SI Guideline #8

You’re right Bear. I’ll stop striving.

"One mark of growth in grace is increased humility. The man whose soul is growing feels his own sinfulness and unworthiness more every year." -J. C. Ryle

Is this the way it is, anytime someone actually believes something in the face of many opposers and addresses the numerous opposers that they are now quarrelsome?

I have not been quarrelsome, I have not strove, I have defended my position with right responses, reasonable remarks, scripture and grace.

My Spirit has been right all through this debate and it is right now.

I retract nothing.

Methinks the way to end any actual confrontations of truth is to claim 'quarrelsomeness' which instead of doing diligence to the subject at hand, passively claim we're all mad.

I’ve been more contentious than you Marvin.

The admonition stems from prior discussions on this forum on this topic that have not ended well.

Something I have learned, and am still learning:

Does Jesus WANT me to win the discussion? Is that His goal? Does He smile in heaven, when I present well-explained arguments, complete with an unabridged defense of my position, countering every argument? Is he glad when a weaker believer comes in , 6 hours, 6 days, 6 months, 6 years, 6 decades later, reads it and then is worse for wear? Is He pleased when I have offended every brother I have? Does Jesus revel in discussions that end in something that causes us to show less love to one another--the sole thing that He said the world would recognize us by?

Seems dramatic, but it happens most times when I argue.

There are hills that are worth dying on. Is this one of them?

You always teach young believers that the battle for truth is always present even between brothers, that pretending all is relative all is really ok no matter what you believe is patently false.

You teach young believers that its important to learn what the scripture says and do not deviate from it until you are shown you are in error, then in that case, you are gaining a more accurate understanding of scripture.

Subjects like this are not nearly as offensive as some claim, in fact I've not seen any actually say " I cant stay in the faith because two brothers cant see eye to eye on a scripture interpretation." They leave like Jesus said, persecution arises for the word, care of this world, or Satan snatches away what little they had.

Strong young believers are more likely to become sidetracked into some error or group or ideology they consider false and stay on the attack forever.

If you are 6 months old in Jesus and haven't learned by then falsehood and truth are constantly at war, it's good they are introduced to it in a discussion board where brothers attempt to deal with it. If you are 6 years old, there is some birth defect in that Christian that has stunted him.

Do not give young believers an excuse to bail on Jesus because the Church is not perfect, we don't always believe the same and we don't always arrive at the truth the same way at the same time.

Every hill of truth is worth dying on. Until my brothers realize that, error and heresy will kill its 10,000...while we foolishly bypass that and concern ourselves with 'what might happen'.

Yes Jesus wants me to speak the truth, live the truth and preach the truth.

If you think passivity is the answer, you are sadly mistaken and will do far more damage to the body of Christ than will some disagreement among brothers.

If open theism is ok, then fine, but don't call this place Christian for it surely is not. If you want to preach annihiliationism, fine, but don't call yourself an orthodox believer, if you want to dismiss God as if he has no say in the salvation of his own creation according to his own wisdom fine, but don't say you believe in a Sovereign God.

Everything rolls around to the basics of a believers theology.
Maybe some of you do not understand this, but everything boils down to the root belief of your theology.
Every discussion is an Arminian proving, every discussion is a reformed proving discussion because our theologies are all interwoven into all the various facets of our belief.

Why would Savannah's post go toward Reformed/Arminian debate? Because the theological basics that form the greater locus of those theologies are always brought forth in every question or post that is made. Every discussion is a confrontation of those two, every discussion seeks to rid and anathematize error and promote truth.

This conflict happens not because some reformed or some Arminian has an axe to grind and needs to be argumentative, but because if we actually do believe what we claim to believe it is precious, costly and extremely important.

How I view God, know God, love and serve God and how I articulate that as I understand scripture is the most important thing in my life, nothing else comes close to it.

I do not have a relativistic view of truth, everyone is not right, all absence of contention, conflict or debate only means we in fact believe nothing worth fighting over.

I am not that man.

The Spirit of God is not offended because we debate, nor is Jesus disappointed, mad or out of the debate because brothers don't see eye to eye.

As to winning a discussion or debate...I want to win every-time against error, if you do not, Why not?
But my winning is not part of some silly human one-upsmanship, I contend for the faith once delivered and will contend every single day of my life with no apologies no retractions no self-doubt.

