One reason this forum hasn't worked yet...

[Philothei]

Not at all. I am not saying anything remotely like that. What I am saying is, election does not require any understanding of the doctrines of grace, and neither does salvation. Election requires God to elect, and salvation requires Jesus to save (which, as far as Calvinists are concerned, includes the grace given to believe the gospel).

Gotcha although I disagree with the tenets of that theology I understood what you say and thanks

 

[ittarter]

I believe there is a congregational area for that purpose... If you all consider all "non-Calvinists" intruders I do not in all honesty see how threre can indeed be any productive consersation either

I never said that. Why do you keep saying that I said things which I never said?? It's a bit grating.

If two Calvinists are having a healthy conversation about (for example) the doctrine of predestination, and a non-Calvinist barges (yes, barges) in and says, "there's no such thing as predestination, because people have free will," then the focus of the conversation moves to the (almost always fruitless) topic of whether or not predestination is taught in the Bible, and whether or not predestination "makes sense."

Likewise, if two non-Calvinists are discussing something that takes for granted some non-Calvinist presupposition (e.g. Jesus died for every single person) and a Calvinist barges (yes, barges) in and denies the validity of that presupposition, the one conversation that might have been worthwhile is disrupted, or dies altogether.

And that is a sad state of affairs.

Small wonder so many threads in this subforum specify in their titles, "Calvinist only" or "non-Calvinists only."

 

[ittarter]

Gotcha although I disagree with the tenets of that theology I understood what you say and thanks

So do I, but I was explaining to someone how there was no additional inconsistency in Calvinist soteriology beyond what is normally inconsistent in Christian soteriology.

 

[Philothei]

Small wonder so many threads in this subforum specify in their titles, "Calvinist only" or "non-Calvinists only."

it would be ok to have similar discussion threads to "free willers only" then? Hmmm.. I think that in a GT forum that there is debate if we should feel that something disturbs the flow of a given subject then the derailment should be corrected and the mod hat placed as to warn the posters that there is derailment ...and the OP could make sure with polite reminders that the posters should rremember to stay on topic...

I think we should then move that topic into the formal debate areas if that is easier for a 'given number' of poster wish to keep it a "closed" discussion

Would that help?

 

[nobdysfool]

I never said that. Why do you keep saying that I said things which I never said?? It's a bit grating.

If two Calvinists are having a healthy conversation about (for example) the doctrine of predestination, and a non-Calvinist barges (yes, barges) in and says, "there's no such thing as predestination, because people have free will," then the focus of the conversation moves to the (almost always fruitless) topic of whether or not predestination is taught in the Bible, and whether or not predestination "makes sense."

Likewise, if two non-Calvinists are discussing something that takes for granted some non-Calvinist presupposition (e.g. Jesus died for every single person) and a Calvinist barges (yes, barges) in and denies the validity of that presupposition, the one conversation that might have been worthwhile is disrupted, or dies altogether.

And that is a sad state of affairs.

Small wonder so many threads in this subforum specify in their titles, "Calvinist only" or "non-Calvinists only."

Very perceptive, and a masterful summary. That is exactly the state of affairs, and it simply MUST change. Somewhere along the way, some people have gotten the idea that Soteriology is a winner-take-all forum, and have set about to suppress that which they disagree with. Such efforts ruin it for everyone. There is still far too much of the rude and gratuitous snarky remarks against Calvinism and Calvinists. Old habits die hard, but die they must. To be sure, there have been a few Calvinists who have made similar remarks about Arminians and other non-Calvinists, and there is a contingent whose method seems more like proselytizing than actually discussing Soteriology, which is very distracting and has derailed more than one thread. The bottom line is, there is no requirement to agree on all things here, and those who simply cannot abide the presence of Calvinists, or Arminians, or EO, or existentialists, or whoever, must either learn how to tolerate them with respect, or find another forum in which to participate. Our purpose here is to discuss the doctrines of Salvation, not to gain converts to any "ism", and not to browbeat those we disagree with.

