tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5986014884849771128..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Answering back to GodRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74478260393316316722010-04-07T01:05:58.446-04:002010-04-07T01:05:58.446-04:00One good point you make is the question: What is o...One good point you make is the question: What is objectively harsh, alientating, or judgmental? Is is just some abstract ideal that is left to human opinion?<br /><br />First of all, I would say that, if in doubt, we should all err to the side of being overly-gentle, rather than overly aggressive. There are many Scriptures which tell us specifically to be peaceful, not quarrelsome, gentle, and kind. Few that tell us to really lay on the criticism. The tongue is dangerous, according to Scripture, and we should be careful. <br /><br />James 3:5b - 10<br />"How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so."<br /><br />James 4:11-12<br />" Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"<br /><br />Proverbs 15:4<br />"A wholesome tongue is a tree of life, But perverseness in it breaks the spirit."<br /><br />Secondly, we should check out motives carefully. While you question a subjective definition of Christ-honoring, you can surely not question the idea that we should be loving in all that we do and say. Think of how the Samaritan treated the jews, while jews freely discriminated against Samaritans. It's that sort of selfless love that should be our motivation for whatever we say, even to those we oppose. <br /><br />Thirdly, if you question the objective meaning of the words "gentle," "kind," "meek," "gracious," or "tenderhearted," then look up the English meaning, or even the greek words used in the text. That's something objective to look to. I think that most of us can agree about what is objectively NOT kind:<br /><br />Mocking, scorning, or belitting opthers. Attacking by name-calling ie "stupid" or "dumb," etc. Sending persistent messages of incompetence or inadequacy. Sarcasm in argument. Blatent disrespect for the opinions and attitudes of others. Withholding acceptance, affections, or appreciation. Etc. (These concrete examples in particular are taken from the book "How to Hug a Porcupine" by John Lund)<br /><br />Finally, if you consider yourself to have some form of knowledge of the truth, you are especially called to be irenic:<br /><br />James 3:13, 17-18<br />"Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."<br /><br />You can see here that if your wisdom is from God, it will not only be pure, but also will be peaceable (irenic) so that you will sow in peace and make peace. Blessed are the peacemakers. Needless to say, none of us are perfect, and I don't think less of you because you aren't perfect. I merely think that we all should at least be aiming toward the same goals of honoring Christ, and being gracious in our speech. <br /><br />God BlessSkarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70881404090441253042010-04-07T01:05:48.809-04:002010-04-07T01:05:48.809-04:00Steve,
With all love and respect,
I'm not ...Steve, <br /><br />With all love and respect, <br /><br />I'm not trying to have a selective and one-sided appeal to to Scripture. Nor am I taking some parts of the Bible and saying that we should apply those, while ignoring other parts. What I referenced was not just some examples of language that is used in the Bible, but rather Biblical mandates to us all. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will keep His commands. What I referenced was His commands. How, then, am I wrong in suggesting that we each should keep them?<br /><br />Jude is certainly not irenic toward those who are outside the faith. As far as I can tell, though, the fiery language is specifically addressed to those non-christians who are "devoid of the Spirit." We are not called to speak that way of brothers in Christ... verse 21 instructs us to keep ourselves in God's love, and 22 says to have mercy on those who doubt. (Love and mercy being the key words there.) Revelation has some pretty serious sayings, sent directly from God to the seven churches. But see, God being God, He has the right to talk that way to believers; He is our Master, but we are not the master of each other in that way. He can judge like that, and we cannot.<br /><br />Romans 14:4 "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand."<br /><br />But we, as servants of God (And I am here assuming that you do count yourself as a servant of God) are instructed in this way:<br /><br />2 Timothy 2:24-25 <br />"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth..."Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64937630247714979042010-04-06T20:17:21.214-04:002010-04-06T20:17:21.214-04:00SKARLET SAID:
