to offer another answer to the original posters question

Could it be that the swift-handed moderator of the Cal/Arm debate section has run everyone from that forum to here?

That debate section is like a ghost town, with every thread disappearing quicker than a rebuttal can be typed.

Good for that mod, I suppose. He's got a lot less work to do now, but the trashy diatribes have moved here.

It's all smoke. Count the views, the Cal/Arm debates get more views than all other topics easy. The only thing that competes are threads about drinking alcohol. If you think the Cal/Arm debates are boring...

 

[canadyjd]

Walls addresses this view in that video. You would probably not appreciate what he says, he says Calvinists tend to "punt" and defer to "mystery" whenever they are confronted with contradictions in their doctrine. I agree with him

:smilewinkgrin: Well, that is somewhat true. There is much mystery concerning these issues.

I think both sides are at midfield and do more punting than scoring.

Although I greatly appreciate your answering in detail, I know it will take me a while to address everything you have written...

...and it is past my bed-time.

I'll look at it again tomorrow.

Thanks again for the civil discussion.

 

[Iconoclast]

Inspector Javert

Well...people WILL actually change. You and I both know that.

People grow and change agreed:thumbs: Sometimes it takes a long time.Many cannot frame out the issues clearly or have sat under someone who presented strawman caricatures and it clouded their understanding.

There are definitely folks from an Arminian prospective who have essentially "Gone Cal"...and (to your credit I admit) none whom I know of who went from Cal to Arminian...

I simply believe the biblical teaching is Cal...as you might have guessed by now I do not often attempt to urge anyone to switch "camps" so to speak.
I attempt to react to what is posted and match it to a biblical framework, using the word of God as Amos spoke of a plumbline.
When I see posting from a sincere poster who varies from scripture....I offer it. If they search it out I believe the Spirit of God will grant repentance from less biblical ideas....to more firmly rooted teaching 2tim 2:24-26.

It is God's truth we should all be mindful to seek out....to please Him....not to "win" a BB posting fight:thumbs:

I am very simpleminded in this and will post helpful links which some will ridicule.The links are good and full of correct scripture passages. The results good or bad are between that person and God-
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven

That doesn't bother me....

well IJ it should not bother any of us if we remain focused on edifying one another....When the attacks come and we bite and devour one another...no edification takes place, and God the Holy Spirit is grieved.
We can all fight and oppose God and His revealed word....but we both know that is fruitless at best and sinful quite often.

If the Scriptures are truly on your side as you explain them...then let the debate flow...God's Word is what we want to hear. And if you Calvies have a better explanation than us Arms...so be it...let the best man win

I believe with proper study and good healthy interaction each believer can come away stronger.
I used to be a lot more contentious and careless , but getting a bit older I have lived to see that someone who hardens themself from scripture comes under harsh discipline if they are God's child...one man put it this way;

The harder the stone, the harder the blows of the hammer to break that stone.

I do not want to be in that spot:thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Ahhhhh so the light dawns.......a crafty Calvinist no doubt. Evil creature, spon of the devil. You probably have a current copy of the Institutes & the 1689 Confessions under your bed. for shame attempting to trip up the Arminians & Pelagians on this board. Thats a troll & that aint nice.

Oooooh, this is the perfect spot to insert the Evil Calvinism photo I found online.



Thanks EW& F:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes you can...once you say that you can't enjoy it "tooo" much....

Then, you've enjoyed it "too much".

I like a good brew as much as the next guy...I like to sit in a pub and talk Theology as much as the next guy....

I do that as well, and I do it with a Brew or a fine wine as much as the next guy...

But, when I lose my faculties, I've lost my faculties....and that is a sin. That does not honor Christ.
We must be careful sir.

speak for yourself...... I am always in control.

 

[Iconoclast]

You shouldn't be so quick to judge motives. A little while back, Iconoclast and I were debating an issue, and I sort of demanded that he refrain from posting links, and simply present his case for himself. He thought the same, that I simply wanted to pounce on any shortcomings in verbiage, to sort of "win the day"

I assured him that was not the case, and we started a good, honest exchange.My motive was simply that we are called to be ready to give an answer, not be ready to point to someone else's answer. What if i disagreed with the content in the link? Who should I argue against? The one who wrote the content, or the one who posted it?

In addition, what if he understood the linked argument differently from me? Then we're arguing apples and oranges.

I'd like to think that Icon and I developed a little more respect for each other through that exchange, idea for idea.

It didn't get resolved, because of the previously mentioned swift-handed mod, but it was good while it lasted.

And it started with Icon taking a risk that I was being honest with my motive. And that meant a lot to me

Yes james that was a good interaction and you accurately recounted it. As an aside....I type slower than a moose makes droppings in the woods....so if I post a link that you disagree with....I will defend the link in my own words if necessary...maybe not as well as the person I quote, but I look to post links that express what I understand clearer than I could.