As to showing less love, maybe some of you think you cannot debate because you cannot love in it, that is not me, I love in it and through it. Why be offended because of disagreements and strong confrontation? I am not, but I am zealous to declare what I see as God's explicit teachings and I do not draw back from it. Whether in a discussion board or with my friends, pastor, church or bible studies I am what I am by the grace of God.

Marvin, here is the problem. Quote: "As to winning a discussion or debate...I want to win every-time against error, if you do not, Why not? "

You write as being totally convinced your 'theoretical' reformed doctrinal position is correct and the other is error, when in reality it is only a theory. You put forward scriptures that 'prove' you are correct, but equally those who don't agree can put forward scriptures proving the opposite. If this were not true there would not have been such a debate raging over this issue for the last 500 years or so. Whitfield and Wesley managed to agree to disagree on this, but both esteemed the other as better. More humility is needed.

I'm not even sure if you go along with the whole TULIP position, or if you are a TU*IP, but.....

What I have seen (and you alluded to in your posts) is that TULIP is just theoretical stance that does not relate to how reformed folk actually live. I say this because if you actually took the statements of TULIP at face value there would be little motive for evangelism, yet I see that it is the reformed folk (to their credit) who are the most active in preaching the gospel in this day! Why plead with men to repent and be saved, if you actually don't think most of them can? Also I never hear a reformed person question the election of their own family. If they follow after the faith of their parents, it is assumed that they are all part of the elect of God. This is nonsense if you believe Limited atonement, it actually supports the position of 'all who hear and believe are saved'.

So in conclusion, there is no point fighting for a theoretical theological position. Fight for the truth of what is written and that "(God) commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed..", but please don't fight for man's theological ideas!

What a lot of these great theological folks here, that want to try and tell all of us the exact meaning of every scripture don’t understand is. I’m personally more interested in how each scripture ministers to me, than anyone’s opinion of its exact meaning. I’m sure not going to be distracted from reading a scripture and allowing God to speak to me personally through that scripture, by someone that’s going to argue meaning. Is it more important for us to always know the exact meaning of every scripture, or just reading it as a child would and let it personally minister to us? If someone comes here to try and prove they know the exact meaning of every scripture, and is always going to take it to another level to prove it, like creating a riot, and I say this in love, should probably go elsewhere.

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.1 Corinthians 2:13

"Assuredly, I say to you, unless you change and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

God seeks a childlike submissiveness and meekness, a gleeful childlike heart … and a childlike faith.

Faith builds character, and the process starts when you are a child. Without faith, we cannot please God.

And please don't try and interrupt the scriptures above, I know how they minister to me, that's what really matters.

I am a defender of the truth. I love truth. I love the Word. I will defend it to the end.

That being said, no one here is advocating go-along-to-get-along. Even the rule #8 on sermon index does not advocate that.

What we ARE discussing is TACT.

I promise you this--and anyone here can call me out on it if what I am saying is not true. Whenever we get into debates here on sermon index, especially vehement ones, I guarantee you that no one is hitting their knees asking the Lord to open their own eyes if they are wrong or asking the Lord to give them the words to say regarding how to address brothers. No one is digging into the scriptures to see how they should address their brothers. No one is checking to see if the person they are addressing is an elder and responding to them accordingly. There is no tact here. No one here knows the spiritual condition of the other. No one here knows if I am a mature believer or not. All you know are the things I have said about me, which may be a poor representation of where I am at spiritually.

I am going to use this as an example, as it helps give me perspective:

If you teach your 3 year old son that a knife is sharp by stabbing him with it, you are wicked. If you teach them it is sharp with loving instruction, you are a good teacher.

Many things that are said here--the direct accusations, the snide sidelined comments (not directed at anyone in particular, of course), and the idea that we must vehemently defend our position in front of the WHOLE WORLD against another brother--are nothing but knife wounds. We cannot say that we are good teachers by the way we address one another.

If an argument gets vehement, be honoring to Jesus and take it offline.

Brother havok, I don’t think is could be said any simpler or better.
Thank You!
Brother Bill

Hi Havok:

A couple of things.

I don't get up in the morning and determine to "defend TULIP" against dissenters.
I use the term reformed because it's a label, a designator to distinguish me as owning a specific set of doctrines.
But I do this for the sake of brevity, I don't do it because I am a sworn-in-member of the Calivinist camp to which I must pay homage. I owe no homage to a 'set' of doctrines, I owe homage to Jesus. When I defend some point of doctrine, I do it in regards to what I see as truth, not because it belongs to a long revered set of ministry leaders ( or infamous as some would have). I believe what I believer because what I do believe is what God has revealed to me as truth, therefore I present it as 'my doctrine'.

