...I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. ...Curiously, why do you argue at all?
Do you happen to have one of those
bumper stickers on your car?
I think we need to assume that no matter how stupid or irrational a poster is that when they profess their theology on this forum that they are doing it in good faith. Also when someone misinterprets our position or misstates what they believe that we believe, that the person making that misrepresentation is doing so out of ignorance and not out of malice.
We are not arguing that Arminians (or even Catholics :) are not Christians because they are synergists. We are just arguing for correct doctrine. Surely we all agree that learning sound doctrine is a good part of sanctification and brings us closer to God. So naturally, all of us (all sides) want that for all of our Christian brothers and sisters so we feel it is worthy of figh discussion.
I agree that we should all strive to learn doctrine correctly. On the other hand, being rigid in our interpretation of esoteric religious points, such as soteriology can produce negative effects. Indeed rigid adherence to soteriology led to massive bloodshed during the years following the reformation. Rather than pounding out these differences in a rational fashion, people took up arms and killed each other over this issue.
In the end, while soteriology can affect your understanding of the nature of God and the nature of salvation, from a Calvinistic standpoint I would think that a person's soteriological, eccesiastical, or eschatological position on theology would be entirely irrelevant, as their position on the subject (from a strictly Calvinistic viewpoint) is the result of either the application or the withholding of God's grace. In other words, I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. One would think a Calvinist would simply state their opinion and let God decide whether or not to change the heart and mind of the person to whom the doctrine was presented.
Curiously, why do you argue at all? Do you think you will change their minds? (FWIW, I do believe that people's minds can be changed through rational argument, but then I am not a Calvinist)
I think we need to assume that no matter how stupid or irrational a poster is that when they profess their theology on this forum that they are doing it in good faith. Also when someone misinterprets our position or misstates what they believe that we believe, that the person making that misrepresentation is doing so out of ignorance and not out of malice.
from a Calvinistic standpoint I would think that a person's soteriological, eccesiastical, or eschatological position on theology would be entirely irrelevant, as their position on the subject (from a strictly Calvinistic viewpoint) is the result of either the application or the withholding of God's grace. In other words, I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. One would think a Calvinist would simply state their opinion and let God decide whether or not to change the heart and mind of the person to whom the doctrine was presented.
Why? Scripture tells us to contend for the faith. To give a good accounting for the reason for our confidence in Him. To try the spirits. We're all supposed to be lawyers when it comes to sound doctrine. We are to weigh the evidence, according to the word of God.
Most Calvinists on this forum started out as Arminians until God smacked them over the head by the good and Godly evidence in Scripture as given by His saints who preached the word in season and out.
Sound doctrine may be "divisive," but that's not always a bad thing. "“What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?"
when someone misinterprets our position or misstates what they believe that we believe, that the person making that misrepresentation is doing so out of ignorance and not out of malice.
Obviously you've never been on the receiving end of cat pictures.
I do believe that people's minds can be changed through rational argument, but then I am not a Calvinist
1) Calvinists believe in rational arguments.
2) It's finally Thursday. Is it safe to say you're a four or five-point Calvinist, but not on Wednesdays or Thursdays?
...I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. ...Curiously, why do you argue at all?
Do you happen to have one of those
bumper stickers on your car?
Sure, but I'm just saying it isn't necessarily good Biblical Trinitarian faith. People with strong "faith" often have it in something completely wrong.
I agree that we should all strive to learn doctrine correctly. On the other hand, being rigid in our interpretation of esoteric religious points, such as soteriology can produce negative effects. Indeed rigid adherence to soteriology led to massive bloodshed during the years following the reformation. Rather than pounding out these differences in a rational fashion, people took up arms and killed each other over this issue.
Surely the history is true, but I can understand to some degree why those who fought thought it so important, even if their actions did not justify the sin they committed. One's soteriology, in a general sense, may or may not disqualify one from being a Christian. But even with conflicting Christian soteriologies I would think we would agree that some are much more filled with dangerous snares than others.
For example, two of my biggest criticisms of Catholicism are that its Christian soteriology dangerously tempts people away from God to worship others and dangerously appears to strip power and authority away from God to give it to men. Perhaps if practiced perfectly, their soteriology survives the Christian test. However, we have all seen with our own eyes how so many Catholics so clearly appear to not be practicing it correctly according to what we are told about Catholicism by Catholic posters here. IMO, much of the fighting could be over those temptations and snares.
In other words, I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. One would think a Calvinist would simply state their opinion and let God decide whether or not to change the heart and mind of the person to whom the doctrine was presented.
We do let God decide whether to change the heart and mind of a Christian over a particular matter, that is, whether to further sanctify (in our opinion) on the issue at that time. However, for the same reason we witness we recognize that God uses His children as instruments to assist in accomplishing these changes. Further, the difference between simply stating a position and arguing it over and over might well be a simple matter of persistence. For comparison we know that persistence in prayer is taught in the Bible, so persistence in arguing a theological point may well be a good thing too.
Curiously, why do you argue at all? Do you think you will change their minds? (FWIW, I do believe that people's minds can be changed through rational argument, but then I am not a Calvinist)
Just as my witnessing saves no one, neither do my arguments change minds. God does it all, but He may well be using me (and all believers for different things at different times) to accomplish some changes He wishes. I became a Calvinist by coming to FR and reading the exact same arguments I am making now, so I sure do think it is worthwhile. :)