Considering the recent Calvinist vs. Arminian party spirit on SermonIndex

I have been in Tokyo for the past three months, with limited access to the internet at times. When I left for Tokyo the talk of SI had almost entirely been devoted to debunking the ministry of Todd Bentley. Since I have been back I have recognized that the majority of the topics have been in favor of either Calvinism or Arminianism. I do not think that this is a healthy pre-occupation that promotes revival, instead I feel that this is a ploy by the enemy to divide us and keep us from seeking genuine revival.

I have recently been reading a book of Christmas Evans' sermons that [url=http://www.archive.org/details/MN40187ucmf_5]I found on archive.org[/url]

In a detailed description of Evans' life and attitude titled 'PORTRAITURE OF EVANS' there is a section which I think everyone on this forum needs to meditate on. I will post it here for your benefit.

CATHOLIC [universal] GENEROSITY.

That Christmas Evans was no bigot, might be inferred from the above anecdote [in the previous section it describes a preacher whom Evans' had a disagreement with over doctrine, but prayed for earnestly despite this when that preacher fell on hard times]. But we have other and ampler evidence of his Christian catholicity. He was a Baptist; and, with the rest of his brethren, a strenuous advocate for exclusive immersion. He was a Calvinist, and thought it very important to vindicate against Arminian views what are sometimes called "the doctrines of grace." [b]But he was also a Christian, and held all other Christians as brethren[/b]. He did not repudiate the sincerely pious, because they could not say his "Shibboleth." Kind, candid, and ingenuous, he judged of things according to their real value and importance, and appreciated true talent and virtue wherever he found them. His creed was not; "I am of Paul ;" nor, " I am of Apollos;" nor, "I am of John the Baptist;" but, "[b]We are all of Christ![/b]" He was not blinded by the senseless prejudice of sect. [b]He was influenced less by the peculiarities of his denomination than by the love of Christ[/b]. Many of his warmest friends were ministers of other orders; and of the Methodists and Congregationalists at Caernarvon, he made honorable mention in his diary. The most despicable reptile of the moral world is envy, the spirit that prompted revolt in heaven, and hurled archangels down to hell. Yet it is often found among Christians; among the ministers of a religion whose very principle is charity. Some men, like king Saul, can never bear a rival. If the thousands of Israel raise the voice and tune the lyre in honor of some victorious David, the evil spirit comes upon them, and they launch their javelins at the young anointed, and seek "to smite him even to the wall." From such feelings Mr. Evans was always free. His large heart was utterly incapable of anything of the kind. He esteemed others better than himself, and in honor preferred his brethren. Wherever he discovered talent and sanctified ambition in a young preacher, he never exerted an influence to hinder him, bat heartily bade him God speed. He did not deem it necessary to smite him on the head with a cudgel to keep him in his place. He was not afraid that others would outshine him in the pulpit. He would gladly have taken his place at the feet of any of Christ's ambassadors. He was willing to accord due praise to merit, not only in the dead, but also in the living; not only in those of other countries and other denominations, but also in those of his native principality and the Baptist church. His immediate contemporaries and neighbors were often the subjects of his highest encomiums. His heart was as large as the world!

Another great Christmas Evans reference from the same book:

Once, two ministers, of different sects, were disputing in his presence on what he deemed an unimportant matter of ecclesiastical discipline. One of them asked: "What say you, Mr. Evans ?" Mr. Evans replied: "I saw two boys quarreling over two snails. One of them insisted that his snail was the better, because it had horns; while the other as strenuously argued for the superiority of his, because it had none. The boys were very angry and vociferous, but the two snails were friends." The disputants burst into a hearty laugh, and the debate ended.

I am neither Calvinist nor Arminist. I do not like these type of threads either and would prefer them from being allowed to be started in the first place. After all, there are plenty of these threads. I've however participated in them because I believe the Calvinist doctrines on election are misleading and cause damage to those that are new or unsure of their salvation. Plus those misled by what the true Calvinist doctrine is. Plus, there are already plenty of existing threads on them, why the need to keep continue to start new threads and hence cause the divisiness. Whether one believes Calvinist or Arminiasm doctrine with regards to election does not cause one to lose one's salvation or election--but it can cause unnecessary fear and waste of time to others (example the new converts and those that feel they are not elected)

The problem is many Calvinists want to spread their doctrines, not just in this forum. The thread title may not be Calvinism, but the thread content is very much geared towards Calvinism. As a result, those that do not believe in Calvinism will then start new threads. (For example, the lastest 2 threads refutes Calvinism on certain points, but that's because just before it, there were recently at least 3 threads promoting Calvinism (directly or indirectly).

