Do you prefer to argue/debate without hope of consensus over bible study?

[MoreCoffee]

Folks, which is better for you

1. debating Calvinism Vs Arminianism
2. Studying a passage of scripture together
3. having a smackdown fight about alleged heresy

Or, is your behaviour in CH unrepresentative of your preferred occupation?

 

[1689Dave]

Folks, which is better for you

1. debating Calvinism Vs Arminianism
2. Studying a passage of scripture together
3. having a smackdown fight about alleged heresy

Or, is your behaviour in CH unrepresentative of your preferred occupation?

I do not like to debate but to share the treasures God shares with me. It would be good if others would share the joy.

 

[Lamb]

Even though it seems like members are just here to argue, what I see is members turning to scripture to try to find the answers. So I choose number two in that even though we have our differences, we're all studying the bible together.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Even though it seems like members are just here to argue, what I see is members turning to scripture to try to find the answers. So I choose number two in that even though we have our differences, we're all studying the bible together.

I raised the question partly to spur a reaction, so technically it is a slight troll with a slightly click bait title. My apologies, but how else can one get attention when an unending fight about Calvinism seems to be sucking all the oxygen out of the theology forum.

It's nice to debate a little, to have a little tussle about heresy, and it is not so nice to have a never-ending combat about Limited Atonement. It seems that @1689Dave has his view, it is firmly held, and leads (in my opinion) to an enunciation of the gospel that is rather offensive, but it is his view and he is not likely to change it regardless of the arguments put to him. Similarly I have a view, as do you @Lamb and @Josiah, and our view on this subject is quite similar, we're not going to be convinced by 1689Dave. He is quite polite on the whole even if his argument looks offensive. So, why labour the point, spectator readers have a huge number of posts on that topic to review if they like. There's not any need to repeat the same arguments again.

Let's stop and find new fields to debate or discuss or find things about which we agree.

The L or TULIP, for CH, is beset by irreconcilable differences. Maybe after a month or two of new topics some people will reassess their views and maybe grow a little closer or at least a little more empathetic to the opposing view.

 

[1689Dave]

I raised the question partly to spur a reaction, so technically it is a slight troll with a slightly click bait title. My apologies, but how else can one get attention when an unending fight about Calvinism seems to be sucking all the oxygen out of the theology forum.

It's nice to debate a little, to have a little tussle about heresy, and it is not so nice to have a never-ending combat about Limited Atonement. It seems that @1689Dave has his view, it is firmly held, and leads (in my opinion) to an enunciation of the gospel that is rather offensive, but it is his view and he is not likely to change it regardless of the arguments put to him. Similarly I have a view, as do you @Lamb and @Josiah, and our view on this subject is quite similar, we're not going to be convinced by 1689Dave. He is quite polite on the whole even if his argument looks offensive. So, why labour the point, spectator readers have a huge number of posts on that topic to review if they like. There's not any need to repeat the same arguments again.

Let's stop and find new fields to debate or discuss or find things about which we agree.

The L or TULIP is, for CH, is beset by irreconcilable differences. Maybe after a month or two of new topics some people will reassess their views and maybe grow a little closer or at least a little more empathetic to the opposing view.

My approach might be offensive to most, but I know that all whom the Father gives to Christ will come to him. So I cannot prevent the salvation of any God chose for that purpose. The L in Tulip is something I experienced supernaturally and is indelibly imprinted in my heart. Following a job transfer, I wandered into one of the most deadly cults in the Pentecostal movement. They taught what every Evangelical Church teaches about salvation. Only they interpreted the word Salvation in its fullest sense to include healing. People began dying of easily treated ailments.

One night, the Professor, a ThD from an accredited Seminary began teaching against the doctrine of Limited Atonement. It was the first time I ever heard of it. But in his teaching against it, he quoted it. What I then knew, was that everything they taught about salvation and healing was false. I realized that people are not saved who trust in their faith to save them. It was my last time there. Over 100 died believing just as most do about salvation.

