Oh why can't we all just get along?

What are the ground rules for positive argument. The Scripture require that any such argumentation is to be done with:a) Gentlenessand b) RespectNow why is it you suppose that some Christians operate at full steam and are just plain hateful to one another?Would it not be nicer that a specific code, be adhered to so as to eliminate big heads banging into each other...oh yes it happens, everywhere.But what does one do when you enter a thread, and are having a nice old chat and in roars a *hothead and starts crumbling down the good fellowship with domineering arguments and hard views, and no matter how polite one is they just will not relent until eventually no one is talking anymore.Now that was really hard, for me to say, I normally bottle that stuff for the refuse heap.In Jesus:-P+++ *self proclaimed prophet

Hi Greg,In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise. We are here admonished concerning the government of the tongue, that necessary duty of a Christian. 1. It is good to say little, because in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin, or sin doth not cease. Usually, those that speak much speak much amiss, and among many words there cannot but be many idle words, which they must shortly give an account of. Those that love to hear themselves talk do not consider what work they are making for repentance; for that will be wanted, and first or last will be had, where there wanteth not sin. 2. It is therefore good to keep our mouth as with a bridle: He that refrains his lips, that often checks himself, suppresses what he has thought, and holds in that which would transpire, is a wise man; it is an evidence of his wisdom, and he therein consults his own peace. Little said is soon amended. [Amos 5:13; James 1:19.]I like Matthew Henry's take on this don't you?Humbleness and Gentleness are certainly foundational to a constructive argument.In Jesus:-P +++

What would you do in this situation? (This event actually took place.)I accepted Christ 5 years ago, this month, in a small Baptist Church. I immediately started studying my Bible & could not get my fill. In September of that year our church rotated teaching postitions, and I felt led to volunteer to teach a Sunday School class.I was assigned the senior adult class, and had been leading the class for several months when our study brought us to the subject of cults. We were discussing the beliefs of the individual cults when a long time member of the church, (and my employer at the time), blurted out, "I don't care what name a person calls god by or if they swing from one of those trees out that window to worship. As long as you believe in God you're going to heaven." Our class was an open forum class, and I was the only one to take exception to his comment. The 2 deacons in attendance didn't even hold this man to task for bringing heresy into the church. Now, let me ask you, how should this type of situation be dealt with?

So where is the grace in that? Apparently this grace you all trump up isn't so limitless afterall. Error should be corrected, but to kick someone out of a church? How can God allow that? That is in the Epistles, Paul wrote about it. I think it is silly. That is one of the MANY discrepancies...

It reminds me of the mafia.. Only for "god's glory"Humiliate someone over some scripture?Hmmm....

Apparently this grace you all trump up isn't so limitless afterall. Whoever told you that grace was limitless? My Bible says that God only gives grace to the humble. He resists the proud. If you've got resistance, can you call that grace???Error should be corrected, but to kick someone out of a church? How can God allow that? That is in the Epistles, Paul wrote about it. I think it is silly.I guess...If you don't believe the Bible...AND you put your own wisdom as supreme. Do your REALLY think that you possess flawless reasoning? I guess that is why you don't think you need God's word.RT

how shall they believe in him who they have not heard. the lost can not believe in him until they hear the good news of salvation.according to the word of god the lost cannot be saved without a witness.we cannot come to the father but thru Jesus. "I never know you"Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.22 and 23 also fit well

YeshuaIsMyGd is right. It can be found in Matthew 18:15-17. And Jesus said this, not Paul.

Dear DDP,To toss someone out of church does seem harsh, however, the reason this should be done is so that the person being tossed would repent. In 1 Corinthians Paul wrote to the Corinthian church to toss a man out that was unrepentant of incess with his mother in-law. In 2 Corinthians the church was told, after the man repented, to bring back the man.God's grace, giving someone something that they are undeserving of, is for the repentant person. His judgement is for the unrepentant person.In Christ,GaryE

