Please see the history of the religious wars, circa 1400-1800.
I think that you have man-made religion confused with the faith once delivered unto the saints ( Jude 1:3 ).
From my research,
The religious establishment of the day was so "anti-Calvinist" that they tortured thousands, and burned further thousands at the stake for heresy.
If you think that what happened at Geneva under John Calvin was bad, try looking at what happened in England, France and Spain at the hands of the "anti-Calvinist" authorities during that time period.
In addition, please see the Canons of Trent:
~The Council of Trent - Session 6~
I encourage you to educate yourself, MB...
I think It will help to avoid future mis-characterizations of those you call "Calvinists".
Finally, I know of no one on this board who identifies with John Calvin or his teachings, as being their source of biblical understanding and doctrine.
Rather, all the ones that I have seen who post in favor of God saving whom He wills, confesses Scripture as their only guide.;)
May God be pleased you bless you with many things, especially the ability to discern between truth and error.:)
Calvinism and how to discuss it without debate
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by S0l0m0n, Dec 21, 2019.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
In the garbage can.;)
Let's just stick to God's word by faith.:) -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
If Calvinism is false doctrine, to ask for it to be "tolerated" is bogus.
If Calvinism is true, why is it defended by ITL arguments 1-5? -
And going back to the thread's topic...
Would the Admins enforce at least what atpollard suggested?
Then a Calvinist could post in the 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' forum without the thread degenerating to down to the 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' level; with all the constructive ideas and edification being thrown out the window.
-
-
-
The pros are that it will allow Calvinists to discuss issues within Calvinism (e.g., sublapsarian and infralapsarian, covenant theology and dispensationalism within Reformed Theology, etc).
But I think that there are important negatives to keep in mind – primarily that it is always dangerous to seek an echo chamber in examining doctrine. Often those who hold opposing views hold a view you will never hold – BUT this does not mean their observations are necessarily irrelevant or should not be carefully considered. For example, there would be no Reformed Baptists if Baptists had not considered Reformed doctrine OR Reformed Christians had not considered baptistic thought (depending on how you think it occurred).
This is a Baptist Board (we have a section open to other faiths, but for the most part the discussion is within a Baptist context). My personal view is that this is narrow enough (except perhaps we could move the topic to the Baptist section of the forum). There are forums dedicated to Calvinism, Arminianism, “Classic Calvinism”, Reformation Arminianism, Wesylean Arminianism, Compatabilism, etc. Just making a Calvinism non-Calvinism is not good enough (there are far too many positions if we want to get specific, and Calvinism is not the measuring stick).
And, @tyndale1946 , I was here long before you came to the forum (two days, but they were long days :p ). -
Also, not to be too repetitive, but...
would something like atpollard's idea be easier to implement and keep order in?
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
We could (and have) had threads specifically for a particular purpose (e. g., Reformed only). But the problem is that others may read, learn, and question what is posted.
These are just thoughts (not an answer in any form).
Years ago I wanted a section for debates where participants were held accountable to an academic standard (moderator check fallacies, presuppositions are declared, assumptions evidenced, ect.). But I know that would not work either. -
-
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
IMO, the temperature of the debate would lower if
- folks didn't treat the debate as a zero-sum matter. Where there is only a winner and a loser. And the winner only accepts unconditional surrenders. This is Baptist Board, not WW2.
- folks realize forests of trees and oceans of ink have been already used in the debate over the last four hundred plus years by both sides. So, we aren't going to resolve the debate in this life.
- Which brings me to folks on both sides love the Lord and are bought with His blood. They both seek with all their hearts to know and obey His Word. If either side of the debate was as clear as its supporters say it is there would be no debate.
-
Have you noticed those who attack Calvinism do so based on ignorance?
They cannot see it so they say it doesn't exist in scripture. This alone lowers the bar on hubris.
The Russian cosmonauts did this too while orbiting earth for the first time. They didn’t see God so they said he doesn’t exist. -
-
Page 2 of 5