Why is Honest Dialogue/Debate Elusive in the Cal/Arm Section?

[JonC]

Over the years I have run into dishonest people on both sides of the Cal/Arm (& non-Cal/Arm) debate. I have also run into honest people who hold dishonest views of the people and doctrine on the other side of the isle.

The most common dishonest statements that I have noticed are:

1. Calvinists deny that men choose freely, and instead believe that God saves people by violating their will.

2. The logical conclusion to Calvinism is that God authors evil.

3. Free-Will advocates put themselves in the place of God by believing they save themselves.

4. Free-Will doctrine denies God’s sovereignty.

The two most disgustingly ignorant comments are along the lines of:

1. The god of Calvinism…..

2. The god of Arminianism….

Anything that follows either of those two comments is mere stupidity and should be ignored.

I know that emotions run high when we discuss these things. We are, after all, intimately attached to our beliefs. I have always wondered, though, why it is that such hostility exists. What we are discussing is how two or more systems interpret the manner by which God affected salvation. It seems an honorable topic for what typically turns into such dishonorable discussion.

So, I’ve been thinking of the reasons why conversation deteriorates so quickly.

1. People do not realize how doctrinal development has occurred and shifted in focus from time to time, they do not see their own presuppositions and so venture to hold a view straight from God….”God gived it to me I tell ya !”

2. People learn an opposing view not from those who hold the position but from those who deny it. Or they learn an opposing view simply to oppose it as they have already decided what they were going to believe (they never honestly considered another position but their own).

3. People view the opposing view within the context of their own. They take the opposing position and apply their own definitions, doctrines, and conclusions to “disprove” a doctrine and “win” an argument.

4. People fight windmills so that they look and feel like they are winners. We all want to feel good, and what better way than offering definitive proof that a doctrine that has been debated for centuries by hundreds of scholars is in fact wrong. All of that time wasted when they could have just looked it up in the Bible.

5. People want to dictate to opposing views what their beliefs "really mean". This is probably one of the strangest one's I've seen here.

 

[Salty]

Are you saying people on this board are actually like that????

 

[JonC]

Are you saying people on this board are actually like that????

Oh...No, not here...I mean hypothetically...

 

[Agent47]

Another simple reason is the mods may be partisan, loyal to their beliefs more than anything else.

Just asking, are not all mods Calvinists?

 

[JonC]

Another simple reason is the mods may be partisan, loyal to their beliefs more than anything else.

Just asking, are not all mods Calvinists?

Only the good ones.

(I'm a compatibilist....which I define as "possessing the innate ability to determine the similarities between divine and human will as anthropomorphic"...and I refuse to define my faith by my soteriological leanings.... so I'm too moderate for some Calvinists).

 

[Yeshua1]

Only the good ones.

(I'm a compatibilist....which I define as "possessing the innate ability to determine the similarities between divine and human will as anthropomorphic"...and I refuse to define my faith by my soteriological leanings.... so I'm too moderate for some Calvinists).

No, just means that you wouldnot fit into Reformed hole, but calvinist fine!

 

[Yeshua1]

Over the years I have run into dishonest people on both sides of the Cal/Arm (& non-Cal/Arm) debate. I have also run into honest people who hold dishonest views of the people and doctrine on the other side of the isle.

The most common dishonest statements that I have noticed are:

1. Calvinists deny that men choose freely, and instead believe that God saves people by violating their will.

2. The logical conclusion to Calvinism is that God authors evil.

3. Free-Will advocates put themselves in the place of God by believing they save themselves.

4. Free-Will doctrine denies God’s sovereignty.

The two most disgustingly ignorant comments are along the lines of:

1. The god of Calvinism…..

2. The god of Arminianism….

Anything that follows either of those two comments is mere stupidity and should be ignored.

I know that emotions run high when we discuss these things. We are, after all, intimately attached to our beliefs. I have always wondered, though, why it is that such hostility exists. What we are discussing is how two or more systems interpret the manner by which God affected salvation. It seems an honorable topic for what typically turns into such dishonorable discussion.

So, I’ve been thinking of the reasons why conversation deteriorates so quickly.

1. People do not realize how doctrinal development has occurred and shifted in focus from time to time, they do not see their own presuppositions and so venture to hold a view straight from God….”God gived it to me I tell ya !”

2. People learn an opposing view not from those who hold the position but from those who deny it. Or they learn an opposing view simply to oppose it as they have already decided what they were going to believe (they never honestly considered another position but their own).

3. People view the opposing view within the context of their own. They take the opposing position and apply their own definitions, doctrines, and conclusions to “disprove” a doctrine and “win” an argument.