 

[nobdysfool]

it would be ok to have similar discussion threads to "free willers only" then? Hmmm.. I think that in a GT forum that there is debate if we should feel that something disturbs the flow of a given subject then the derailment should be corrected and the mod hat placed as to warn the posters that there is derailment ...and the OP could make sure with polite reminders that the posters should rremember to stay on topic...

I think we should then move that topic into the formal debate areas if that is easier for a 'given number' of poster wish to keep it a "closed" discussion

Would that help?

IMHO, all that is doing is trying to shuffle the problem off to the side, while never dealing with the core issue, which is one of respect, and to drop the snarkiness and proselytizing. It is possible for all sides to present their views without rancor and one-upmanship in the open forum. The participants need to learn to do that.

 

[Philothei]

I am sorry but IMHO opinion I have not experienced any true "animocity" here or "hatred" I have seen the stubborness and maybe the overburreness...of some posters but I think if we all keep within the rules of this site things should work out. No need to "teach" anyone how to post. It is just another tenet of faith such as Ittarter called it about Soteriology and it conerns all of us Christians so I do not see why conversing about our given theology should necessarity end up in an argument.

It should actually be "listened" and answered and pointed out when a clarification is needed. No reason for any party to use "snarky remarks" as missundertandings are part of conversing by a post on an internet site. I think if we are more forgiving and less impatient we can accomplish at least the "listening" part...

 

[nobdysfool]

I am sorry but IMHO opinion I have not experienced any true "animocity" here or "hatred" I have seen the stubborness and maybe the overburreness...of some posters but I think if we all keep within the rules of this site things should work out. No need to "teach" anyone how to post. It is just another tenet of faith such as Ittarter called it about Soteriology and it conerns all of us Christians so I do not see why conversing about our given theology should necessarity end up in an argument.

It should actually be "listened" and answered and pointed out when a clarification is needed. No reason for any party to use "snarky remarks" as missundertandings are part of conversing by a post on an internet site. I think if we are more forgiving and less impatient we can accomplish at least the "listening" part...

Maybe you haven't, but I certainly have. I agree, if everyone would keep within the rules of the forum, it will be better. But that also means that some posters need to be encouraged to "grow up" and not act like petulant little children who insist on having their way. We may not always like what someone else has to say, or agree with it, but it is wrong to deny them the opportunity to say it, provided they stay within the rules and guidelines of the forum.

The issues have come from those who think they have some sort of "mandate" to crush this or that theology, and some have even gone so far as to try and use the system against those they disagree with, by baiting and tempting their opponents to anger, and then reporting their posts in order to get them banned, thereby silencing them. In no way can that be condoned as a Christian action or attitude. Should those who have been treated that way have responded in anger? Of course, not, but we're all human, and emotions are a part of our nature. Finger-pointing after the fact does no good, as most who have posted in this forum for some length of time, (in my case, years) have all succumbed to that temptation at one time or another. Trashing another's theology, no matter how right one may think they are to do so, simply cannot be allowed. Show from scripture why you think it's wrong, and be big enough to realize that not all are going to agree with your particular interpretation. State your case, respectfully, and then move on. That's the bottom line, right there. Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

 

[pdudgeon]

Good question. First, I think that you have misread the text. If it isn't making that distinction you describe in your first paragraph, then how could it imply what you describe in your second paragraph? It seems to me that the distinction is being wrongly forced upon the text.

Election, being a decision arbitrarily made by God's good pleasure, cannot be contingent upon the understanding of the elect with respect to any doctrine.

thanks very much for your answer.

this part above i find really interesting!
So you are saying (if i understand you correctly) that whether we follow the Calvinistic doctrine or the Armenian doctrine is not of concern regarding salvation, but that the two are merely different ways of man's imperfect efforts to explain salvation itself?

 

[cygnusx1]

I think it hasn't worked because people have a presupposed view of authority before they even post anything ;

Roman Catholics will quote ECF and Papal decrees (plus Magestrerium)

Orthodox will quote ECF and EO creeds

Reformed will quote scripture and creeds , sometimes CF

each will resort back to their own grid , so data coming back at them will be denied based upon their own particular authority figures .