 

[Josiah]

Folks, which is better for you

1. debating Calvinism Vs Arminianism
2. Studying a passage of scripture together
3. having a smackdown fight about alleged heresy

Or, is your behaviour in CH unrepresentative of your preferred occupation?

@MoreCoffee
@Lamb
@Origen
@Albion

MoreCoffee,


On the one hand, you've studied church history, so you KNOW that Christians have always debated things. Christians have held that truth matters; historically the church has not embraced relativism. We see this with Jesus in the Gospels; He never shied away from a fight, from rather boldly correcting someone (sometimes with less than political correctness), and we see this in Acts and in the Epistles as the Apostles never hesitated to call out false teachings and practices (and like their Master, rarely embraced political correctness). We see this in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We see it with the Saints and in the rebukes of heresy (that never ceases to arise). It is WRONG to wink at heresy, it is a biblical command to stand up for the Truth.

On the other hand, I often think of Jesus' point about shaking the dust off your feet and casting pearls on swine. There are people with whom any discussion is IMPOSSIBLE. They can't read. They can't discuss. They don't consider themselves accountable or capable of error. The only thing a Christian can do with them is pray for their soul - because they cannot listen, cannot learn, cannot consider anything, cannot read. They are STUCK in their heresy - only God can change them, and we need to pray that happens. BUT HERE"S THE PROBLEM: Heretics by nature don't shut up. They are like black holes that are determined to suck others in. Misery loves company. They wander from place to place, website to website, spouting their heresy. And sometimes, good people are sucked in. Consider that every horrible heretic in world history had their followers (just as blind as they), every cult has it's members (I've made quite a study of many cults). Heretics are DANGEROUS - not just to themselves. Some websites and churches just excommunicate/ban them, others permit them in the belief they will hang themselves and show their true colors (and that sometimes happens) - and they'll move on. BUT meanwhile, will others be harmed? Will faith be damaged? Will others be sucked in? Should we stand back and do nothing? As I read Scripture and history, MY response is no. Satan may have them, but we should work that not others are sucked in.

Agree?


A blessed Advent and Christmas to you and yours


- Josiah


.

 

[1689Dave]

@MoreCoffee
@Lamb
@Origen
@Albion

MoreCoffee,


On the one hand, you've studied church history, so you KNOW that Christians have always debated things. Christians have held that truth matters; historically the church has not embraced relativism. We see this with Jesus in the Gospels; He never shied away from a fight, from rather boldly correcting someone (sometimes with less than political correctness), and we see this in Acts and in the Epistles as the Apostles never hesitated to call out false teachings and practices (and like their Master, rarely embraced political correctness). We see this in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We see it with the Saints and in the rebukes of heresy (that never ceases to arise). It is WRONG to wink at heresy, it is a biblical command to stand up for the Truth.

On the other hand, I often think of Jesus' point about shaking the dust off your feet and casting pearls on swine. There are people with whom any discussion is IMPOSSIBLE. They can't read. They can't discuss. They don't consider themselves accountable or capable of error. The only thing a Christian can do with them is pray for their soul - because they cannot listen, cannot learn, cannot consider anything, cannot read. They are STUCK in their heresy - only God can change them, and we need to pray that happens. BUT HERE"S THE PROBLEM: Heretics by nature don't shut up. They are like black holes that are determined to suck others in. Misery loves company. They wander from place to place, website to website, spouting their heresy. And sometimes, good people are sucked in. Consider that every horrible heretic in world history had their followers (just as blind as they), every cult has it's members (I've made quite a study of many cults). Heretics are DANGEROUS - not just to themselves. Some websites and churches just excommunicate/ban them, others permit them in the belief they will hang themselves and show their true colors (and that sometimes happens) - and they'll move on. BUT meanwhile, will others be harmed? Will faith be damaged? Will others be sucked in? Should we stand back and do nothing? As I read Scripture and history, MY response is no. Satan may have them, but we should work that not others are sucked in.

Agree?


A blessed Advent and Christmas to you and yours?


- Josiah


.

The debate problem stems from the Institutional churches that separate from the Church along the lines of the false doctrines they hold.

Paul forbids it yet the debate swells. It's best just to avoid them.