sermonindex
Feb 23, 2016
I thought the Sermonindexnex guidelinrs asjed we not engage in the Calvinist Arminian controversies. Have thise guidekines veen changed?
Bear.
I thought the Sermonindexnex guidelinrs asjed we not engage in the Calvinist Arminian controversies. Have thise guidekines veen changed?
Bear.
Sorry the thread duplicated on me. But given the threads that are now engaging in arguments on the sovereignty of God and Calvinism. Have the guidelines been changed. Are these topics are now allowed on the forum.
Just wondering
Bearmaster
Why are these topics even being discussed and debated. Better men then us here on the forum have debated these issues. And the consensus has always been the same. Disagreement.
So I ask again have the guidelines been a changed.
Again just wondering.
Bear
I noticed that when discussions of the sovereignty of God come out. Those threads go on and on. But winter on reaching the lost. That thread is quickly archive.
Are we still under a command to preach the gospel? Does anybody believe in this forum that we are to reach the lost?
Bearmaster
Brother Blaine,
Please forgive me if this is in response to my question on the "is it right" thread...
I have limited access to those whom hold to a "Calvinist" doctrine and even those are "neo" or 3 pointers at best.
I have a sincere desire to learn and come to a better understanding of my brothers positions, and while I readily admit I do not hold to the same doctrine it could be that it's a misunderstanding/mischaracterization on my part and I have questions that I don't know where else to pose them other than to the well seasoned saints whom confess this doctrine here on SI as it remains a mystery to me.
There is no desire in me to debate but I am looking for an honest dialogue to help me come to an understanding that affords true fellowship/unity in the faith.
So again I apologize and ask your forgiveness if my asking has caused distress or a polarization as that is not my intent-
The sovereignty of God is not a Calvinist doctrine. Neither is the responsibility of man an Arminian doctrine. Discussion of God's sovereignty does overlap with the Calvinist-Arminian debate, but that's an auxiliary issue - the latter is discouraged on this forum, but the former is allowed.
I believe how we understand God's sovereignty and our responsibility is important - right beliefs lead to right living, and vice versa. These are not mere theoretical topics, but has a real experiential impact on our lives.
I started a thread recently for testimonies on how our understanding on these matters has shaped our walk with God: http://bit.ly/1RY6fk3
Thanks for giving some clarity yuehan, and I hope that helps some who may not realize that.
I sincerely hope the guidelines have not changed because ALL posts that stray into supporting Calvinism and specifically election end up in endless arguments. For those who understand that man has a free will and chooses to sin against God and that God does not randomly select individuals for eternal torture, they will never be persuaded otherwise. So posts that attempt to teach Calvinism/Election should be avoided completely and deleted from SI and those who continue to stir up these issues should be asked to stop doing so.
It is not only a (former?) SI policy that we avoid such endless, fruitless arguments but a scriptural command.
For those who wish to understand the five planks of Calvinism, there is no need to ask in these forums...google is your friend and he will teach you more then you EVER wanted to know.
My personal conviction is that SI as a website should be clear in its convictions so as to not confuse young believers. Calvinist preachers who vehemently support Calvinistic election have an influencing affect on new believers and this can cause serious confusion in their hearts. I have experienced this first hand many times and do not believe it is a matter to be treated lightly.
Relax, awakened.
I don't think the situation is as serious as you and bearmaster seem to suggest. Certainly, the policy guidelines have not changed AFAIK.
If we are to ban all discussions on election and God's sovereignty, then discussions on human's responsibility towards God would have to be banned as well in the interest of fairness.
And to reiterate what I said earlier, discussion of God's sovereignty is not a Calvinist-Arminian topic - it is a biblical one.
I'm perfectly relaxed but I don't think there is anything fair about the way the doctrine of election has been used as a truncheon to compel a gullible populous into submission over the centuries. So its not an apples vs apples argument here at all when compared to free will...even a casual reading of history will support this. John Calvin and his followers had an erroneous position on Election that was/is hideous to say the least. The murderous mayhem and strife that came from that era is still at work today, because that same spirit is still at work today. It has no place in these forums imho.
If we wish to discuss the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Then let us do so respectfully without getting into theological positions. I think that's why the guidelines were established to prevent us from turning out into an all theological debate. And as Awakened said confusing younger believers.
So brothers do we agree that the lost need to be reached???
Bear
As a side-note:
It is popular among Christians to distinguish between essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines.
This might be "useful" in some contexts. However, the Bible never makes such a division. On the contrary, Jesus says that the Spirit of Truth will lead His people into *all* truth (John 16:13).
As of yet, we don't have unity on some doctrinal issues e.g. Calvinist-Arminian debate. I must say that while past discussions on the topic can be heated, I've found some of them to be helpful. Let us bear in mind that it is not necessary for a consensus to be reached for a discussion to be useful. It is also unfair to dismiss all past discussions to be 'fruitless', when some were thoughtfully crafted.
Going back to my earlier point, the discussion about God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is not a "non-essential" topic. It is interwoven with how you understand your identity in Christ and live it out, and also the extent to which you trust God. All biblical truth is inextricably interwoven, and cannot be chopped into "essential" and "non-essential" doctrines. Poor doctrine, even in so-called "non-essential" matters, always leads to poor living.
Yes, having wrong ideas about God's sovereignty would not affect your salvation. But it would affect your faith journey, including how you manifest the life of Jesus in your daily walk.
I speak from personal experience - having begun as a hot-head Arminian, I had to learn the sovereignty of God through very difficult circumstance (note: I'm not a Calvinist). The goodness and grace He has shown to me is beyond anything I could have conceived - I feel like Joseph!