This grid controlls debate , just the other day an Orthodox member denied a Reformed writer had anything to say ; on the grounds 1.he was not an apostle 2. he was not a Church Father (Eastern at that)

but this man made grid of authority will find no scriptural support as it does not take into account a] the mistakes of the past , and b) new debates .

It appears some think only self appointed speakers who are neither Apostles nor ECF but are members of Orthodox Church's are entitled to expect submission in disagreements because they and they only belong to the ONLY Church of Christ and the same Church is and I quote "infallible" ......

to be cont .....

 

[ittarter]

I think it hasn't worked because people have a presupposed view of authority before they even post anything ;

Roman Catholics will quote ECF and Papal decrees (plus Magestrerium)

Orthodox will quote ECF and EO creeds

Reformed will quote scripture and creeds , sometimes CF

each will resort back to their own grid , so data coming back at them will be denied based upon their own particular authority figures .

This grid controlls debate , just the other day an Orthodox member denied a Reformed writer had anything to say ; on the grounds 1.he was not an apostle 2. he was not a Church Father (Eastern at that)

but this man made grid of authority will find no scriptural support as it does not take into account a] the mistakes of the past , and b) new debates .

It appears some think only self appointed speakers who are neither Apostles nor ECF but are members of Orthodox Church's are entitled to expect submission in disagreements because they and they only belong to the ONLY Church of Christ and the same Church is and I quote "infallible" ......

to be cont .....

A very important observation, and one which I think is in keeping with the OP and develops it in a significant direction. I'm looking forward to the continuation....

In ecumenical dialogue people generally have to give up the absolute authority of their grids -- otherwise there is simply no point in discussing with people outside your circle.

 

[Philothei]

Also calvinists could overlook the ECFs conveniently as they do not want to deal with what this Tradition has to offer. Presenting ONLY one side that of reformed theology.

 

[ittarter]

Also calvinists could overlook the ECFs conveniently as they do not want to deal with what this Tradition has to offer. Presenting ONLY one side that of reformed theology.

Not just Calvinists, either. Protestantism as a whole has a difficult time doing justice to the fathers.

 

[JM]

Also calvinists could overlook the ECFs conveniently as they do not want to deal with what this Tradition has to offer. Presenting ONLY one side that of reformed theology.

That might happen, but if you read Luther or Calvin, you'll soon be confronted with an avalanche of theological work dealing with the ECF's.

 

[Edial]

The curious part is, in my opinion, is that every denomination and Faith group are either claiming to hold the whole truth or are really afraid to admit that some of what they teach (that what differs from the majority) might be incorrect.

I find this fascinating.

So, they (we ) often refuse listening to each other considering everything that disagrees as an automatic call for a debate.

The very logic, the common sense that even the non-believers plainly see, is that if there are contradictory disagreements in official denominational theologies, someone gotta be wrong.
It's as plain as a dot on a blank sheet of paper.

The Church went through painful process to establish the Nicene Creed.

We all agree with the Creed.

But instead of showing a good-old-fashioned testimony to non-believers, we present our special revelations (theological or otherwise) as something that is really, really important.

What is more important than salvation?

And what is next in the importance, but showing the world that very salvation by the way we love each other?

The First Church had total unity and love towards each other ... and EVERYONE watching from the sidelines spoke well of them.

AC 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

We maximize the importance of our new revelations (theological or otherwise) over the basic Nicene Creed ... which we all believe anyway.

One believes in speaking in tongues ... A saint attacks him ... I cannot believe you believe this stuff!
The answer should be ... This is what I believe. Period.

One imposes upon another he must speak in tongues ... This is what you MUST believe!
Thanks, but I already have salvation. You wanna come with me to a Bible distribution?

We all do that at one time or another.

Salvation becomes Soteriology.
End Times becomes Eschatology

Common sense, the faith of little children ... becomes 'Theo-logy', translated as "Study of God" ...