 

[JamesL]

It's all smoke. Count the views, the Cal/Arm debates get more views than all other topics easy. The only thing that competes are threads about drinking alcohol. If you think the Cal/Arm debates are boring...

I'm not talking about how many page views. I'm sure at least half the page views are nothing more than people looking at their own posts so they can pat themselves on the back. :laugh:

I'm talking about the original question about why every thread here gets turned into a Cal/Arm debate

It's because the proper forum has been run desolate by a heavy-handed approach.

The arguments will go on, for sure. But it doesn't have to be in this section. They made a section for those who have no self control and run around after competing unbiblical philosophies.

It's probably not by accident that they put that section near the bottom of the page. That way, people who want to be in the basement can just scroll down to it.

 

[convicted1]

Oooooh, this is the perfect spot to insert the Evil Calvinism photo I found online.



Thanks EW& F:thumbs:

Seems like I should know this guy....

 

[Winman]

Seems like I should know this guy....

I call this one "Arminian runs off Calvinist with cross" :laugh:

 

[Inspector Javert]

You shouldn't be so quick to judge motives.

I'm not "quick" to judge motives....
I've been on B.B. for a while...(longer than you)...I know where Icon stands on issues.

A little while back, Iconoclast and I were debating an issue, and I sort of demanded that he refrain from posting links, and simply present his case for himself. He thought the same, that I simply wanted to pounce on any shortcomings in verbiage, to sort of "win the day"

I assured him that was not the case, and we started a good, honest exchange.

My motive was simply that we are called to be ready to give an answer, not be ready to point to someone else's answer. What if i disagreed with the content in the link? Who should I argue against? The one who wrote the content, or the one who posted it?

A real answer exists...and it's BOTH.

In addition, what if he understood the linked argument differently from me?

"Understanding" an argument "differently" is simply to say nothing.
One can't "understand" an argument "differently"...
that argument is either true or false...or valid or invalid...
there's no such thing as "understanding" it "differently"...
It is either wrong or right.

Then we're arguing apples and oranges.

Probably not...
arguing "Apples and Oranges" is appreciably and significantly different from arguing "true or false"....
I actually doubt VERY MUCH...whether the difference was mere "Apples and Oranges".
It wasn't...it was critically important.

I'd like to think that Icon and I developed a little more respect for each other through that exchange, idea for idea.

I posses a grudging "respect" for Icon....he's no liberal to be sure...and there's no doubt that he loves the Christ who died for him and keeps no truck with liberals....I often love and appreciate his endorsement on the rare occasion it is forthcoming...
But, I assure you, he's Calvie to the core.....and if your Theology breeches that, he'll go for your jugular.

It didn't get resolved, because of the previously mentioned swift-handed mod, but it was good while it lasted.

It would take a special sort of Mod to referee that thread...It would take a guy who both cares and doesn't care all at the same time...
Squire couldn't give a fig for the argument one way or the other, and doesn't comprehend it's importance...hence...
he simply shuts down everything from post 1....

It did serve to cut down the vitriol didn't it???

And it started with Icon taking a risk that I was being honest with my motive. And that meant a lot to me

Meh...
maybe...

But, I'm not a Calvinist...I tend to think that Calvinists are generally Intellectually dishonest persons who are not entirely forthcoming with their motives at all times.....

I tend to assume that non-Calvinists are more intellectually honest with themselves and others...so the wheel turns... :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

I will say this about Icon, he is one of the few consistent Calvinists here.

God has not planned to save all men. Salvation happens by means...preaching, convicting by the Spirit, drawing, it happens right on time ,one sinner at a time coming to Jesus as god regenerates them.

No where in scripture has God planned to save all. He will save a multitude in His Son.

Icon is a good ol' A. W. Pink kind of Calvinist. He doesn't even pretend that God loves everyone and wants to save all men.

 

[convicted1]

I actually agree with Brother Iconoclast's post....

 

[Winman]

I'm not talking about how many page views. I'm sure at least half the page views are nothing more than people looking at their own posts so they can pat themselves on the back. :laugh:

I'm talking about the original question about why every thread here gets turned into a Cal/Arm debate

It's because the proper forum has been run desolate by a heavy-handed approach.

The arguments will go on, for sure. But it doesn't have to be in this section. They made a section for those who have no self control and run around after competing unbiblical philosophies.

It's probably not by accident that they put that section near the bottom of the page. That way, people who want to be in the basement can just scroll down to it.

As much as folks say they hate Cal/Arm debates, people keep starting new threads on the subject.

Yes, the Mod in the proper forum shuts 'em down quick. I don't completely blame him, they all go south quick. Why waste time when you can save it?

Nevertheless, Cal/Arm debates get more views than all other topics easy.

Nobody will believe this, but I get sick of debate many times. If I didn't think it was important, I would drop it.

It is actually guys like Evan (John) that motivates me to keep fighting Calvinism, he believes everything John MacArthur tells him. He's a good guy, I can't just sit back and let his mind be turned to mush.