It would be great, if no new threads were started on either Calvinism or Arminiasm. I certainly do not intend to start one and will honour not starting a new thread if this rule was announced by the moderators. I can't guarantee not participating in current threads though unless all of us agree to stop participating in it. In fact, if I had my wish, all talks (in existing threads) on this topic be stopped cold-turkey and locked. Locking the thread is the best way to stop the topics as there's so many of us and I'm sure there will be some of us that will reply as surely as each of us do not behave exactly the same

:-P

Having studied both Calvinism and Armianianism, I have to say that they both make valid points in many places using the Word of God... but it is dangerous to try to limit the Word of God to either one of these viewpoints. This thread is not about who did what first or why, but why it is important at all.

Frankly speaking, this is one of the greatest and most successful campaigns by the enemy ever waged against the church of Christ. I have no doubt that the men and women who support these doctrines have the most sincere desire to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but in bickering and fighting the way that they have over the past several hundred years, we have been losing ground to the world and the devil.

One elderly Christian gentleman once shared with me a wonderful bit of wisdom when we were discussing doctrines, he asked me, 'are you a Christian.' and I said, 'Yes' he then stated, 'well we can both agree that we been bought by the blood of Christ, then why does it make a difference by what means we became came to this saving grace, either through a calvinistic view of salvation or an armianian. Some people come by horseback, some people come by boat, how we got here doesn't make a difference, just that we are here.'

I am very thankful for him and his words which have stayed with me to this day.

iansmith wrote:
Having studied both Calvinism and Armianianism, I have to say that they both make valid points in many places using the Word of God... but it is dangerous to try to limit the Word of God to either one of these viewpoints. This thread is not about who did what first or why, but why it is important at all.

Frankly speaking, this is one of the greatest and most successful campaigns by the enemy ever waged against the church of Christ. I have no doubt that the men and women who support these doctrines have the most sincere desire to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but in bickering and fighting the way that they have over the past several hundred years, we have been losing ground to the world and the devil.

One elderly Christian gentleman once shared with me a wonderful bit of wisdom when we were discussing doctrines, he asked me, 'are you a Christian.' and I said, 'Yes' he then stated, 'well we can both agree that we been bought by the blood of Christ, then why does it make a difference by what means we became came to this saving grace, either through a calvinistic view of salvation or an armianian. Some people come by horseback, some people come by boat, how we got here doesn't make a difference, just that we are here.'

I am very thankful for him and his words which have stayed with me to this day.

Amen and that's why it would be great if these type of topics were locked and prevented to be started. But I guess, its just wishful thinking on my part :-(

Oh well, one can dream :-P

You can't keep people from discussing doctrine, you can't hope to change the debate that has been going on for centuries. However hopefully the people on this forum can change -if we desire revival, which is what this place is supposed to be for, we are going to have to learn to put our petty doctrinal disputes aside.

If you look at almost every genuine move of the spirit in the church, the divisions between denominations were one of the first things to go, the boundaries got greyed and the children of God were able to worship and glorify God together in spite of their doctrinal backgrounds and beliefs.

Sigh! Just noticed another new thread has been started to continue on with this divisiness :-( :-(

And again another thread started. :-( :-( :-(

learn wrote:
Sigh! Just noticed another new thread has been started to continue on with this divisiness :-( :-(

Is that why it was started?

I am just posting articles and quotes like I have for years on this site.

Give it a break.

It's not about that thread or you

tjservant wrote:

learn wrote:
Sigh! Just noticed another new thread has been started to continue on with this divisiness :-( :-(

Is that why it was started?

I am just posting articles and quotes like I have for years on this site.

Give it a break.

It's not about that thread or you

This has nothing to do about me. You misunderstood.

A thread about 'myth of free will' right after a previous thread of 'free will' does cause divisiness whether you are following your normal routine or not.

Peace

A thread about 'myth of free will' right after a previous thread of 'free will' does cause divisiness whether you are following your normal routine or not.

Any and all threads CAN cause it. Your post seemed to imply that it was my intent.

ccchhhrrriiisss had posted some questions on that other thread. I believe some of the answers can be found in the article I posted. It was posted with the intent to clarify. He or you or anyone else on the planet may not agree with it, but that is why it was posted.