Oh well ... I guess I gotta wait for Heaven for this ...

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Basis_Vectors]

Here's my take.

Belief is a funny thing. If someone is seriously committed to a certain belief, then it is highly unlikely that any logical analysis demonstrating inconsistency or self-contradiction will effectively derail that belief. This is because belief is not born solely from a rationality defined by logic. The very idea of belief implies something beyond mere conclusion from factual evidence.

A lot of people come onto this forum expecting to be able to change people's minds. They are certain in their own minds that something is true, and they wrongly believe that a post on a forum can transfer this certainty from their mind to someone else's. However, the only people that are really affected in this way in such a short period of time are the fence-sitters, that is, those who are NOT committed in advance to a certain belief with respect to the topic of discussion.

The result? People aren't listening to each other. People who come onto the forum wanting to change people's beliefs (and this includes changing someone's belief about the avowedly contradictory nature of what you believe) have already formed a definable "view" they wish to deconstruct or debate. However, this view exists in their own mind; thus, while it seems obvious that you have crushed that opponent that exists in your mind, in that place where you hold all the keys and know all the facts and have complete control, when you erroneously suppose that this will be equally convincing to a REAL person who is COMMITTED (beyond mere logical adherence) to similar but far more complex beliefs (because they are real) this leads to, well, exactly what this poor sub-forum experienced.

Further, this poor sub-forum experienced what many sub-forums out there experience, but on a catastrophic level, due to how much more polarized this issue of Calvinism/non-Calvinism has become. There isn't enough middle ground and not enough people to represent it. A sizable middle ground helps people loosen up their pre-conceived notions of what other people believe. When the world is no longer divided into two camps, stereotypes don't absorb every approximation. There is more room for gray, and therefore more room for self-analysis and reflection -- that wonderful place of pensiveness where true thought exists.

In fact, with the present systems as they are, I am doubtful that this forum can do more good than harm. However, CF having not yet shut it down permanently, we'll see if people can do a better job of listening this time around.

Any thoughts?

That may suffice for people with different beliefs, faiths, etc.

But, why does it have to be like that with a body that is supposed to have the same faith? On here I see more Christians arguing with Christians than I do Christians arguing with atheists. Granted, the populations of Christians on here is far greater than atheists. Still, this cyberspace refuge is holographic of the real world.

Perhaps we should abolish the "denomination" nonsense. Many of us (Christians) are worshiping the denomination and the traditions of men rather than believing in God and trusting Him. Likewise, because of the limitless denominations we don't treat each other like family. It becomes a competition to show God who loves Him more.

The thing is, we should want reproof especially from each other!

"Oh, you think my interpretation/understanding [of scripture] is wrong? Here is my evidence, Let us BOTH research it because, hey this is our eternal soul, and I wouldn't want either of us to be wrong."


I get the feeling a lot of the bickering and arguing that goes on is between people who do their research and feel they have invested time and energy sufficient to have a firm say on something. We can say we need to have an open mind, but I think we are too scared of criticism and rejection - especially rejection for something we hold dear to us - that we hide it under a veneer of doggedness. As a result, it is hard for anyone to let their guard down and say "maybe I was wrong," or offer advice and leave (planting the seed).

Moreover, because we have polarize the human race and separate each other based on PHYSICAL attributes, is it any surprise that we went from greatness to apostasy? These PHYSICAL separations have birthed some foolish and arrogant doctrine - such as banning blacks from a temple of worship, or what "race" the chosen people are. What happens to people who cant see, hear, touch, taste, or smell? Do THEY "see" the same gross separations we have created within this human family? The middle ground you speak of is the comradary between all of us: it is the fellowship with each other, belief in our savior Yeshua and worship of God. Since we can barely agree on what the first book of the bible means, and we treat each other like social commodities at best, how can we have a middle ground?

To me it isn't the forum that is a failure, but some of the people who access it.

