Burning Straw

[rhutchin]

Rhutchin has just called all of this "fun", and while I like Rhutchin's writings, I don't find this all that fun. I do find this intriguing and very much an education, maybe that is what Rhut means by fun. Or maybe Rhut likes pain :o).

I played around with the atheists a few years ago and by comparison, TWeb is a breath of frsh air. It is intriguing and very much education, but it is also a lot of fun. Probably just a matter of perspective.

[GoBahnsen]

But, if we like, we've got a limitless Love to draw from, and it is the Lord's command that we love one another. Love is among the fruit of the Spirit, whom we are told to walk in. We can do better; it is a live option.

We can always do better, I agree. I guess it's a matter of asking "what does love look like in debate?" Some people are gentle by nature (even non Christians), some are more hyper and hot blooded. The hot blooded one may actually be showing more love (in God's eyes), but all the humans vote for the guy who is gentle, simply because he has always been that way, but they don't know that. So you have real fruit and artificial fruit. Hard to tell the difference from a distance.

Some of the "loving" people here have left me with the worst impressions over time. Gaining to themselves approval, even from the likes of an LGM. And they seem to gladly receive that approval rather than tell LGM that he is wrong to trample on Christianity the way he does.

Well, GB, at the time of those events, I was a Calvinist myself. And it was what happened back there that opened the door for me to re-examine my theology on a grand scale. My reporting of what happened isn't skewed because I "don't like Calvinism," as you put it. Now, I don't think Calvinist soteriology is Biblical, but I still admire a good bit of Calvinist thought.

I'm not saying it's skewed, but when you rehearse an event like the poor little girl crying to her mommy, because the Pastor corrected her lyrics, you have to realize what kind of picture that paints in the minds of all the Calvinist' fence sitters and haters here. You gave us little to go other than he made her cry. Was he gentle, abrupt, condescending, what? Did he seek to make amends, was he given the opportunity? Just to leave your readers with a crying little girl, makes the Pastor look heartless. We all do this though. I have done it. That's why I say, we're short on love. We really do need Christ's imputed righteousness in a desperate way. We fail everyday to love as we ought.

During this fiasco, I was shown some papers by some who were "in the know" that presented "Calvinist debating tactics" which were framed by some well-known Calvinist leaders. They were intended for use by Calvinists who found themselves in churches not entirely commited to Calvinism so that they might sway folks or even coerce them into subjection. The philosophy was to assert "THE TRUTH," at all costs---even at the expense of the sheep. It was about church strategy to build a Calvinist organization and to drive the dissenters away, if need be. I wholeheartedly disagreed with this line of thinking, even though I affirmed Calvinist doctrine at the time.

More terrible stuff! I have never heard of such things and it doesn't sound good at all. Were the Calvinists wearing swastika's as well?

GB, please forgive my saying so, but you are fond of demeaning Arminians and their theology, and you are also inclined to dispatch your opponents with glib remarks about how you think their ideas are somehow falsified simply because "America resonates with freewill thinking," or noncalvinists aren't, according to you, in touch with church history, or some other thing. The trouble is that none of these factors can serve as a test for truth or falsity.

And look at the picture you're painting above. I'm guessing that if I went to that Church you left, I'd hear a whole different story of how it all went down. If I said, let me see those Calvinistic debate tactics on how to drive the dessenting sheep away...I'm sure I might see some rolling eyes.

Arminians are more than welcome at my Church. We would love to have to have them. We don't want to drive them away from the truth. Maybe you were dealing with Calvinists who didn't know the Lord, they're out there, just like godless Arminians are as well.

The Calvinist pastor could have "handled things better," and that is certain.

Sure sounds like it, if the way he went about it drove you to Arminianism. He sounds like a first class jerk.

And many noncalvinists are former Calvinists---like me, for instance. I abandoned Calvinism because I didn't believe it to be a "Biblically consistent theology." I myself "asked questions," and I came to answers that are not Calvinistic. I still ask questions, and I always will. I still love, and with God's help, I always will.

Well you were jump started away from Calvinism by an unloving Calvinist, that's just great.

