Calvinism/Arminianism Forum - Finally Imploded?

Now what happened to the "read only" archives? There was a lot of valuable information and hours of study on that site!

 

I seem to recall that in the C v A forum Dave Hunt was accused of lying; perhaps that is what Larry meant by unChristian behaviour.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

This is how I believe any debate ought to be--

It ought to be like the old World Wrestlin' Federation---you get in the ring---you wrestle your opponent---you stir the crowd up---then when you pen him to the mat--the ref raises your hand for the win---then when its all over---you and your opponent go to the dressin' room--you shower up---then you both go out and buy steak dinner together for your families!!

In the Calvin/Arminian debates---I never understood the reasoning to "get mad" at anyone---when all things considered both Calvin and Armeaus both were a little bit less than infallable and inerrant in their theology!!!

Now--as far as debate goes---I'll debate anybody--just like I'll wrestle anybody---and the loser buys steak dinner after the match/debate---and I'll be your buddy whether you beat me or I beat you!! See??

But all of the name calling and the "He's a liar!" "No I'm not--you're a liar!" garbage is unChristlike--whether you're a 1000point Calvin or a no point Arminian--and also stupid and childish--thats why it was closed!!

Blackbird

 

When lies are told, it is certainly unChristian. It is not unChristian to point them out, but when such charges are made they should be clearly documented. This issue of Hunt had nothing to do with the decision.

There is certianly nothing wrong with a good healthy discussion. But it should stop at that. Unfortunately, it didn't.

 

This is a flat contradiction of Paul's rout of the "no-resurrection" heresy found in I Corinthians. How man of the resurrection deniers would have said that:

1. Their faith was vain.

2. The gosepl was a lie.

3. Christians were the most miserable people in the world.

4. All who died believing in Christ went to hell.

5. Baptism was a fraud.

6. Suffering for Jesus sake was a vanity.

7. The apostles were all liars.

Paul took what the heretics did say - that there will be no resurrection of the dead - and showed the inescapable logical ramifications of the heresy. That is what happened in the Calvinist/Arminian forum - the unavoidable implications of Calvinism were laid bare.

And how many of the Jews would have said God was not their Father and that they did not believe Moses' writings? And yet Jesus proved that by denying Him they exposed their lack of faith in the Father and the Scriptures of Moses.

Mark Osgatharp

 

It is kind of ironic a calvinist closed the thread. Someone must have been hitting home pretty hard. Praise God.

 

Personally, I consider non-Calvinists brothers in Christ, and not grudgingly. I don't think I should separate from a brother who has taken the name of Christ just because he may be wrong about how that came to pass. And, I know that if I am wrong about how that came to pass then I would like to have the same courtesy extended to me.

 

Shoot, I guess this forum is going away too.

 

Mark,

The biggest problem with your point is that it is inaccurate comparison. Paul did not mischaracterize the opponents' view. They denied the resurrection. Paul did not accuse them of anything else. So your whole point breaks down. It isn't a valid comparison. Your tactic in teh CvA forum was to mischaracterize the views of your opponents, and then try to draw conclusions based on a wrong premise. Paul never did that.

Secondly, your attempts to show "inescapable logical implications" were faulty because they were based on illegitimate grounds. That was made clear to you ad nauseum and you refused to accept it. Now you are trying to do the same thing. Any conclusion that is drawn from a faulty basis is a faulty conclusion. You don't get to make up your own premise. That is unethical in debate. If you characterize my position properly, then you can try to refute it. That was the point. Even here, you mischaracterized my argument and took off from there. That is simply wrong. It should not be done.

If you disagree with something, then disagree with it. But disagree with it. Don't make something up that no one believes, disagree with that, and then act like you killed the big one.

The forum was not shut down because Calvinism was losing. Anyone can read and see that wasn't the case. There were a few good discussions going on, and an awful lot unethical arguments and personal attacks. That was unacceptable, and still is. I hope one day that the forum will be able to reopen with people committed to civil and honest discussion. Until then, we have taken this step.

I don't view arminians grudgingly as brothers in Christ. I think many of them are saved and love God more than I do. I think many Calvinists are also saved. It is too bad that some refuse to talk to one another as if they are brothers in Christ.

 

I think a comparison to the "no-resurrection" heresy found in I Corinthians is a poor comparison of this debate. Someone who denies the Resurrection is Not a Christian.

In the Calvinism vs. Arminian Debate (OR Calvinism vs. Non Calvinist Debate) it has not been a debate over whether One or the other were Christians. God has used Arminians such as the Anabaptists, General Baptists, John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, John Wesley, Billy Graham and he has used Calvinists such as John Calvin, John Knox, Particular Baptists, John Bunyan, William Carey, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John MacArthur.

I think this demonizing of either side as being from the pits of Hell adds nothing to the debate. Non Calvinist Baptists need to admit and acknowledge that most of your Baptist forefathers were 5 point Calvinists and quit trying to make up history. Calvinist Baptists need to admit that the first generation of Baptists were 5 point Arminians and not do away with the first 30 years of Baptist history. We are all children of our Baptist Heritage (Both General and Particular Baptists)

I will say, it has been my observation in the C vs A debate that many (Not All) Non Calvinists especially don't know their subject, in attacking Calvinism and have probably read little by Calvinist authors.

When we start using the term HERETIC then the conversation will go into the gutter. Baptists are the worst in the world in my opinion in using the term Heretic too lightly.

 

Well said, Kiffen.

 

Are you discriminating against everyone not a calvinist? Like a "secret club" </font>[/QUOTE]haha nah. If you are comfortable joining a Calvinistic forum where arguments are not tolerated by the Calvinistic webmaster- so be it. We have non-Calvinistic members who have joined...but they are the type who won't spend all their time arguing about Calvinism.

Dan

 

JohnB,

I was not questioning whether or not a Calvinist is true believer. I was showing that exposing the ramifications of your opponents opinions, whether he accepts them or not, is a fair, honest, and Scriptural debate tactic.

By the way, there were apparently some at Corinth who were real believers and yet denied the resurrection - not the resurrection of Jesus but that the saints would rise from the dead. That was the basis on which Paul exposed the fallacy of their heresy - they believed that Jesus rose from the dead but denied that we would.

Mark Osgatharp

 

This is true ... but only if those ramifications are legitimate. In many cases, they were not. They were built from faulty foundations and thus were illegitimate.

 

Good remarks Kiffen! It would be nice to see a Christlike spirit in dealing with these issues.

 

My only comment on the whole debate is that the Bible is inerrant - theologians are not

That is of course what makes these debates fun - if we take ourselves to seriously, or think that we have the only orthodox positon on a topic that can interpreted more than one way, we raise our blood pressure for nothing