 

[ittarter]

The curious part is, in my opinion, is that every denomination and Faith group are either claiming to hold the whole truth or are really afraid to admit that some of what they teach (that what differs from the majority) might be incorrect.

Fortunately, that is not entirely true. There are faith communities out there which do not claim to know everything, or even have an exclusive knowledge of what is true.

So, they (we ) often refuse listening to each other considering everything that disagrees as an automatic call for a debate.

It is too bad that what we agree about cannot similarly call us to discussion!

The very logic, the common sense that even the non-believers plainly see, is that if there are contradictory disagreements in official denominational theologies, someone gotta be wrong.
It's as plain as a dot on a blank sheet of paper.

It depends on what you mean by "right" and "wrong" and whether theological claims are supposed to be testable in the same way that scientific claims are. I have my doubts

The Church went through painful process to establish the Nicene Creed.

We all agree with the Creed.

But instead of showing a good-old-fashioned testimony to non-believers, we present our special revelations (theological or otherwise) as something that is really, really important.

What is more important than salvation?

Christians aren't very good, on the whole, at talking to non-believers. At least when we're having a discussion with fellow Christians, we are operating under many of the same presuppositions, and this facilitates a healthy and productive dialogue. Or at least, it has the potential to do so. On the other hand, when Christians talk to non-Christians about "salvation" we are often blind to the incompatibility and non-transferable nature of our presuppositions. Non-Christians, for instance, might not even have an interest in salvation, since they do not feel or know any danger from which they need to be saved.

And what is next in the importance, but showing the world that very salvation by the way we love each other?

The First Church had total unity and love towards each other ... and EVERYONE watching from the sidelines spoke well of them.

AC 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Well, at least, that is how the church speaks of itself in its own confessional documents. There is definitely some corroborative evidence that supports the strange thought that, once upon a time, Christians were actually nice to each other. However, it does appear as if, perhaps when Christianity became a state religion, the focal point of interest went from ethics to orthodoxy.

We maximize the importance of our new revelations (theological or otherwise) over the basic Nicene Creed ... which we all believe anyway.

Yes, well, the Nicene Creed does stand some interpreting. By itself, it's not exactly enough to know what this or that MEANS, much less how we live in response to it. But I agree, the theological emphasis should be how Christians stand together behind the Nicene Creed.

One believes in speaking in tongues ... A saint attacks him ... I cannot believe you believe this stuff!
The answer should be ... This is what I believe. Period.

Well, I don't know about that one. If you mean that beliefs are unchallengeable, well, maybe, but even if they are, we should at least be discussing a) where they came from, and b) how they shape and inform Christian thought and practice.

One imposes upon another he must speak in tongues ... This is what you MUST believe!
Thanks, but I already have salvation. You wanna come with me to a Bible distribution?

We all do that at one time or another.

Salvation becomes Soteriology.
End Times becomes Eschatology

Common sense, the faith of little children ... becomes 'Theo-logy', translated as "Study of God" ...

Oh well ... I guess I gotta wait for Heaven for this ...

Ed, I really enjoyed your post, even though at points I think some more thought needs to take place before we arrive at a satisfactory (at least temporarily satisfactory) understanding of things. I appreciate the winds of simplicity blowing in our midst.

 

[ittarter]

That may suffice for people with different beliefs, faiths, etc.

But, why does it have to be like that with a body that is supposed to have the same faith? On here I see more Christians arguing with Christians than I do Christians arguing with atheists. Granted, the populations of Christians on here is far greater than atheists. Still, this cyberspace refuge is holographic of the real world.

I agree, and this is a valid point that I just treated in a response to Ed. Christians are bad at focusing on what they have in common -- a result, I suspect, from how difficult it is to find any common ground at all with non-Christians. Since Christians firmly believe in the importance of Truth (otherwise they would take the broad road and remain agnostic or unbelieving) but don't usually succeed in arguments against non-Christians, they argue with other Christians about the finer points. It's a constant effort in maintaining and developing one's identity by negative means -- exploring "what I don't believe" as a means of understanding the significance of what I DO believe.