Generally speaking, since I wasn't there and the fullest of details I don't really know, this is how I would have responded. I would have opened the comment up to the class, you stay in the 3rd person(i hope you understand what I mean here). If no one would have spoken up I would have asked a seris of questions. Normally reasoning like this is circular reasoning and can be easily dealt with all the while you remain in the 3rd person. You would have needed to know word definitions like faith--disciple--believe--ect.... and supporting scriptures for each word inorder to get the class involved in looking up scripture references and reading them out loud. That in it self would have defused the situation. The great teachers know how to ask questions and draw peoples attentions to abstact object lessons. Jesus asked the crowd, "what did you go out to see", his reference to John the baptiser.Since this brother was in a position of authority the more you used the people in the class and gave word difinitions, the more the HOLY SPIRIT of TRUTH would have helped and without injury to his ego and possible job loss on your part all things would have been done decent and inorder.2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they gender contentions. 2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not contend; but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient, 2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth: 2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. I don't know if this'll help in the future,but that's how I've handled simular situations. Bro. Daryl

YeshuaIsMyGd is right. It can be found in Matthew 18:15-17. And Jesus said this, not Paul.I think he may have had Paul in mind too“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” Titus 3:9-11

Hey RonB,I think we might have strayed a little here, the original thread was about 'arguing' Not about excommunicating, or casting heretics out. What is the civil way in which good argumentation is possible without turning it into a fight. I think this is a bad example, but the only one I got: wrestling with angels is not the same as 'dissing' them. [I could not think of the right reference...in Jude...the body of Moses.]There were many incidents where those who are heretical were dealt with being given over to satan etc. This is on the other extreme.What I am looking at is; 'when one has a very strong point of view and collides with another equally strong point of view', for example:Martin Luther and everyone else...lol.Seriously, even if one looks at the way Martin Luther dealt with some serious objections...one can learn some valuable lessons.I watched the movie and have read some of Otis Fuller's references to Martin Luther's speak. It was amazing at how he humbled himself, and even was prepared to admit that his own ideas and thoughts were like Paul had said, dung. [he used a slightly different phrase.]There is a need for humility in argument, which allows strongly oppossing views to be expressed and still a love and a respect to be maintained.This I believe is where I was heading with this.Well, no harm, we are learning tremendous amounts about why some of us were given marching orders in traditional barns, when we questioned doctrinal issues and found that no-one was prepared to give a proper defence, but instead shouted heretic...woops...I did spill the tea....In Jesus.:-P+++ Os Guiness, Apology for Apologetics in 1980 really got me thinking:if we resort to strong arm tactics, we will win the fight but lose the war...this is a definite listen for any who are serious about leading men and women to Christ. As Os says, and I quote losely, our real problem is we are not answering the questions, that are being raised. Simple things like 'Why does God allow suffering?' 'Why is there evil in the world if there is a loving God?' need to be addressed not just thumped away with pat answers. We need to know how to communicate in a way that reaches people...I give to much away, download the mp3's and have fun, he has a softer voice than Wilder Smith, who I think was truely one of the sweetest believers I have every listened to.Actually there were two others; we have heard the thumbers and bible beaters, who hurl verses around like Hercules hurled stones, only to find that the hall eventually was empty....sad. I heard a testimony that was given with such gentleness, that I think my mouth hung open and an entire train could have driven in unnoticed.The link to Os Guiness - Apology for Apologetics - they called in 'Nature of Apologetics' in four parts, enjoy!