4. People fight windmills so that they look and feel like they are winners. We all want to feel good, and what better way than offering definitive proof that a doctrine that has been debated for centuries by hundreds of scholars is in fact wrong. All of that time wasted when they could have just looked it up in the Bible.

5. People want to dictate to opposing views what their beliefs "really mean". This is probably one of the strangest one's I've seen here.

Think that another problem would besome see calvinism as actually being te Gospel, I see it as explaining it the best way.
Another is some seeing it as one must berigh/other wrong, problem is tat NONE of us hre are inspired like Apostles to fully know such things!
And one other one is that we see th Fall nd results in different ways, so some like me see no real free will left, others do!

 

[Jerome]

The two most disgustingly ignorant comments are along the lines of:

1. The god of Calvinism…..

2. The god of Arminianism….

Anything that follows either of those two comments is mere stupidity and should be ignored.

Yes, I just Googled "The god of Calvinism....." and "The god of Arminianism...." and the top results were Mark Driscoll and C. Matthew McMahon.

 

[Revmitchell]

Over the years I have run into dishonest people on both sides of the Cal/Arm (& non-Cal/Arm) debate. I have also run into honest people who hold dishonest views of the people and doctrine on the other side of the isle.

The most common dishonest statements that I have noticed are:

1. Calvinists deny that men choose freely, and instead believe that God saves people by violating their will.

2. The logical conclusion to Calvinism is that God authors evil.

3. Free-Will advocates put themselves in the place of God by believing they save themselves.

4. Free-Will doctrine denies God’s sovereignty.

The two most disgustingly ignorant comments are along the lines of:

1. The god of Calvinism…..

2. The god of Arminianism….

Anything that follows either of those two comments is mere stupidity and should be ignored.

I know that emotions run high when we discuss these things. We are, after all, intimately attached to our beliefs. I have always wondered, though, why it is that such hostility exists. What we are discussing is how two or more systems interpret the manner by which God affected salvation. It seems an honorable topic for what typically turns into such dishonorable discussion.

So, I’ve been thinking of the reasons why conversation deteriorates so quickly.

1. People do not realize how doctrinal development has occurred and shifted in focus from time to time, they do not see their own presuppositions and so venture to hold a view straight from God….”God gived it to me I tell ya !”

2. People learn an opposing view not from those who hold the position but from those who deny it. Or they learn an opposing view simply to oppose it as they have already decided what they were going to believe (they never honestly considered another position but their own).

3. People view the opposing view within the context of their own. They take the opposing position and apply their own definitions, doctrines, and conclusions to “disprove” a doctrine and “win” an argument.

4. People fight windmills so that they look and feel like they are winners. We all want to feel good, and what better way than offering definitive proof that a doctrine that has been debated for centuries by hundreds of scholars is in fact wrong. All of that time wasted when they could have just looked it up in the Bible.

5. People want to dictate to opposing views what their beliefs "really mean". This is probably one of the strangest one's I've seen here.

To be fair some particular Baptist hold to the doctrine that God authors evil. However, what leads to dishonest and mean spirited debate is holding to the presuppositions such as "if you believe this, then you must also logically believe that". Such narrow and myopic arguments do more to disrupt reasonable debate than anything else I have seen.

 

[Yeshua1]

To be fair some particular Baptist hold to the doctrine that God authors evil. However, what leads to dishonest and mean spirited debate is holding to the presuppositions such as "if you believe this, then you must also logically believe that". Such narrow and myopic arguments do more to disrupt reasonable debate than anything else I have seen.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those would be Hyper calvinism people! Not real ones

 

[Rippon]

To be fair some particular Baptist hold to the doctrine that God authors evil.

Who in particular? (Pun intended).

 

[Iconoclast]

Who in particular? (Pun intended).

RM with another false allegation, invented in his own mind

 

[Iconoclast]

To be fair some particular Baptist hold to the doctrine that God authors evil. However, what leads to dishonest and mean spirited debate is holding to the presuppositions such as "if you believe this, then you must also logically believe that". Such narrow and myopic arguments do more to disrupt reasonable debate than anything else I have seen.

Another false unsubstantiated charge by you rm.... you seek to cause strife and discontent with your drive by posts , which you never reply to in depth because you are easily exposed.

 

[JonC]

Those would be Hyper calvinism people! Not real ones

Yea, those fake people get on my nerves too.

I think that Calvin had it right:

“Ignorance of things which we are not able, or which it is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is a species of madness.” (Calvin, Institutions 3:23:8)

I see mad people.....