I have been on this forum for a couple years and have a long history with many people here. Please give it some more time before you think you have me all figured out.

Tjservant, I'm not trying to figure you out as you seem to think. I was just looking at the thread and noticed the divisiveness that it would cause with so many recent threads being started on those subjects (didn't matter if it was you or somebody else, whether it was routine or not--so please stop thinking that whatever I happen to post is about you or me. It never even occured to me) Sorry that you think that you are being after. Maybe you should give me a break and stop assuming that I am after you, ok. :)

iansmith wrote:
Having studied both Calvinism and Armianianism, I have to say that they both make valid points in many places using the Word of God... but it is dangerous to try to limit the Word of God to either one of these viewpoints.

While I agree with your views on the Calvinism/Arminian debate, I don't know that I agree with your conclusions. I would hold that the real problem is that we have failed at learning to disagree constructively. This is subject matter that people are passionate about, and therefore it is hard to avoid having emotion creeping into our posts, especially when you have people treating that which you are so passionate about as erroneous, at worst, and irrelevent at best. I personally see this debate as two groups staring at the same thing from different angles. Does that mean that each side should be forgiven from speaking of what they have seen?

The church that I left has recently had a major split over the Calvinism/Arminian debate. The issue primarily being that was a sence in which it was okay to be Calvinist, as long as you don't speak up. It was particularly impacting, because the main people who left were the pastor's eldest sons.

One thing one of these sons told me recently, was that most "Arminians" are so by default. The objection is more one of mere logic, than Scriptural integrity, and I would have to agree, from my own observation. For example, on Saturday, I attended a home fellowship where the issue of denominationalism came up (btw, I practice "unstructured Christianity", while being loosely affiliated with a local Baptist fellowship). We were commenting on what churches were in our area, and one man said "But isn't it all meant to be one Church?" I replied, "Different churches gravitate around what they would highlight in Scripture."

Now in order to understand this conversation further, this fellowship consisted of those who attend Charismatic congregations (btw, I am charismatic, in practice and belief, but do not subcribe to much of the doctrines that those who purport to be Charismatic teach). We have two "Baptist" churches in my town. One is really a Charismatic church with a Baptist label (common in Australia), and the one I attend is the more traditional "Southern Baptist" style churches (pastor is a part of Baptist Mid Missions). I mentioned that my church is Calvinistic, cessationist, and tends to prefer the KJV, much to the horror of those I was talking to. The forementioned fellow said, "What's 'Calvinistic' mean?" to which another (who attends the "other" Baptist church) said, "It has something to do with when the rapture happens." (see what i have to deal with here :roll:).

I corrected by saying, "Well actually, it has more to do with who decides who's saved, or not. Essentially, Arminians say, 'We choose God', while Calvinists say, 'God chooses us'." He said, "Yeah I agree with that. What's so bad about that?" And so, I "pulled out the TULIP";-). He was fine, right up until Limited Atonement, to which he started shaking his head, as if by reflex action. Now, I have to admit that the "L" in TULIP is the point where I pull away from Calvinism, but at least I can face it without fear. This brother flatly refused to consider it, without any citation of Scripture to justify his stance. He couldn't tell you why he didn't believe it, he just "knew" it was wrong.

Another time the topic of the "church split" came up, this time with a disgruntled "former memeber" of the church, when I explained TULIP, in response to "What's Calvinism?" (bear in mind, that was the issue of teh split), she replied to the "L" with, "Oh well, we better pray from them." I replied, "Perhaps they need to pray for you."

I can see how a Calvinist is so passionate about any arguement against "TULIP". I get equally passionate whenever a JW argues that Jesus isn't God, and I have less concise Scripture to validate my stance on the Trinity, than the Calvinist has to back up his view.

Again I state in no uncertain terms, that I am not a Calvinist. Only that I can respect the Calvinist's claim, as one that is extremely well researched in Scripture. My only arguement against it is that every verse they bring to say "See, it says 'many', 'elect', ect" can be read to support either view. My view is that this is bigger than a simple definition, but having said that, often it is though exploring the extremes than we can find the median...or should I say "balance".

Just some thoughts to no one in particular--Quite a number of Calvinists would like to think that those who do not agree with their doctrine is because we are by default Arminiasm and are not basing on Scriptural integrity. This is far from true and it would be nice if they stop giving us labels like that. Also, as if we ourselves are incapable of knowing what our labels are but have to be told by Calvinists that our labels are Armininists although we are not. Geeshh.