I can appreciate gentleness, GB, but I've seen so much of the opposite in my life. I can easily "live with" this post of yours; it's not over the top or troublesome to me at all. But, as I've said before, it's not our emotional responses, nor our manner, nor what the cultural trends are in the American church, nor sensitivity to any tradition (even Reformation tradition) that make one's doctrine true. And none of these things can become a definitive test for how we ascertain truth. They are all, every one of them, beside the point....

That may be, but they are also stepping stones, filler in between exegeting Scripture. Something many of us find ourselves mostly doing here. Trying to understand what makes the other tick.

[betzerg]

To deny any man the possiblity of making a moral decision to follow the laws of G-d is to deny the very JUSTICE of our creator. To KNOW G-d, to know the attributes of G-d, and then say that some men are "destined for hell" is saying that G-d denies himself as revealed in scripture.....a G-d of JUSTICE.

That is why those who protest Calvinism protest so strongly. It negates the entire judical system of a just and holy G-d and presents some kind of magical formula for pleasing the G-d of creation that excludes obedience.
My neighbor does not accept the Messiah. Then I must assume that G-d did not Predestine him to do so...and because G-d made this choice (based on arbitrary election) he will now spend eternity in hell. How ungodlike is this position. It is not G-d's will that any parish. Every man will be judged according to his works. To negate the responsiblity of man in his own salvation is to create a group of immoral, self-centered, egotistical violators of the Laws of G-d. This is the sign of the anti-messiah. The one who teaches anti-torah...anti-law (you don't have to follow the laws of G-d, only believe).

Calvinism....as expressed in the church TODAY...is nothing more than an anti-anomian cheap faith that does not produce the fruits of the awesome fear and respect for a Holy G-d.

Shalom,

[Ormly]

The "elect" are simply those in whom God's delights; has pleasure in. He knows who they are before they are born. So becareful to love your enemy. He just might be the "elect" at some future point in time.

[GoBahnsen]

I played around with the atheists a few years ago and by comparison, TWeb is a breath of frsh air. It is intriguing and very much education, but it is also a lot of fun. Probably just a matter of perspective.

I guess it depends on how you define fun. Some people thing work is fun. To me...playing is fun, work is work. It might be satisfying and rewarding, but unless it felt like playing, I wouldn't call it fun.

I'm not playing here (nor am I suggesting you are), the stakes are too high. God will hold us accountable for the things we say and teach here. Probably one difference between you and I, Rhutchin, is that I'm more skeptical of Arminianism than you tend to be. You see all this as more "in house" than I do. I say "more", because I still consider it "in house" as well.

Though I think it is all very serious business. Especially with the Arminians who hate Calvinism and call the God of Calvinism a monster, despot and a tyrant. These people concern me as to their status before God. I have a big question mark hanging in my own mind over them. Anyway, that's just my guess about you. Keep up the good stuff you right. I enjoy your perspective.

[GoBahnsen]

I've dealt with all these objections at length here on Tweb, so I'm go to blitz through quickly and I'm off to a job site.

To deny any man the possiblity of making a moral decision to follow the laws of G-d is to deny the very JUSTICE of our creator. To KNOW G-d, to know the attributes of G-d, and then say that some men are "destined for hell" is saying that G-d denies himself as revealed in scripture.....a G-d of JUSTICE.

Go argue with the God of the New Covenant, His apostles teach us that God foreknows and predestines humans to obtain either mercy or justice. And He does this by His Spirit, working in them to bring them willingly to Himself or simply leaving them to their willful rebellion.

That is why those who protest Calvinism protest so strongly. It negates the entire judical system of a just and holy G-d and presents some kind of magical formula for pleasing the G-d of creation that excludes obedience.

Definitely not Calvinism. Calvinism is very opposed to anti-nomianism. Yet we also recognize that we aren't to be like the unbelieving Jew, who going about to establish his own righteousness through the law, misses out on the righteousness that comes from God by faith in the Messiah. (Romans)

My neighbor does not accept the Messiah. Then I must assume that G-d did not Predestine him to do so...and because G-d made this choice (based on arbitrary election) he will now spend eternity in hell.

You have no idea if your neighbor will repent and believe the Gospel before he dies, so your argument is moot. And no where does the Bible teach that God's election is arbitrary, in the sense of God picking petals off a flower...I'll save him...I'll save him not... We simply do not know the secret council of God on that matter.