"If you wonder if a particular...SKARLET SAID:<br /><br />"If you wonder if a particular statement is all those things - ask a objective, and wise, christian who you respect 'Do you think that this statement is kind, gracious, loving, and aiming at reconciliation? Or does it seem overly harsh, alienating, and judgmental?' I'm sure they will give you a good answer."<br /><br />My standard of Christian discourse isn't some selective, one-sided appeal to Scripture. It's not some abstract ideal of what is not harsh, alienating, or judgmental. And it's not mere Christian opinion.<br /><br />Rather, my standard of Christian discourse is Biblical discourse. Biblical discourse is quite varied. Is the Book of Jude irenic? Hardly. Is the Book of Revelation irenic? Hardly.<br /><br />Christian discourse can apply Biblical types of discourse in analogous situations.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52810860422611588102010-04-06T09:48:54.201-04:002010-04-06T09:48:54.201-04:00Well, you put forward that Arminians deny that God...<i>Well, you put forward that Arminians deny that God can be trusted to plan their lives, that Bennon evidences a lack of faith in God's wisdom, and that Brennon doesn't trust God to plan his life. You've made one very crucial mistake though - What you mean is that Arminians deny that God-As-Calvinism-Paints-Him, or the Calvinist God for short, can be trusted to plan their lives. If the Calvinist God is, in fact, a misrepresentation of God, and merely a man-made concept, then it is wise of them not to trust a man-made concept.</i><br /><br />Exactly. It is a massive case of question begging on Steve's part from the very start. Well said.<br /><br />Truly, if the Arminians are right and God did in fact make a provision of atonement for all and enables all who hear the gospel to respond in faith, then it is the Calvinist that "talks back to God" in denying this Biblical truth. Furthermore, if God has sovereignly decided to grant man a measure of free will and hold him accountable for how He uses that will, then the Calvinists is "talking back to God" in denying God that right, or in re-defining His "sovereignty” so as to exclude that possibility.<br /><br />In the end, God will judge us for how well we listened to Him in His word and He alone will decide who is "talking back" to Him based on whether or not we have denied truths that He has been careful to reveal to us. The best we can do is seek Him and His truth with all of our hearts and as humbly as we possibly can. If we think that someone has a wrong conception of God, then we should try to correct that through Scriptural examination, but we need to be very careful in our rhetoric since God will certainly hold us accountable for every careless word we speak.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56778998144200185422010-04-05T01:37:25.723-04:002010-04-05T01:37:25.723-04:00"Wrong. I judge him by his words. When he and..."Wrong. I judge him by his words. When he and other Arminians deny that God can be trusted to plan our lives, I'm taking them at their word."<br /><br />Well, you put forward that Arminians deny that God can be trusted to plan their lives, that Bennon evidences a lack of faith in God's wisdom, and that Brennon doesn't trust God to plan his life. You've made one very crucial mistake though - What you mean is that Arminians deny that God-As-Calvinism-Paints-Him, or the Calvinist God for short, can be trusted to plan their lives. If the Calvinist God is, in fact, a misrepresentation of God, and merely a man-made concept, then it is wise of them not to trust a man-made concept. <br /><br />They do trust God-As-They-See-Him-To-Be. And you don't. You don't trust the Arminian God to rule the world. They don't trust the Calvinist God to rule the world. But despite these difference, you both worship Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, the one and only Truine God, in Spirit and Truth as much as you know how. Arminians are elect too, you know, and are brothers and sisters in Christ. <br /><br />To say that that they don't trust the real God because they don't trust the version of God that you think exists is a blade that cuts both ways. They could as easily claim that you don't trust the real God because you don't the version of God that they think exists. <br /><br />"'I would like if you actually pondered my point in humility.'<br />That's a two-way street."<br /><br />Understood. And I have seriously pondered everything you have said to me. I have tried to give thoughtful answers, and concede points when I can.<br /><br />I hope that you will as seriously ponder what has been said to you. I know that I am not the only one out there who sees your words as unkind. I know that we don't fellowship at the same church, but since we are all still part of the body of Christ, I think that we should listen seriously when others try to point out a blind stop to us. I know that you don't want to alienate people, and be overly-hard. I think that perhaps you don't realize how you come across sometimes. <br /><br />God Bless.Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64498199309232752222010-04-05T01:32:24.858-04:002010-04-05T01:32:24.858-04:00Steve,
"Actually, "character-based&quo...Steve, <br /><br />"Actually, "character-based" accusations would be paradigm-examples of ad hominem invective. And that's typically viewed as the antithesis of irenic discourse."<br /><br />If accusations are used in place of logical argument, then yes, it would be simply an ad hominem attack. However, separately, they can exist fine. IMHO. <br /><br />"You don't bother to explain how you derive your definition of what's "Christ-honoring." Mt 23 is hardly irenic. Does this mean that Christ failed to be Christ-honoring?"<br /><br />You bring up a good point. I would say that everything that is gracious, (Eph 4:19) kind, (Eph 4:32), aimed at peace and reconciliation (Tit 3:2, Heb 12:14, Mt. 18), done in love (seeking the betterment of the other person), and with the attitude of humility that it could be yourself who is mistaken or wrong. If you wonder if a particular statement is all those things - ask a objective, and wise, christian who you respect "Do you think that this statement is kind, gracious, loving, and aiming at reconciliation? Or does it seem overly harsh, alienating, and judgmental?" I'm sure they will give you a good answer.