| Poster | Thread | tjservant
Member
Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA
| | Re: | | Quote:
learn wrote:
Sigh! Just noticed another new thread has been started to continue on with this divisiness :-( :-(
Is that why it was started?
I am just posting articles and quotes like I have for years on this site.
Give it a break.
It's not about that thread or you
_________________
TJ
|
|  2008/9/7 23:06 | Profile | learn
Member
Joined: 2008/7/24
Posts: 613
| | Re: | | Quote:
tjservant wrote:
Quote:
learn wrote:
Sigh! Just noticed another new thread has been started to continue on with this divisiness :-( :-(
Is that why it was started?
I am just posting articles and quotes like I have for years on this site.
Give it a break.
It's not about that thread or you
This has nothing to do about me. You misunderstood.
A thread about 'myth of free will' right after a previous thread of 'free will' does cause divisiness whether you are following your normal routine or not.
Peace
_________________
geraldine
|
| | 2008/9/7 23:10 | Profile | tjservant
Member
Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA
| | Re: | | Quote:
A thread about 'myth of free will' right after a previous thread of 'free will' does cause divisiness whether you are following your normal routine or not.
Any and all threads CAN cause it. Your post seemed to imply that it was my intent.
ccchhhrrriiisss had posted some questions on that other thread. I believe some of the answers can be found in the article I posted. It was posted with the intent to clarify. He or you or anyone else on the planet may not agree with it, but that is why it was posted.
I have been on this forum for a couple years and have a long history with many people here. Please give it some more time before you think you have me all figured out.
_________________
TJ
|
| | 2008/9/7 23:19 | Profile | learn
Member
Joined: 2008/7/24
Posts: 613
| | Re: | | Tjservant, I'm not trying to figure you out as you seem to think. I was just looking at the thread and noticed the divisiveness that it would cause with so many recent threads being started on those subjects (didn't matter if it was you or somebody else, whether it was routine or not--so please stop thinking that whatever I happen to post is about you or me. It never even occured to me) Sorry that you think that you are being after. Maybe you should give me a break and stop assuming that I am after you, ok. :)
_________________
geraldine
|
| | 2008/9/7 23:27 | Profile | CJaKfOrEsT
Member
Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia
| | Re: | | Quote:
iansmith wrote:
Having studied both Calvinism and Armianianism, I have to say that they both make valid points in many places using the Word of God... but it is dangerous to try to limit the Word of God to either one of these viewpoints.
While I agree with your views on the Calvinism/Arminian debate, I don't know that I agree with your conclusions. I would hold that the real problem is that we have failed at learning to disagree constructively. This is subject matter that people are passionate about, and therefore it is hard to avoid having emotion creeping into our posts, especially when you have people treating that which you are so passionate about as erroneous, at worst, and irrelevent at best. I personally see this debate as two groups staring at the same thing from different angles. Does that mean that each side should be forgiven from speaking of what they have seen?
The church that I left has recently had a major split over the Calvinism/Arminian debate. The issue primarily being that was a sence in which it was okay to be Calvinist, as long as you don't speak up. It was particularly impacting, because the main people who left were the pastor's eldest sons.
One thing one of these sons told me recently, was that most "Arminians" are so by default. The objection is more one of mere logic, than Scriptural integrity, and I would have to agree, from my own observation. For example, on Saturday, I attended a home fellowship where the issue of denominationalism came up (btw, I practice "unstructured Christianity", while being loosely affiliated with a local Baptist fellowship). We were commenting on what churches were in our area, and one man said "But isn't it all meant to be one Church?" I replied, "Different churches gravitate around what they would highlight in Scripture."
Now in order to understand this conversation further, this fellowship consisted of those who attend Charismatic congregations (btw, I am charismatic, in practice and belief, but do not subcribe to much of the doctrines that those who purport to be Charismatic teach). We have two "Baptist" churches in my town. One is really a Charismatic church with a Baptist label (common in Australia), and the one I attend is the more traditional "Southern Baptist" style churches (pastor is a part of Baptist Mid Missions). I mentioned that my church is Calvinistic, cessationist, and tends to prefer the KJV, much to the horror of those I was talking to. The forementioned fellow said, "What's 'Calvinistic' mean?" to which another (who attends the "other" Baptist church) said, "It has something to do with when the rapture happens." (see what i have to deal with here :roll:).
I corrected by saying, "Well actually, it has more to do with who decides who's saved, or not. Essentially, Arminians say, 'We choose God', while Calvinists say, 'God chooses us'." He said, "Yeah I agree with that. What's so bad about that?" And so, I "pulled out the TULIP";-). He was fine, right up until Limited Atonement, to which he started shaking his head, as if by reflex action. Now, I have to admit that the "L" in TULIP is the point where I pull away from Calvinism, but at least I can face it without fear. This brother flatly refused to consider it, without any citation of Scripture to justify his stance. He couldn't tell you why he didn't believe it, he just "knew" it was wrong.
Another time the topic of the "church split" came up, this time with a disgruntled "former memeber" of the church, when I explained TULIP, in response to "What's Calvinism?" (bear in mind, that was the issue of teh split), she replied to the "L" with, "Oh well, we better pray from them." I replied, "Perhaps they need to pray for you."
I can see how a Calvinist is so passionate about any arguement against "TULIP". I get equally passionate whenever a JW argues that Jesus isn't God, and I have less concise Scripture to validate my stance on the Trinity, than the Calvinist has to back up his view.
Again I state in no uncertain terms, that I am not a Calvinist. Only that I can respect the Calvinist's claim, as one that is extremely well researched in Scripture. My only arguement against it is that every verse they bring to say "See, it says 'many', 'elect', ect" can be read to support either view. My view is that this is bigger than a simple definition, but having said that, often it is though exploring the extremes than we can find the median...or should I say "balance".