How ungodlike is this position. It is not G-d's will that any parish.

Peter is talking to Christians in the context of his remarks in 2Pet3:9. Not willing that any of "us" is the obvious implication. It makes no sense to interpret it in a universal way.

Every man will be judged according to his works. To negate the responsiblity of man in his own salvation is to create a group of immoral, self-centered, egotistical violators of the Laws of G-d.

It would seem, but you leave out the power of the Gospel. It is a message God uses to convert men and make them holy in practicalilty, yet not perfect, and keeps them looking stedfast upon the hope of one day being made perfect in glory. It is a message that is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is the savor of life unto those being saved. Come to Jesus and see for yourself.

This is the sign of the anti-messiah. The one who teaches anti-torah...anti-law (you don't have to follow the laws of G-d, only believe).

A Christian coined that term, anti-Christ, and applied it the spirit of those who reject God's Messiah.

Calvinism....as expressed in the church TODAY...is nothing more than an anti-anomian cheap faith that does not produce the fruits of the awesome fear and respect for a Holy G-d.

Shalom,

Blindness has happened to Israel in part. One day God may lift that veil that is over your eyes sir. Your Messiah has already come and the veil in the temple was rent in two when He cried "it is finished". When darkness hung over your homeland for the space of three hours. When the earth shook and caused the Roman centurian to declare "truly this man was the Son of God". Truly He was and is.

Sorry to be so brief, but I'm on the go at the moment.

[rhutchin]

To deny any man the possiblity of making a moral decision to follow the laws of G-d is to deny the very JUSTICE of our creator. To KNOW G-d, to know the attributes of G-d, and then say that some men are "destined for hell" is saying that G-d denies himself as revealed in scripture.....a G-d of JUSTICE.

That is why those who protest Calvinism protest so strongly. It negates the entire judical system of a just and holy G-d and presents some kind of magical formula for pleasing the G-d of creation that excludes obedience.
My neighbor does not accept the Messiah. Then I must assume that G-d did not Predestine him to do so...and because G-d made this choice (based on arbitrary election) he will now spend eternity in hell. How ungodlike is this position. It is not G-d's will that any parish. Every man will be judged according to his works. To negate the responsiblity of man in his own salvation is to create a group of immoral, self-centered, egotistical violators of the Laws of G-d. This is the sign of the anti-messiah. The one who teaches anti-torah...anti-law (you don't have to follow the laws of G-d, only believe).

Calvinism....as expressed in the church TODAY...is nothing more than an anti-anomian cheap faith that does not produce the fruits of the awesome fear and respect for a Holy G-d.

Shalom,

Guess that puts you in the Universal salvation camp (you don't have to follow the laws of G-d either).

[Ormly]

Though I think it is all very serious business. Especially with the Arminians who hate Calvinism and call the God of Calvinism a monster, despot and a tyrant. These people concern me as to their status before God. I have a big question mark hanging in my own mind over them. Anyway, that's just my guess about you. Keep up the good stuff you right. I enjoy your perspective.

Not that I disagree with all of Calvinism since most of my instruction is from reform thinkers whom I have the utmost confidence in, it's only your brand of Calvinism that makes God a monster in everyones eyes who can think straight. Your presentation needs working on to straighten out the bend in your thinking. You might begin at the beginning and re-think that bend. It has placed you on the wrong track that is a dead end.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

We can always do better, I agree. I guess it's a matter of asking "what does love look like in debate?" Some people are gentle by nature (even non Christians), some are more hyper and hot blooded. The hot blooded one may actually be showing more love (in God's eyes), but all the humans vote for the guy who is gentle, simply because he has always been that way, but they don't know that. So you have real fruit and artificial fruit. Hard to tell the difference from a distance.

The trouble with this analysis is that it almost makes us unaccountable for our actions. If "real fruit" cannot be distinguished from "artificial fruit," then is it all up for grabs when it comes to how we are to behave? Are we to be prisoners of our own temperaments and so call ourselves justified when we happen to act in a fleshly way? Maybe the hot blooded are more lovable at times in God's sight, but we'd better examine ourselves closely and not assume that hot bloodedness is therefore to be preferred in a way that puts a divine stamp of approval upon us when we fly off the handle.