<br /><br /><br />"Well, that's rather presumptuous of you. Who elected you to speak on behalf of everyone else? Do you have any polling data to corroborate your claim?"<br /><br />You are right. Using the word obvious was probably not the most peaceful or humble way to put forward my point. However, I think that perhaps it should be obvious to each of us that dedicated christians who seek to honor God in all that do, and worship Him sincerely, trusting in His counsel to guide them day to day do trust God with their lives.Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59674293314578390542010-04-04T20:53:32.557-04:002010-04-04T20:53:32.557-04:00"When you presume to know his heart, that he ..."When you presume to know his heart, that he does not trust God, because he does not accept your position of a God who causally determines everything, is that not judging?"<br /><br />Wrong. I judge him by his words. When he and other Arminians deny that God can be trusted to plan our lives, I'm taking them at their word.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91362918773435303582010-04-04T20:47:10.937-04:002010-04-04T20:47:10.937-04:00SKARLET SAID:
"I also gave very specific rea...SKARLET SAID:<br /><br />"I also gave very specific reasons why I think that character-based accusations are not quite as serious as ability-based accusation."<br /><br />Actually, "character-based" accusations would be paradigm-examples of ad hominem invective. And that's typically viewed as the antithesis of irenic discourse.<br /><br />"I do not see what you said as gracious or kind or Christ-Honoring."<br /><br />You don't bother to explain how you derive your definition of what's "Christ-honoring." Mt 23 is hardly irenic. Does this mean that Christ failed to be Christ-honoring?<br /><br />"When I said obvious, I meant obvious to everyone else."<br /><br />Well, that's rather presumptuous of you. Who elected you to speak on behalf of everyone else? Do you have any polling data to corroborate your claim?<br /><br />No, you simply speak for yourself. <br /><br />"Brennon is a christian, a sincere christian, who does trust God. I know this as a fact. He disagrees with your understanding of God, but he does trust God implicitly. All Christians, do, in fact, trust God with their life."<br /><br />Since Brennon doesn't trust God to plan his life, it follows that Brennon doesn't trust God. That's one acid test of trust. <br /><br />You offer no counterargument. Rather, you simply issue imperious denials. <br /><br />If you don't see a problem with Brennon's evident lack of faith in God's wisdom, then perhaps that's because you share the same problem. <br /><br />"I would like if you actually pondered my point in humility."<br /><br />That's a two-way street.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20844985529785273162010-04-04T20:31:31.245-04:002010-04-04T20:31:31.245-04:00Steve,
Flattery will get you nowhere... lol. You...Steve, <br /><br />Flattery will get you nowhere... lol. You obviously don't plan on using irenic language when talking to me. <br /><br />Favoritism? Hardly. I said clearly that I believed that neither of you were completely irenic or kind. I also gave very specific reasons why I think that character-based accusations are not quite as serious as ability-based accusation. It's the difference, in essence, between "you are doing wrong" and "you are an evil person who is incapable of anything better." One refers to character, and may or may not be true, depending on the situation. The other is simply uncalled for in any circumstance. Unlike character-based arguments, which can be founded, ability-based arguments are unkind. This is an opinion that I apply to my thoughts about all interaction - I show no personal favoritism here.<br /><br /><br />You use the word "ability" several times. You even said that Arminians are UNABLE to offer intelligent feedback. <br /><br />In that statement, you attack people you've never even spoken too? I do not see what you said as gracious or kind or Christ-Honoring. Please do not just blow this off and respond with some cutting remark intended to put me in my place. I am not meaning to attack you here. I am merely expressing my concern. I would like if you actually pondered my point in humility. <br /><br />I still do think that your statement was unfounded. I read all of your supporting claims. I read the whole discussion. I am not taking anything out of context. Needless to say, it was not obvious to you - or else you would not have said it. When I said obvious, I meant obvious to everyone else. Brennon is a christian, a sincere christian, who does trust God. I know this as a fact. He disagrees with your understanding of God, but he does trust God implicitly. All Christians, do, in fact, trust God with their life. When you presume to know his heart, that he does not trust God, because he does not accept your position of a God who causally determines everything, is that not judging? <br /><br />If it is loving, and not judgmental, then please explain to me how. <br /><br />I also just want to add that I love and respect you in Christ.Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52902554151058428092010-04-04T18:37:23.216-04:002010-04-04T18:37:23.216-04:00Skarlet said...