Perhaps we should abolish the "denomination" nonsense. Many of us (Christians) are worshiping the denomination and the traditions of men rather than believing in God and trusting Him. Likewise, because of the limitless denominations we don't treat each other like family. It becomes a competition to show God who loves Him more.

Perhaps we should. But it will never happen. In a sense, it's almost like saying, "I don't have a nose, a mouth, hair, feet, and a bellybutton. I have a body." The abolition of distinction helps people focus on the bigger picture, but once such distinctions are made, they are almost impossible to reverse. And why should we want to, anyway? Distinctions aren't the problem. The problem is opposition and hierarchy. "This nose is separate from this eye." "This eye is more important than this nose."

I also frown upon your snubbing your nose at tradition. Remember that without tradition, none of us would know Christ. Beyond that, I don't know what you have mind when you talk about "worshiping traditions" so I will simply request that you expand your thoughts for us.

The thing is, we should want reproof especially from each other!

Absolutely -- if given in love. When it is given in love, people typically don't mind nearly as much. But it rarely is -- especially on this subforum.

I get the feeling a lot of the bickering and arguing that goes on is between people who do their research and feel they have invested time and energy sufficient to have a firm say on something. We can say we need to have an open mind, but I think we are too scared of criticism and rejection - especially rejection for something we hold dear to us - that we hide it under a veneer of doggedness. As a result, it is hard for anyone to let their guard down and say "maybe I was wrong," or offer advice and leave (planting the seed).

Well said. I try and explicitly admit I am wrong or even possibly wrong as often as I can on CF. I wish others would do the same. When someone says a bunch of silly things and I reply with a crushing reproof, instead of focusing on one tiny portion of what I said and using it to further antagonize me, a balanced response would offer to at least admit to the possibility of retraction on the points for which no counter-response is conceivable (by that person, at that time). This almost NEVER happens

Moreover, because we have polarized the human race and separate each other based on PHYSICAL attributes, is it any surprise that we went from greatness to apostasy? These PHYSICAL separations have birthed some foolish and arrogant doctrine - such as banning blacks from a temple of worship, or what "race" the chosen people are. What happens to people who cant see, hear, touch, taste, or smell? Do THEY "see" the same gross separations we have created within this human family? The middle ground you speak of is the comradary between all of us: it is the fellowship with each other, belief in our savior Yeshua and worship of God. Since we can barely agree on what the first book of the bible means, and we treat each other like social commodities at best, how can we have a middle ground?

You touch on many points here, all of which deserve their own threads. However, the middle ground I had described in my OP is the place of withholding judgment between two opposing views on a topic of controversy. Could you explain how it is synonymous to a sense of brotherhood and solidarity between all human beings? Also, could you explain what you mean when you say we treat each other "like social commodities at best"?

To me it isn't the forum that is a failure, but some of the people who access it.

I have been on many subforums on CF, and I sincerely believe that the Soteriology subforum is the worst. It is even worse than Christians and non-Christians debating evolution or science/religion. My OP attempted to explore the reasons for this unusual situation taking place here.

Thanks for your post, Basis_Vectors. You brought up some very provocative issues which deserve further exploration.

 

[A New Dawn]

to me that answer is a bit confusing. it doesn't seem to distinguish between
those who are called by ministries other than Calvinism and continue their whole life long in the word, and those who are called according to the Calvinistic method and yet may fail to continue.

instead it seems to imply that all those called by the Calvinistic method will continue, and those called by another ministry will ultimately fail to continue, because they fail to understand the true nature of the call (being justly left in their unbelief)?

so could someone of the Calvinist persuasion speak to this please?

What is the Calvinistic method you are talking about? Is there a special formula you think the Calvinists use?

 

[ittarter]

What is the Calvinistic method you are talking about? Is there a special formula you think the Calvinists use?

I believe this question has already been addressed in my own response to the post. Have a look and let me know, since I don't know if pdudgeon is going to be returning to have a look for further responses