Some of the "loving" people here have left me with the worst impressions over time. Gaining to themselves approval, even from the likes of an LGM. And they seem to gladly receive that approval rather than tell LGM that he is wrong to trample on Christianity the way he does.

Love and judgment should be kept in balance, and we should not compromise our integrity or become pleasers of men. There's a time to say, "No further."

I'm not saying it's skewed, but when you rehearse an event like the poor little girl crying to her mommy, because the Pastor corrected her lyrics, you have to realize what kind of picture that paints in the minds of all the Calvinist' fence sitters and haters here. You gave us little to go other than he made her cry. Was he gentle, abrupt, condescending, what? Did he seek to make amends, was he given the opportunity? Just to leave your readers with a crying little girl, makes the Pastor look heartless. We all do this though. I have done it. That's why I say, we're short on love. We really do need Christ's imputed righteousness in a desperate way. We fail everyday to love as we ought.

You should read what I wrote in its context. I was pointing out how negative experience can discolor our hearts and infect us so that we find it hard not to project the bad experiences of the past onto the present. This story was part of my own experience, and I brought it up to illustrate a point. When I get into debates over Calvinism vs Arminianism, I must not project my past negative experiences onto the folks I communicate with today.

I didn't bring this story up as an argument against Calvinism because, as I said before, our emotional responses to such things cannot be a test for truth. This story of mine was not meant to discredit Calvinism---not at all. What the story was meant to do was to illustrate how our failures to love one another properly in the midst of our disagreements can hurt us. The pastor could have comported himself with love, as could have some of the other calvinists involved. This fact doesn't address the truth or falsity of Calvinism directly; it merely addresses the harm that can come from our failure to love one another as we should. That's what this thread is about....

More terrible stuff! I have never heard of such things and it doesn't sound good at all. Were the Calvinists wearing swastika's as well?

Good one, GB! Do you think it helpful to make comments like this one?

And look at the picture you're painting above. I'm guessing that if I went to that Church you left, I'd hear a whole different story of how it all went down. If I said, let me see those Calvinistic debate tactics on how to drive the dessenting sheep away...I'm sure I might see some rolling eyes.

Sure, you'd hear about the virtues of "standing up for the TRUTH," as I said before. Before, you were insinuating how I had no doubt misrepresented the Calvinists because "I did not like Calvinism." Now, after I told you that I myself was a Calvinist at the time, you have resorted to another strategy---ridicule. If you saw eyes roll, would that mean anything? The Calvinists I spoke of may well insist they did what was right. But, what does your statment, "I'm sure I might see some rolling eyes" accomplish? "I'm sure I might...."

Arminians are more than welcome at my Church. We would love to have to have them. We don't want to drive them away from the truth.

You are demonstrably welcoming to Arminians, GB. But, what if they decided it would be a good thing to take over your church? What if they preached their views in a way that would degrade Calvinism and somehow managed to gain control of the church leadership? Would you welcome that? I doubt that you would....

Maybe you were dealing with Calvinists who didn't know the Lord, they're out there, just like godless Arminians are as well.

Sure they are, but I think what we were dealing with were folks who were deceived into thinking that "standing up for the truth" justified their misguided actions.

Sure sounds like it, if the way he went about it drove you to Arminianism. He sounds like a first class jerk.

I'm not sure whether or not you're being sympathetic here or not, GB. Sometimes you seem to be calling what I said into question with ridicule, and other times, you seem genuinely sympathetic. Maybe you're doing a bit of both. But, I should make two things clear. 1)His actions didn't drive me to Arminianism. I was spurred on to re-examine my Calvinism, but, if I had continued to think it Biblical, I would have continued to be a Calvinist. There were other factors involved with that---most of them not emotional. As I said, this type of experience cannot determine truth, but it can motivate one to do some heavy-duty thinking. 2)The pastor did not handle himself as he should have, but I think he was blinded by his zeal. He was young and inexperienced and given to his passions.

The lesson we can learn is that, when we don't behave in love when engaged in debnates like this, we can hurt others and ourselves. We can even hurt the cause we believe we are standing up for so righteously.

Well you were jump started away from Calvinism by an unloving Calvinist, that's just great.

