Why do Calvinists argue with people?

[post=48207536]armothe:[/post]
> Take a deep breath, drop the superiority complex and discuss substance.
> Perhaps then this ignoble image that has been cast will transmute and
> you'll affect others to help achieve a more civil dialogue.

I believe the same could be said on both sides. There is plenty of guilt
to be had all around, including myself at times. I do my best not to
make a practice of it, however; I am afraid I cannot say the same for
all people here, based on my own observations. For instance:

Neal said:

I believe the same could be said on both sides. There is plenty of guilt to be had all around, including myself at times. I do my best not to make a practice of it, however; I am afraid I cannot say the same for all people here, based on my own observations. For instance:

Click to expand...

True. I suppose we shouldn't really look at sides, rather the behavior of the individuals. I apologize for singling a few people out and I suppose this topic really serves no edifying purpose other than to allow some people to vent.

-A

IS NOT!

I just didn't want to change the sophisticated level of the debate.

[post=48200136]JDIBe:[/post]
> Forgive me if I have missed some things in the past, but when I got
> here, I see thread titles like "The 39 questions the Armenian can't
> answer" and "The Armenian game of semantics". These posts seem to be
> rather "offensive" (not of-fensive ) in nature rather than "defensive".
> Would these be sinful as well? I also notice one of you has a signature
> speaking of anti-Calvinist "logic" on each of his posts. Is this
> "pre-emptive defense"?

Meanwhile, if you'd come in at any other time -- if you'd remained on this forum for more than three months -- you'd discover quite the opposite situation.

So I have to ask as well: Why would you promote a single case of one Calvinist bringing up issues with Arminianism, to trump years and years of attacks on this forum and make Calvinists the attackers and not anti-Calvinists? Isn't that the essence of "being biased"?

August 22's front page is Exhibit A:
So if you see people stop attacking Calvinism, then you'll find Calvinists stop arguing about Calvinism.

Protestantism sets down the simple fact: if you're going to start contradicting the truth set down or readily concluded from Scripture, a Protestant will protest.

JDIBe said:

What people believe deeply causes them to act on those beliefs in certain ways. If I see someone acting in a manner inconsistant with their beliefs then either.....

1. I don't understand their beliefs correctly.
2. They don't understand the implications of their own beliefs correctly.
3. They don't hold to those beliefs as strongly as one might think.

Click to expand...

Would it not be more appropriate to consider the very real possibility that

1. You don't understand their beliefs correctly.
2. You don't understand the implications of their own beliefs correctly.
3. You don't hold to those beliefs and so don't realize the reasoning or the practical applications behind their implications.

You aren't them. Unless you really know what they believe and how they believe, it's really a shallow argument to discard what they believe as if it's easy to show the inconsistencies.

God ordains means as well as ends. This is painted across Calvinistic theologians again & again. (Berkhof's "Summary of Christian Doctrine" is a good starting point there, but the very existence of 5 Points of Calvinism that are integrated together, indicates the role of means even in the Absolute.

This is just not hard to understand. Calvinism is not fatalistic destiny. It never was. Get beyond the preconceptions of the opposition.

Looks like owae got his wish.......

Mod Hat On

Greetings,

Please keep to the topic. Enjoy the discussion and please be kind and respectful to one another. I know that this kind of discussion can be somewhat difficult and most of you are doing great in dialoguing. Please continue to have a healthy and positive discussion.

God Bless

Mod Hat Off