The way to dismiss someone without any due diligence is to use my 'reformed' label or the 'Arminian' label as a tool to summarize quickly something you disagree with in particular...but cast the whole of his beliefs. That way brother Marv cannot be taken seriously or what he has said given a reasonable survey in scripture and dismiss him outright as a pesky 'reformed guy' that is no better than a rock in the shoe of any nice anything-other-than-reformed Christian.

Don't you find that disingenuous?

When you debate, the details are important and as you read, as soon as you find out someone disagrees with you sharply and has no intention of siding with your view, for many it seems their love waxes cold.

Yes, I do believe in limited or particular atonement. Jesus died as a ransom for many, he died to secure a salvation for his elect, their salvation is because God intends to take them to glorification Rom 8. This in NO WAY impedes the preaching of the gospel to every person, because the command is to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples. This has been explained. If it impedes someone from preaching the gospel, then the Arminian version where "man is hard, unwilling, unbending, un-listening and will not repent" can also be used as an avenue of disobedience to God, Havok...we have those who will not obey that command in both camps.

It would due us good read the articles that Savannah posted written by A.W Pink and Jonathan Edwards. But if that is too much reading on the subject, you must content yourself with an opinion about what I believe, but not an informed opinion.

I am a Christian, that's all I am and nothing more.

Havok, you are mistaken about me, I pray about what I write, I pray in the morning about what I will say to people at work or home or online, I believe God to give me wisdom and tact in handling this resistance to my point of view...which I believe is truth.

Folks don't like it when you claim to have it in the face of dissenters who they side with, so I am supposed to be humble but not claim to have any truth, I am to know I am a weak and needy sinner but be careful about 'calling what you believe truth'. I call this the coward Christian way of thinking. The scriptures teach me again and again I can know the truth, to abide in it and I will be freed by it, I do exactly that.
It's a funny paradox when someone is implying that since you claim to have or know truth, you are proud, a know-it-all or deceived. Yet, such a sword has cut down my judges for they too must claim truth to say I do not have it.

The only reason I am being confronted now by you and Brother Blaine is because I refused to back down as if what I said in the manner I said it was sin. It was not sin, it was not without tact and I was not uncaring about who I was talking too. Todd for instance has about 4000 some posts, I don't take him to be too shy about sharing his thoughts, he is no young believer.

I will not take into the backroom truth as if it's a shame to disagree, or a shame to be pointed or a shame to resist what you believe is error. There is no Christianity without resisting error every single day of our life, this venue is just a little piece of it.

Truth is brother, these conversation that seek to reign in someone who stands his ground does more to undermine it than anything my dissenters said...Why? Because the unwritten unsaid message is "don't disagree loudly or you will be thought of as mean, sinning, uncaring, unprayerful, a stabber of unlearned'. That is why heresy is alive and well, it hides behind the nice postings and gestures, it has gained the right to exist because what is worse than being a heretic or errant in the body of Christ? Being thought of as mean. To me, the hypocrisy of that is enormous.

lasly Brother Blaine, I spoke to my pastor last sunday about that young Nigerian girl, I was rejoicing with him as she stands for faith. I too stand for faith, my situation is not on her danger level, but you must know by now, just a little leaven leavens the whole lump? I don't sit down when I read such accounts, I stand up and continue to stand.

Yes, Gods sovereign plan of salvation is worth the death. Yes, God's omniscience is worth the death, Yes, God's eternal punishment is worth the death, Yes, God' means of bringing men to salvation is worth the death. What is my death? To so many, I am wrong about God, wrong about salvation, wrong about speaking as I do, wrong about what God knows, wrong about how God will judge...and all of that should be sacrificed so that I will not look bad in a discussion forum. I do NOT believe for a moment I look bad to Jesus for believing what he has said and to own what he has said and declare it without apology.
I see to emulate my young sister where I am.

As to Christ-likeness, this is what it means to be Christlike, as to being thought mean and all the rest, I consider it a push-back from a Christianity that I abhor, the Christianity that fears men, stands for truth in a sentimental way, but not as a man.

Marvin-

Personally I have not found any of your posts to be objectionable in their tone. My tone was sometimes troublesome.

But I think the problem Bear and Havok are pointing out is the endlessness of the debate; neither I nor you are giving an inch, so people wonder what in the world we are doing.