Again, I'm saying that being unloving is not something we can justify out of an appeal to zeal. An unloving Calvinist wouldn't suffice to drive me away from Calvinism, BUT that might well be the case for some. A distinction is in order; if people are offended by the gospel, that's not our fault, but if they are simply offended by us, then that becomes a problem. Better to have a millstone bound around our neck than to offend one of these little ones....

That may be, but they are also stepping stones, filler in between exegeting Scripture. Something many of us find ourselves mostly doing here. Trying to understand what makes the other tick.

Yes, find out about what makes us tick, but do it with a heart....

[Ormly]

The trouble with this analysis is that it almost makes us unaccountable for our actions. If "real fruit" cannot be distinguished from "artificial fruit," then is it all up for grabs when it comes to how we are to behave? Are we to be prisoners of our own temperaments and so call ourselves justified when we happen to act in a fleshly way? Maybe the hot blooded are more lovable at times in God's sight, but we'd better examine ourselves closely and not assume that hot bloodedness is therefore to be preferred in a way that puts a divine stamp of approval upon us when we fly off the handle.



Love and judgment should be kept in balance, and we should not compromise our integrity or become pleasers of men. There's a time to say, "No further."



You should read what I wrote in its context. I was pointing out how negative experience can discolor our hearts and infect us so that we find it hard not to project the bad experiences of the past onto the present. This story was part of my own experience, and I brought it up to illustrate a point. When I get into debates over Calvinism vs Arminianism, I must not project my past negative experiences onto the folks I communicate with today.

I didn't bring this story up as an argument against Calvinism because, as I said before, our emotional responses to such things cannot be a test for truth. This story of mine was not meant to discredit Calvinism---not at all. What the story was meant to do was to illustrate how our failures to love one another properly in the midst of our disagreements can hurt us. The pastor could have comported himself with love, as could have some of the other calvinists involved. This fact doesn't address the truth or falsity of Calvinism directly; it merely addresses the harm that can come from our failure to love one another as we should. That's what this thread is about....



Good one, GB! Do you think it helpful to make comments like this one?



Sure, you'd hear about the virtues of "standing up for the TRUTH," as I said before. Before, you were insinuating how I had no doubt misrepresented the Calvinists because "I did not like Calvinism." Now, after I told you that I myself was a Calvinist at the time, you have resorted to another strategy---ridicule. If you saw eyes roll, would that mean anything? The Calvinists I spoke of may well insist they did what was right. But, what does your statment, "I'm sure I might see some rolling eyes" accomplish? "I'm sure I might...."



You are demonstrably welcoming to Arminians, GB. But, what if they decided it would be a good thing to take over your church? What if they preached their views in a way that would degrade Calvinism and somehow managed to gain control of the church leadership? Would you welcome that? I doubt that you would....



Sure they are, but I think what we were dealing with were folks who were deceived into thinking that "standing up for the truth" justified their misguided actions.



I'm not sure whether or not you're being sympathetic here or not, GB. Sometimes you seem to be calling what I said into question with ridicule, and other times, you seem genuinely sympathetic. Maybe you're doing a bit of both. But, I should make two things clear. 1)His actions didn't drive me to Arminianism. I was spurred on to re-examine my Calvinism, but, if I had continued to think it Biblical, I would have continued to be a Calvinist. There were other factors involved with that---most of them not emotional. As I said, this type of experience cannot determine truth, but it can motivate one to do some heavy-duty thinking. 2)The pastor did not handle himself as he should have, but I think he was blinded by his zeal. He was young and inexperienced and given to his passions.

The lesson we can learn is that, when we don't behave in love when engaged in debnates like this, we can hurt others and ourselves. We can even hurt the cause we believe we are standing up for so righteously.



Again, I'm saying that being unloving is not something we can justify out of an appeal to zeal. An unloving Calvinist wouldn't suffice to drive me away from Calvinism, BUT that might well be the case for some. A distinction is in order; if people are offended by the gospel, that's not our fault, but if they are simply offended by us, then that becomes a problem. Better to have a millstone bound around our neck than to offend one of these little ones....



Yes, find out about what makes us tick, but do it with a heart....

I think he believes he knows what makes Arminians tick ergo the same ol stuff can be expected from him.--- like he never heard a word you said.

[GoBahnsen]

I think he believes he knows what makes Arminians tick ergo the same ol stuff can be expected from him.--- like he never heard a word you said.