Bossman makes six accusations abo...Skarlet said...<br /><br />Bossman makes six accusations about Steve not being logical - intellectual dishonesty, fallacious reasoning, bankrupt logic, and poor attempt at rational thought. Two of which were accusations of intentionality (IE 'ignore' and 'retreating' are verbs.) These accusations may or may not be founded in truth. <br /><br />Hays, on the other hand, only refers to intellectual dishonesty with his "you too" comment. His accusations toward Bossman, however are not character-based, but ability based.<br /><br />**************<br /><br />I see. So if Bossman makes six accusations about me not being logical - intellectual dishonesty, fallacious reasoning, bankrupt logic, and poor attempt at rational thought. Two of which were accusations of intentionality, whereas if I only only refer to ability (intellectual dishonesty) rather than character-based, deficiencies, then someone that makes me less irenic than Brennon. Thanks for putting your own favoritism on public display.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46823289460302876572010-04-04T18:31:32.489-04:002010-04-04T18:31:32.489-04:00SKARLET SAID:
"Hays, on the other hand, said...SKARLET SAID:<br /><br />"Hays, on the other hand, said 'Brennon has no faith in God. Brennon doesn’t trust God with his life. Brennon doesn’t trust God to write the story of his life.' That's a pretty serious accusation - and obviously unfounded."<br /><br />How is that "obviously unfounded"? You quote one sentence of mine while conveniently disregarding the supporting reasons I gave. That tactic doesn't reflect well on your own honesty.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52711303799659564282010-04-04T18:21:50.626-04:002010-04-04T18:21:50.626-04:00Patrick,
You say "Yeah, I'm not exactly...Patrick, <br /><br />You say "Yeah, I'm not exactly sure why Arminians like Bossmanham (Brennon) use such 'caustic' language against other Christians like us and treat us so poorly whereas they largely treat fellow Arminians so well."<br /><br />Well, I've tried to analyze it carefully. Of the "same to you" type of comments, Hays employed one, and Bossman employed two. <br /><br />Bossman makes six accusations about Steve not being logical - intellectual dishonesty, fallacious reasoning, bankrupt logic, and poor attempt at rational thought. Two of which were accusations of intentionality (IE "ignore" and "retreating" are verbs.) These accusations may or may not be founded in truth. <br /><br />Hays, on the other hand, only refers to intellectual dishonesty with his "you too" comment. His accusations toward Bossman, however are not character-based, but ability based. He makes 5 such comments. Here's one: "you (once again) your chronic inability to operate at something above a 3rd grade level." He also broadens the attack (about ability) to all arminians. "Thanks for illustrating, once more, the inability of Arminians to offer intelligent feedback." "That accusation presumes that Arminians actually think." I would say that these accusations are less irenic, because they attack his opponents en masse, and because they attack not their character or logic, but their ability as people. <br /><br />The worst that Bossman said was "No, I just know when it isn't the time to throw pearls before swine (yes I said that)." Which wasn't irenic. Hays, on the other hand, said "Brennon has no faith in God. Brennon doesn’t trust God with his life. Brennon doesn’t trust God to write the story of his life." That's a pretty serious accusation - and obviously unfounded. Bossman clearly does trust God, just not Calvinist logic. <br /><br />So, in all, I think that neither were completely irenic and kind. I do, however, think that Hays was very unkind. Hays seems to stick to claims about his opponents being "incapable" and even says that other Christians don't trust God with their life. That what was stuck out to me. <br /><br />Hays: You are, of course, welcome to disqualify yourself from the ranks of Arminians who are able to offer intelligent feedback, and nominate a more promising candidate. What nominee did you have in mind?" <--- I think that's just mean, sorry.Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05544941668588852290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20172475059051582112010-04-03T06:56:48.014-04:002010-04-03T06:56:48.014-04:00Skarlet said:
Interesting dialogue. But I see sev...Skarlet said:<br /><br /><b>Interesting dialogue. But I see several examples of language that cannot be called "irenic" by any definition of the word. I'm not sure that caustic ways of debating are really Christ-honoring or a gracious way to treat a brother in Christ.</b><br /><br />Yeah, I'm not exactly sure why Arminians like Bossmanham (Brennon) use such "caustic" language against other Christians like us and treat us so poorly whereas they largely treat fellow Arminians so well.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81093249387468548592010-04-03T01:22:48.123-04:002010-04-03T01:22:48.123-04:00Interesting dialogue. But I see several examples o...Interesting dialogue. But I see several examples of language that cannot be called "irenic" by any definition of the word. I'm not sure that caustic ways of debating are really Christ-honoring or a gracious way to treat a brother in Christ.Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00703872383624167339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35563425695452496022010-04-02T02:21:20.227-04:002010-04-02T02:21:20.227-04:00Steve - You wrote, "In Calvinism, God "s...Steve - You wrote, "In Calvinism, God "shares" himself with the elect. And they participate in his beatitude. So Calvinism is ALSO "relational (caps are mine)."" <br /><br />I'm glad that we agree that Arminianism and Calvinism share the Biblical concept of a relational God, although defined and expressed differently. You had me worried for a bit there...<br /><br />I hope to talk with you more in the future. You know if I lived in your 'hood, we would probably have some interesting conversations and some good times in worship of God together.<br /><br />BTW - Thanks for the press. It increases my google ranking. When do I get my own tag on Triablogue?drwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17914024954991986479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31995227823254320682010-04-01T22:17:43.265-04:002010-04-01T22:17:43.265-04:00This is Mariano from the blog “Atheism is Dead.” I...This is Mariano from the blog “Atheism is Dead.” I wanted to thank you for linking to my blog.<br /> <br />Please delete this comment after reading it as it is strictly FYI.<br /> <br />I have placed Atheism is Dead into stasis and have placed its contents (and the contents of my Christian apologetics blog) into my new website “True Freethinker” at http://www.truefreethinker.com <br /> <br />If you are so inclined; please update the hyperlink to Atheism is Dead with a hyperlink to True Freethinker (if it is of interest; the feed it at http://www.truefreethinker.com/blog/feed).<br /> <br />Thank you so much; keep up the good work and the God work,<br /> <br />MarianoKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16478151742674353783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23477832160652603962010-04-01T20:08:30.954-04:002010-04-01T20:08:30.954-04:00S.S.
Yes, one could extend the analogy. After all...S.S.<br /><br />Yes, one could extend the analogy. After all, God is the main character in the historical narratives of Scripture.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63798678387119435522010-04-01T20:03:07.396-04:002010-04-01T20:03:07.396-04:00Here's eschatology video from Obama. He talks...Here's eschatology video from Obama. He talks for about 1 minute 45 seconds about Armageddon and Healthcare Reform.<br /><br />Click <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/04/01/sot.obama.armageddon.cnn?hpt=C2" rel="nofollow">here.</a>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26973343484735553672010-04-01T19:42:36.813-04:002010-04-01T19:42:36.813-04:00"To the contrary, a novelist/screenwriter is ..."To the contrary, a novelist/screenwriter is exhaustively involved with every single detail of the character's life. That's hardly detached."<br /><br />Might we change the analogy to God being the writer, director, and main protagonist all at once?Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.com