Saints,
Brethren are speaking of what is written in the guidelines here:
8. DIVISIONS AND QUARRELLING - Having a healthy discussion on a topic, doctrine or important issue is allowed on SermonIndex. But if the subject discussion becomes heated and there is quarrelling it would be better to agree with your brother publicly in what you can and and hold to what you believe against him privately. This calls for great maturity and wisdom in speaking in humility. It is better to agree with a brother that you are Christians and not divide over non-essentials. Let us go forward with meekness towards each other and having in mind the larger picture of the entire body of Christ. "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10). We have found that discussions pertaining to politics, conspiracy theories, calvinism/arminianism and others just produce strife and not the fruits of the Spirit so we ask saints not to start these discussion threads on SermonIndex.
We are not against calvinist brethren but ask that extremes in doctrines not be debated and that we would all encourage one another to James 1:22 OBEY the Word of God and be Disciples.
There are extremes on both sides of these doctrines and extreme men who took things too far. There is also alot of bad fruit of arguing over these things so that is why we do not encourage it at all on SermonIndex in the discussion forums.
As one brother pointed out it is not wrong nor unfruitful to speak of elements of God's Sovereignty and we 100% agree with this.
Thanks Greg for the clarification.
Bearmaster,
So brothers do we agree that the lost need to be reached???
It concerns me that many people don't get practical help in church community. The fact is that there are many with depression, guilt, addiction, etc. who cannot find the help they need in many churches. Until we learn to feed on the Bread of Life ourselves, we are not in a position to minister to these people.
I also know of people who drop out of church because they did not feel that God was real to them, nor did they see God being real in the lives of others. Authentic relationships are not always easy to develop in church community either.
My point is that saving the lost is not just about preaching the word verbally (and hoping they make a decision to trust Jesus) - it is very much tied to our putting on the new man. That, in turn, is tied to our understanding of God's sovereignty and the finished work on the cross (also check out John 13:35).
Brother Yuehan wrote:
"The lost does need to be reached. I think the best way to do that is to ask God to teach us how to put on the new man."
Amen to that!!!
And I share your concerns about people offering something (the gospel) they themselves don't have/aren't walking worthy of...
"Above all I want to make clear that I admire and respect my Calvinist friends and colleagues. We disagree strongly about some points of theology, but I hold them in high esteem for their commitment to the authority of God’s Word and their obvious love for Jesus Christ and his church as well as for evangelism.
However, I do not admire or respect John Calvin. I have been told that he should not be held responsible for the burning of the heretic Servetus because, after all, he warned the Spanish doctor and theologian not to come to Geneva and he urged the city council to behead him rather than burn him. And, after all, Calvin was a child of his times and everyone was doing the same. Nevertheless, I still struggle with placing a man complicit in murder on a pedestal.
Furthermore, I find Calvin’s doctrine of God repulsive. It elevates God’s sovereignty over his love, leaving God’s reputation in question. What I mean is that Calvin’s all-determining, predestining deity is at best morally ambiguous and at worst morally repugnant.
Much to the chagrin of some contemporary Calvinists, Calvin clearly taught that God foreordained the fall and rendered it certain. (Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXIII.8) He also affirmed double predestination (III:XXI.5) and displayed callous disregard for the reprobate who he admitted God compelled to obedience (disobedience). (I:XVIII.2) Calvin distinguished between two modes of God’s will-what later Calvinists have called God’s decretive and preceptive wills. (III:XXIV.17) God decrees that the sinner shall sin while at the same time commanding him not to sin and condemning him for doing what he was determined by God to do. To Calvin this all lies in the secret purposes of God into which we should not peer too deeply, but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone who regards God as above all love.
John Wesley commented on the Calvinists’ claim that God loves even the reprobate in some way. As one contemporary Calvinist put it, "God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways.” Wesley said that this is a love such as makes the blood run cold.
Calvin’s successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, commented that those who find themselves suffering in the flames of hell for eternity can at least take comfort in the fact that they are there for the greater glory of God. To paraphrase Wesley, that is a glory such as sends chills down the spine. God foreordains some of his own creatures, created in his own image, to eternal hell for his own glory? Calvin may not have put it quite that bluntly, but many Calvinists have and it is a necessary extrapolation of the inner logic of consistent Calvinism. (Institutes III:XXII.11)
I have been heavily criticized by some of my Calvinist friends for saying that my biggest problem with Calvinism (by which I mean consistent divine determinism) is that it makes it difficult for me to tell the difference between God and the devil. (I am not saying Calvinists worship the devil!)
For me nothing about the Christian worldview is more important than regarding God and the devil as absolute competitors in this universe and its tragic history. God is good and desires the good of every creature. As church father Irenaeus said "The glory of God is man fully alive.” The devil is bad and desires harm for every creature. To view the devil as God’s instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative."
Roger E. Olson
Professor of Theology
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University
bear wrote:
"If we wish to discuss the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Then let us do so respectfully without getting into theological positions."
That would be nice Bear but also impossible.
It would be like trying to discuss American politics without discussing the ideals of the democratic and republican parties.
Brothers if we were in a death camp somewhere in the not too distant future. Would we be having this conversation?
Bear
And all the respect to those who hold to the sovereignty of God in election as regard salvation. I find that many of the leaders of this movement are not aware other reality of persecution coming up on the church in America.
Perhaps Paul Washer is one of the few who sees the reality of persecution coming up on the American church. But other leaders that I will not mention their names do not see the reality of persecution. Or they refused to acknowledge that reality.
It is far easier to debate theology. Then to embrace the demands of the cross.
Simply my thoughts.
Bearmaster
Another question that comes to mind. What relevance does the sovereignty of God in salvation have to revival. Again far easier to debate the sovereignty of God. Then to call out for a moving of God's Spirit across the nation.
But then maybe those in the sovereignty of God movement. Do not believe that God predestined revival.
Simly my thoughts.
Bearmaster
This discussion is locked.