When you're caught up in it, it's difficult to see it. But I have been involved on very long threads on this and other forums involving hotly debated topics and through some of those discussions my view on several matters has changed over the years. I was persuaded out of the reformed camp quite a few years ago, and frankly there is no going back now.

When I saw and read this post by Bear I was grateful- I actually felt a freeing in my spirit to let it go. So I will let someone else carry the non-reformed torch if anyone is inclined to do so.

Anytime you have 5 or so chiefs setting around debating a subject, and all think they’re right, it’s going to get ugly, and that’s exactly what I see happening here frequently. Thank God some of us Indians just have one chief, his name is Jesus, I’m guessing he knows more than all the chiefs combined, but some of the chiefs might disagree with me. :-)

Todd: I will happily and appreciatively thank you for challenging me, pushing back, saying no, men like that in my opinion are worth something. Though we disagree doctrinally, I respect and appreciate you as a brother I can lock arms with.

In retrospect, I appreciate my brothers holding me accountable for my words, as I know my Lord surely does, and it's important to consider the effect these conversations have on others...that cannot be denied.

I end the subject we debated by saying, "God reveal your truth, your person and your way to live out what we read and know to be your truth in a Christlike manner. Where-ever I am deficient please correct me Father my life is yours do with as you will, in Jesus name, Amen"

What do the scriptures say about the extent or boundaries of justification? Is justification available to all men or does justification have a limit set by divine decree.

Here are several pertinent scriptures that will allow forum members to discuss their grammatical content and the implications that arise from the specific grammar used by the New Testament writer. Others can add additional passages to the discussion. I hope many will benefit from searching and examining the scriptures in the same spirit as those noble Bereans.

Romans 3:23-24 -"for all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God, being justified freely by the gift of His grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.”

Two words point to extent of justification in this verse: "all” and "being justified” are linked grammatically. "All” is a nominative, masculine, plural pronoun. "Being justified” is a Present, passive, participle, nominative, masculine, plural. The grammatical implication is "the same ALL who have sinned are being justified. Justification is available for "all” who "have sinned.”

Romans 5:15 -"but not as the trespass even so the gift, for since by the trespass of the one man the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift of grace of the one man Jesus Christ unto the many abounded.”
[There are two references to " the many” - the grammatical implication is that the gift of grace abounded to the same extent as to the many who died]

Romans 5:18 - "It follows that therefore just as through the trespass of one man unto all men unto condemnation, also in the same way through one act of righteousness unto all men unto justification of life.”
(Here there are two references to "all men” set in comparison to each other. The same way condemnation came unto "all men” due to one trespass, to the same extent one act of righteousness brought justification of life unto "all men”)

Romans 5:19 - "for indeed just as through the hearing aside of the one man the many were constituted sinners, also in the same way through the hearing under of the one man the many will be constituted righteous.”
{Here there are two references to "the many” set in comparison to underscore that in the very same way that one man’s disobedience constituted men sinners, in the same way, one man’s obedience will constitute many men righteous}

Romans 5:20 - "but Law was entered alongside in order that might abound the trespass, but where abounded the sin, super abounded the grace.”
* Here Paul states that grace abounded "beyond” the extent of "trespass.”

Hi Mak: I can see you waited patiently, enduring the numerous postings, now sensing an entry, you no longer need to suffer in silence. ( having a little fun with your screen name) It is a great screen name though.

The Romans 3 text does not undo election simply because election exists independently of the general statement of sin and general statements of justification. We both know regeneration and conversion are necessary for justification, therefore it is difficult to go beyond the "many are called few are chosen" texts and push this text almost into universalism since 'scope' is the intent of your grammatical interest.

The Romans 5 text suffer from the same malady the Romans 3 text does, namely forcing out election by means of reducing the terms of salvation to generalities. I have not created these specific, the gospels and epistles are replete with them, using texts in this manner goes beyond what Pauls intention I believe. The intention it seems in context is to show "one man" Adam brought sin and death; Jesus the other "one man" brought justification and life.
The "all men" is restricted in other texts to those "who believe" therefore I need not look to undo this interpretive position further.
The Romans 5 19-20 text again suffers from the same problem, you are using grammar to rid the scriptures of Election, when in fact it's impossible to do, the scriptures wont contradict themselves.

It must be important to know, All men who were ever born were made sinners by Adam, I don't think that's under debate, but only those who believe will be Justified, so while your align the grammar in this text, the context of other passage disallows you to use this in any other way than Pauls intent here.

Now, this is way off topic for this thread, Mak if you want to start another with this as the OP, I'll do my best to respond accordingly.