Passion can be good or bad, its whether its misplaced or not and the effects that it will cause

Have not yet read through this but there has been an abuse of the guidelines here by one poster in particular. Most of the posting have been taken down. This is an abuse that will not be tolerated regardless of the content, it is disrespectful to the community and a great presumption upon the privileges afforded to all.

"-"Spam" (advertising) Illegal/inappropriate content and [b]flooding[/b] will be deleted."

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=14144&forum=13&post_id=&refresh=Go]MUST READ: SermonIndex Forum Disclaimer / Community Rules[/url]

Lest this be misunderstood. There has been and always will be room for discussion of these matters because they do matter.

I think Aaron (as well as others) spoke to the situation rightly - Wholesale banning is not helpful but neither is flooding the forum either, that goes for any topic quantitatively. A couple of posts on the same subject matter is not uncommon but when the subject matter is similar replies ought to be posted under the same headings so that they the postings become "threaded" and are more cohesive and less obtrusive to the variety that is presented on this forum.

Getting our facts straight is of utmost importance. It is unfair to present someone else's view inaccurately and if we are not absolutely assured of it are far better off to ask questions than to present statements as if they are fact.

Personal insinuations and suspicions - [i]Play the ball, not the man[/i] - Give place to each other ...

Remember where you are, you are not on another forum but this one. We do things a bit differently around here.

To this topic at hand, yes it does matter but perhaps what it amounts to is to what [i]level[/i]. At what point does it supersede all other matters of faith that either our emotions or dispositions will hold down to further a point and smite our brother? We have to figure out where that is and stop in our tracks, humble ourselves and consider lest we devour one another.

To this topic at hand, yes it does matter but perhaps what it amounts to is to what level.

this is an important topic to discuss and it can be done with a gentle and meek spirit with one another, but when there are 4 different threads discussing the same topic, it doesn't seem like a gentle discussion but a "i'm right and you need to listen to me" debate.

i also do not hold to the calvinistic doctrines, but when i seen multiple free will and non-calvinistic threads, i thought to myself "didn't we use to warn brother abe about doing this very same thing". and now we are guilty of the same matter.

i guess my question is "at what point do we need to be right that we willing to lose sweet fellowship with the saints on the "other side" of the issue"? Why can we not risk being looked at as wrong sometimes for the sake of keeping the focus on the Lord Himself and not just on doctrines such as these that will continue to be debated until He comes?

These are the questions I have to keep checking my heart with..

ps. i am not saying that this topic should never be discussed, it will and that's fine, but maybe the question is how much and how many threads.

just some thoughts...

phil

Every now and then multiple threads will spring up to rouse again the soldiers of this ancient debate; shots will be fired, flags waved, emotions inflared, a reluctant cease-fire encouraged by a neutral party, and both sides will go back into rest...until stirred up once again. And then the campaign repeats itself, ad nauseum.

Brethren, I would like to see some of us not show up for muster (or roll call), next time the bugel sounds. Unlike the military campaigns of enlisted men, the soldier who intentionally misses [i]this[/i] formation is called the strongest and most faithful to the cause of Christ. He has fought these wars long enough and has learnt a thing or two from all his rewardless scars. There must come a time where we lay our swords down in the Cal-Arm gangland war, where we resign indefinately to rest in the sanctuary of our Commanding General and to henceforth never again fire a musket shot at an Arminian or vice-versa. There are plenty of battle-thirsty soldiers who would fight on without you - for the very cause you espouse - and if you would but sit back for a battle and observe from the sidelines, God may speak to you.

In fact, God may show you the futility of it all. He may show you that despite all the scriptures and proof-texting you provide as cannon fodder beneath your colors, it is not the winning of the war for a specific side that God is concerned with, but rather with winning individual soldiers over to [i]His[/i] side. He does this the same way He won you - by opening the eyes - one soldier at a time, and no amount of cannon balls and boyonetting and sniper shots from a distance can accomplish this feat. The soldier can only understand this when he at last lays down his own rifle and rests. My dear brothers and sisters, by doing a noble thing according to your own understanding and zeal to uphold truth, you may actually be hindering your own growth and wisdom in the things of God.

Beloved, the next time you hear revelry sounding over the loudspeaker, disregard the call. Try it, and see how your God rewards a faithful and wise infantryman. He who has ears to hear, let him (or her) hear.

Brother Paul