This is a copy of a posting I made on another site.In all but the basics, all biblical theology is a 'best fit' hypothesis. This may disturb the idealists (I am a fully paid up member of Idealists Anonimous) among us but it is the case. As you say Wesley and Whitfield were miles apart in some of their understanding of scripture. So how do we react to that? We can say 'well, pay your money and take your choice' but something in us says 'it must be possible to get to the truth'.Biblical theology has a built in danger in that we extract passages from various places and assemble them to prove our point. It ought to be noted that this is not the way the Bible was written; rather 'truth' is scattered through the whole and we are forced to consider each 'truth' in a context of other 'truth'. To extract 'a truth' and to isolate it from 'other truths' is the route to most of the heresies which have plagued us down the centuries.Sometimes a much respected brother will have a hypothesis to which he is passionately committed; the 'Restoration of Israel' is one which comes to mind. If another brother is unable to 'affirm' the hypothesis tensions inevitably arise and two camps are established with 'saints' taking up the banner of one or the other. This is very destructive of real 'fellowship' in the scriptures. It is interesting that although Wesley and Whitefield held diametrically opposed views on some topics their personal relationships were usually very good. Sometimes the holder of a hypothesis immediately goes into 'attack' mode thinking that you have your own hypothesis that you are setting up against his, but at times you're not. You are simply saying 'I am listening to you but I am not persuaded and I have some questions. I am putting it on hold'.I think this is where the nature of what is happening actually surfaces. Some people want to control what others believe and cannot rest until they have 'won'. Theology consequently becomes a 'battle' with winners and losers rather than a forum in which people can learn from each other. In practical terms there are some whose published views on other matters make it much more difficult to 'go with them' on a current issue. There are some who have earned your trust so that you are willing to give them 'the benefit of the doubt' in the short term. There are some whose reasoning patterns have showed themselves so unreliable that your instinct is to 'go to red alert and maximum shields'.The real conflict is often to be found not in the originators of the view but in their supporters. This was so with Wesley and Whitefield where their supporters made much more extreme statements than would have been made by either Wesley or Whitefield. I often think of the statement of Paul to the Corinthians “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”(1Cor. 4:6, KJVS) where they are puffed up not against one another, but 'for one against another'. In other words the trouble was being caused between the supporters' clubs and not the main players. Wesley clearly spotted this and advised Beware of a dividing spirit; shun whatever has the least aspect that way. Therefore say not "I am of Paul, or of Apollos:" the very thing which occasioned the schism at Corinth. Say not "This is my preacher, the best preacher in the land; give me him and take all the rest..." Do not run down any preacher. Do not exalt any one above the rest, lest you hurt both him and the cause of God. On the other hand, do not bear hard upon any by reason of some incoherence, or inaccuracy of expression; no nor for some mistakes, were there really such...We are to bear with those we cannot amend, and to be content with offering them to God. This is true resignation. And since he has borne our infirmities we may well bear those of each other for his sake. "a plain account of Christian perfection"We are required, not to change someone's opinion by the power of eloquence or knowledge, but to give an account of the faith that is in us. In this spirit I do not seek to convince holders of the 'Restoration of Israel' hypothesis that I am right, but I do challenge their assumptions and am ready to say why I believe what I believe.It does not take a professional theologian (which I am not) to do this, just someone who is prepared to think a little.

RonB, to retain objectivity, you must try to refrain from making a thread all about yourself. Your view of whatever it is you are trying to make a point of is not what this thread is about, it is about examining a workable system that allows people to argue effectively.Let me quote a little of Martin Luther's attitude to his accussers: [these were hotheads and extremely ready to do him harm, should he directly oppose them]'However, because I am a man and not God, I am not able to shield my books with any other protection than that which my Lord Jesus Christ Himself offered for His teaching. When questioned before Annas about His teaching and struck by a servant, He said: 'If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong.' (John 18:19-23) If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to hear testimony against His teaching, even from the lowliest servant, how much more ought I, who am the lowest scum and able to do nothing except err, desire and expect that somebody should want to offer testimony against my teaching ! Therefore, I ask by the mercy of God, may your most serene majesty, most illustrious lordships, or anyone at all who is able, either high or low, bear witness, expose my errors, overthrowing them by the writings of the prophets or the evangelists. Once I have been taught I shall be quite ready to renounce every error, and I shall be the first to cast my books in the fire.' from A Treasury of Evangelical Writings by David Otis Fuller.There is nothing I can add to this. In Jesus,.A.:-P+++

Bob, to retain objectivity, you must try to refrain from making a thread all about yourself.Is this addressed to me?

What is the civil way in which good argumentation is possible without turning it into a fight. ... a workable system that allows people to argue effectively.Hi aeryck,I think in asking for a workable system that allows people to argue effectively without dealing with the heart issue, we may be putting ourselves into a hole in the sense that we cannot legislate goodness or humility. One thing about truth that stands out is that it has one, among many, distinct personality. A man who has been transformed by the truth loves albeit he may sometimes be misunderstood. He is not quick to put others in line knowing the goodness, patience and mercy of his Master. Neither is he in the business of defending himself. Rather, he is zealous in defending the Truth.A consciousness that this forum is not about who is right or wrong among us is of utmost importance. In every exchange, which may be heated at times, it is our lining up to the revealed truth in scriptures that must take precedence. It shows often in our posts whether we have not only laid hold of the truth but also whether the truth has laid hold of us as well. In the heart of such person grace and mercy unmistakably abound. :-)

We are required, not to change someone's opinion by the power of eloquence or knowledge, but to give an account of the faith that is in us. In this spirit I do not seek to convince holders of the 'Restoration of Israel' hypothesis that I am right, but I do challenge their assumptions and am ready to say why I believe what I believe.Well said.