I would love it if pereynol stepped in here and told you to back out. Because I don't think he's on the same level with you sir. You attach yourself to articulate, well intened Arminians like pereynol, and chime in so as to gain some weight of approval on your own stand.

One of the things that has bent me out of shape here on Tweb, is to listen to certain non Calvinists have some yucks with you. You are a noted trouble maker here on Tweb, a hair away from being in moderation for your accumulation of warning points...and when my opponents accept your "tag alongs" with them...I become angry inside.

I would hope that I would take on a brash Calvinist, if he tried to do the same tricks you pull. And when young Samuel came in here with his unwise threads and uncalled for antagonism to non Calvinists, I withstood him publicly more than once. About the only ones who put you in your place are Calvinists and leadership here.

The Arminians let you ride, when you tag along, like you just did on pereynol's post. This genders animosity between the camps. Arminians who want to see more unity, ought not to let trouble makers like you get away with your "cling on" moves. You are a shame to the freewill camp, and they ought to withstand you to your face. Let someone outside of leadership and the Calvinists here, give you a rebuke for a change.

[GoBahnsen]

The trouble with this analysis is that it almost makes us unaccountable for our actions. If "real fruit" cannot be distinguished from "artificial fruit," then is it all up for grabs when it comes to how we are to behave? Are we to be prisoners of our own temperaments and so call ourselves justified when we happen to act in a fleshly way? Maybe the hot blooded are more lovable at times in God's sight, but we'd better examine ourselves closely and not assume that hot bloodedness is therefore to be preferred in a way that puts a divine stamp of approval upon us when we fly off the handle.

I see what you're saying, but my point is that here on a computer screen, we make judgments on limited info. No, I'm not saying that we can blame our temperments...of course not pereynol, come on. Do I deserve this? Maybe I do. It's like those who tell me "goba, you're supposed to love people not hate them." Oh thanks for the insight. Sigh.

My point is that even non Christians can "sound" more loving than a true saint. Paul once said "the Lord smite you...you whited wall." Only upon learning that it was the high priest he had laid into. And Paul did recant, because it was a technical violation of God's law to speak that way to one in THAT position in Israel.

Paul was fiesty. He got a belly full of Mark at one point. I think many members here on Tweb, would think of Paul as "unloving" if he contested them, with his posts. Paul was a very loving Christian man, but He got hot under the collar at times. "I would that they were even CUT OFF, who trouble you..." (Galatians) He wasn't gentle with them. He was angry. He may have sinned in that...who knows. He did lament that the good he wanted to do at times, ended up becoming the evil he didn't want to do(Romans 7).

My whole point is...who can contest the love of Paul for Christ and human beings? Yet the very enemies of Paul were no doubt often, silver tongued devils who made the people doubt Paul's love. Can't you just hear them "hear, hear my fellow Israelites...who is this trader amongst us? Who is this turn-coat named Saul? Look at him my beloved brethren...he has gone after the Nazarene! Have no part with him. He has even claimed to talk with this dead one who was publicly crucified before us all. Communication with the dead is a violation of our law. We have tried to reason with him, but he is like a madman and it appears that our loving efforts to help him, have failed. Let everyone lock his door at night, lest he break in upon you and kill you for rejecting the Nazarene! Just like he killed Christians before...he is sick and one that should be reported to the authorities if seen"

[Ormly]

I wore out my "articulate" with you along time back.

............ Do I deserve this? Maybe I do. ............... Sigh.

Then why ask the question?

[GoBahnsen]

I wore out my "articulate" with you along time back.




Then why ask the question?

Quote the whole of my remarks or leave it alone. I said what I did out of a polite-ness to my opponent and a sincere humility toward my own evaluation of myself. Leave me alone if you would and trouble me no more with your one liners.

[Ormly]

Quote the whole of my remarks or leave it alone. I said what I did out of a polite-ness to my opponent and a sincere humility toward my own evaluation of myself. Leave me alone if you would and trouble me no more with your one liners.

I would love it if pereynol stepped in here and told you to back out. Because I don't think he's on the same level with you sir. You attach yourself to articulate, well intened Arminians like pereynol, and chime in so as to gain some weight of approval on your own stand.

That was addressed to me, was it not? ------ Thank you.