_________________
Aaron Ireland
|
| | 2008/9/8 7:06 | Profile | learn
Member
Joined: 2008/7/24
Posts: 613
| | Re: | | Just some thoughts to no one in particular--Quite a number of Calvinists would like to think that those who do not agree with their doctrine is because we are by default Arminiasm and are not basing on Scriptural integrity. This is far from true and it would be nice if they stop giving us labels like that. Also, as if we ourselves are incapable of knowing what our labels are but have to be told by Calvinists that our labels are Armininists although we are not. Geeshh.
Passion can be good or bad, its whether its misplaced or not and the effects that it will cause
_________________
geraldine
|
| | 2008/9/8 7:21 | Profile | crsschk
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA
| | Re: Considering flooding the forum | | Have not yet read through this but there has been an abuse of the guidelines here by one poster in particular. Most of the posting have been taken down. This is an abuse that will not be tolerated regardless of the content, it is disrespectful to the community and a great presumption upon the privileges afforded to all.
"-"Spam" (advertising) Illegal/inappropriate content and [b]flooding[/b] will be deleted."
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=14144&forum=13&post_id=&refresh=Go]MUST READ: SermonIndex Forum Disclaimer / Community Rules[/url]
_________________
Mike Balog
|
| | 2008/9/8 8:55 | Profile | crsschk
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA
| | Re: Abuse and content | | Lest this be misunderstood. There has been and always will be room for discussion of these matters because they do matter.
I think Aaron (as well as others) spoke to the situation rightly - Wholesale banning is not helpful but neither is flooding the forum either, that goes for any topic quantitatively. A couple of posts on the same subject matter is not uncommon but when the subject matter is similar replies ought to be posted under the same headings so that they the postings become "threaded" and are more cohesive and less obtrusive to the variety that is presented on this forum.
Getting our facts straight is of utmost importance. It is unfair to present someone else's view inaccurately and if we are not absolutely assured of it are far better off to ask questions than to present statements as if they are fact.
Personal insinuations and suspicions - [i]Play the ball, not the man[/i] - Give place to each other ...
Remember where you are, you are not on another forum but this one. We do things a bit differently around here.
To this topic at hand, yes it does matter but perhaps what it amounts to is to what [i]level[/i]. At what point does it supersede all other matters of faith that either our emotions or dispositions will hold down to further a point and smite our brother? We have to figure out where that is and stop in our tracks, humble ourselves and consider lest we devour one another.
_________________
Mike Balog
|
| | 2008/9/8 10:07 | Profile | LoveHim
Member
Joined: 2007/6/14
Posts: 562
Indiana, US
| | Re: | | Quote:
To this topic at hand, yes it does matter but perhaps what it amounts to is to what level.
[i]what level[/i]
this is an important topic to discuss and it can be done with a gentle and meek spirit with one another, but when there are 4 different threads discussing the same topic, it doesn't seem like a gentle discussion but a "i'm right and you need to listen to me" debate.
i also do not hold to the calvinistic doctrines, but when i seen multiple free will and non-calvinistic threads, i thought to myself "didn't we use to warn brother abe about doing this very same thing". and now we are guilty of the same matter.
i guess my question is "at what point do we need to be right that we willing to lose sweet fellowship with the saints on the "other side" of the issue"? Why can we not risk being looked at as wrong sometimes for the sake of keeping the focus on the Lord Himself and not just on doctrines such as these that will continue to be debated until He comes?
These are the questions I have to keep checking my heart with..
ps. i am not saying that this topic should never be discussed, it will and that's fine, but maybe the question is how much and how many threads.
just some thoughts...
phil |
| | 2008/9/8 12:34 | Profile | PaulWest
Member
Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas
| | Re: Answering the Call | | Every now and then multiple threads will spring up to rouse again the soldiers of this ancient debate; shots will be fired, flags waved, emotions inflared, a reluctant cease-fire encouraged by a neutral party, and both sides will go back into rest...until stirred up once again. And then the campaign repeats itself, ad nauseum.
Brethren, I would like to see some of us not show up for muster (or roll call), next time the bugel sounds. Unlike the military campaigns of enlisted men, the soldier who intentionally misses [i]this[/i] formation is called the strongest and most faithful to the cause of Christ. He has fought these wars long enough and has learnt a thing or two from all his rewardless scars. There must come a time where we lay our swords down in the Cal-Arm gangland war, where we resign indefinately to rest in the sanctuary of our Commanding General and to henceforth never again fire a musket shot at an Arminian or vice-versa. There are plenty of battle-thirsty soldiers who would fight on without you - for the very cause you espouse - and if you would but sit back for a battle and observe from the sidelines, God may speak to you.
In fact, God may show you the futility of it all. He may show you that despite all the scriptures and proof-texting you provide as cannon fodder beneath your colors, it is not the winning of the war for a specific side that God is concerned with, but rather with winning individual soldiers over to [i]His[/i] side. He does this the same way He won you - by opening the eyes - one soldier at a time, and no amount of cannon balls and boyonetting and sniper shots from a distance can accomplish this feat. The soldier can only understand this when he at last lays down his own rifle and rests. My dear brothers and sisters, by doing a noble thing according to your own understanding and zeal to uphold truth, you may actually be hindering your own growth and wisdom in the things of God.
Beloved, the next time you hear revelry sounding over the loudspeaker, disregard the call. Try it, and see how your God rewards a faithful and wise infantryman. He who has ears to hear, let him (or her) hear.
Brother Paul
_________________
Paul Frederick West
|
| | 2008/9/8 13:06 | Profile |
|