 

[Rippon]

To be fair some particular Baptist hold to the doctrine that God authors evil.

To be fair and honest you must cite names and give quotes --otherwise you are being unjust and guilty of saying untrue things.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Sproul Jr., however, wants to get to the bottom of the matter and weigh in on what he takes to be the source of evil: God! Shocked? I certainly hope so. Sproul Jr. lists the range of possible “suspects” in his third chapter, entitled “Who Dunit?” He lays out and discusses the only five possible alternatives: Adam, Eve, Satan, the environment, and God. God created a good environment (“it was very good”), and Adam, Eve, and Satan were originally created good; so their strongest desire or inclination (which dictates how we will choose, Sproul Jr. claims) must also have been originally good. This, then, means that none of the first four candidates can be the source of sin. The “culprit” (Sproul Jr.’s term) is God himself, who “introduced evil into this world” (p. 51). In fact, God acted according his strongest inclination; he acted on what he most wished to come to pass—as he always does (p. 54).

The reason he wanted Adam and Eve to fall into sin was because of God’s eternal attribute of wrath—and “God is as delighted with his wrath as he is with all of his attributes” (52). So in light of this eternal attribute of wrath, God must create objects of wrath: “What I’ll do is create something worthy of my wrath, something on which I can exhibit the glory of my wrath” (pp. 52-53). Without creating human beings (and let’s include fallen angelic beings here too), he would not have had the opportunity to display his glory in this way. So Sproul Jr. affirms something rather startling: “It was [God’s] desire to make his wrath known. He needed, then, something on which to be wrathful. He needed to have sinful creatures” (p. 57).

Anticipating a rejoinder, Sproul Jr. asks: “Isn’t it impossible for God to do evil?” He acknowledges that God can’t sin. This isn’t much of a consolation, as Sproul Jr. goes on to say: “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that he created sin” (p. 54). Sproul Jr. doesn’t think he’s crossed any line by saying this. Referring to the Westminster Confession’s definition of sin as “any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God,” he says that this doesn’t exclude God’s creating evil. It seems that Sproul Jr. is not only using an argument from silence from the Confession, but he is ignoring an important emphasis in Scripture—that God cannot be the author of evil. Let me go into a bit more detail about some problem areas in Sproul Jr.’s theology."

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/bl...m-too-far-rc-sproul-jr’s-evil-creating-deity/

 

[Revmitchell]

"
In his last three sermons, John Piper has made some provocative statements about God’s sovereignty over sin.

• August 12: “God created [Satan and his demons] knowing what they would become and how, in that very evil role, they would glorify Christ. Knowing everything they would become, God created them for the glory of Christ.”
• August 19: “God is sovereign over Satan, and therefore Satan’s will does not move without God’s permission. And therefore every move of Satan is part of God’s overall purpose and plan.”
• August 26: “[E]verything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly. . . . Adam’s sin and the fall of the human race with him into sin and misery did not take God off guard and is part of his overarching plan to display the fullness of the glory of Jesus Christ.”

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin

 

[JonC]

"
In his last three sermons, John Piper has made some provocative statements about God’s sovereignty over sin.

• August 12: “God created [Satan and his demons] knowing what they would become and how, in that very evil role, they would glorify Christ. Knowing everything they would become, God created them for the glory of Christ.”
• August 19: “God is sovereign over Satan, and therefore Satan’s will does not move without God’s permission. And therefore every move of Satan is part of God’s overall purpose and plan.”
• August 26: “[E]verything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly. . . . Adam’s sin and the fall of the human race with him into sin and misery did not take God off guard and is part of his overarching plan to display the fullness of the glory of Jesus Christ.”

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin

Sometimes words are use to provoke or be controversial. I think this is one reason Andy Stanley gets such criticism. Not that it isn't warranted but it's magnified by how he says things.

I agree with Piper. But I guess the context would dictate the appropriateness.

 

[Yeshua1]

All t

"
In his last three sermons, John Piper has made some provocative statements about God’s sovereignty over sin.

• August 12: “God created [Satan and his demons] knowing what they would become and how, in that very evil role, they would glorify Christ. Knowing everything they would become, God created them for the glory of Christ.”
• August 19: “God is sovereign over Satan, and therefore Satan’s will does not move without God’s permission. And therefore every move of Satan is part of God’s overall purpose and plan.”
• August 26: “[E]verything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly. . . . Adam’s sin and the fall of the human race with him into sin and misery did not take God off guard and is part of his overarching plan to display the fullness of the glory of Jesus Christ.”

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin

All of that is true, but also have to add in that Gd did not create/cause sin and evil!