AGREE TO DISAGREE DEBATES - APOLOGETICS & THEOLOGY

[Guest]

I was a church member in a church once (Southern Baptist) that forced our pastor to resign over OSAS. Because the Sunday School class that he taught studied Scriptures and interpretations (multiple sides) concerning election and predestination, i.e. OSAS. I feel that was a “flaw” in the way that church treated this Pastor. My feelings is that was a horrible way to treat this man.

The pastor also gave one quick and fair/balanced sermon on the issue when those passages came up in his series. He taught the SS class because no one else would take on the responsibility for the class. He never had a domineering goal or anything like that in mind for the class or the church. He tried his best to make OSAS less critical to the Church’s mission/goal than those that forced him out over this issue. Yet, he did have a reasoned and Biblically supported position on what these passages were saying (and what they were not saying) when the subject came up. Yet certain influential members (Deacons no less) of the church disagreed with his view so much so that they forced him to resign over predestination (OSAS). And ironically, he held and discussed his study on predestination, election, OSAS with as much humility and patience toward other's differing views on the subject as anyone I've ever met. (except those that have never even read those passages of course).

Therefore, to me, the idea of including OSAS (#8 on you OP list) in a list that’s acceptable to "agree to disagree" on is to overly minimize the importance of this topic’s Biblical message. By "message” I mean just exactly what does a Christian say to a fellow Christian or non-Christian that asks you, What does it mean to be saved? or Am I truly saved?, or Can I lose my Salvation? Our answers to this question should be Biblically based, not subjective. Plus, if you have a strongly held differing interpretation of those passages’ meaning, then it’s probably best that you go worship, serve and teach with like minded people on the issue. It’s an accident waiting to happen, otherwise.

I feel the OSAS discussion is in a different class than Vasectomy (#10). Although with some of the personally cuttingly and harshness comments that I’ve seen posted on the OSAS issue, I do see some relationship between the two subjectsJ

I've been listening to Charles F. Stanley as of late. He's big on OSAS, but he's also consistent about his teachings of not falling into sin. If I were at a church that taught that OSAS is false, I would flee from that church fast.

 

[chessman]

I've been listening to Charles F. Stanley as of late

Yes, I do most Sundays as well. He’s a great teacher. I’ve visited his Son’s church a couple of times while in Atlanta.

You may be interested in this Article/Story. Especially the part here:

"When can I give up on my relationship with my dad [Charles Stanley]?" he [Andy Stanley] asked his counselor.
The counselor's reply:
"When your heavenly father gives up on his relationship with you."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/17/us/andy-stanley/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

[smaller]

So far I've come across these debates that move in circles.
No it isn't, yes it is. No it isn't, yes it is etc etc..can anyone think of anymore..

1. Age of accountability
2. Eternity in Hell
3. Hades vs. Hell vs. Gehenna
4. Heaven and Hell Testimonies
5. The Holy Trinity/Persons/Theology
6. Luke 16:19-31 - Heaven and Hell
7. Miracles performed
8. OSAS / Once saved always saved
9. Soul sleep vs. Abraham's bosom/hell
10. Vasectomy & Tubectomy
11. Water baptism vs. Holy Spirit baptism

This is not a debate thread, rather it is a thread to understand the mysteries of the Bible.
It is also a thread to be civil and kind to one another. Blessings.

The reason we all can't agree is because we are reading the Bible and subjectively interpreting the words. Everyone here, and I mean EVERYONE, can post verses that they THINK bolster their case and debunk the opposite view, no matter how ludicrous their case is. What is needed is submission to proper authority.

I thought RCC doctrine discussions aren't allowed here? Not that I agree that the RCC believers should be as 'cut off' as they measure to everyone else, but that is beside the point.

And a resounding NAY to your claim. No respectable sola's adherent can go there with a good conscience.

In the majority of your examples (2-9), the differences can't possibly be reconciled by an appeal to Scripture alone.

Again a piece of orthodox nonsense. The orothodox don't agree either and divide just as good as anyone else.

The others aren't mentioned in Scripture, that I'm aware of (1 and 10. 11 is a straw man). This method can only lead to division and "agree to disagree" on almost every topic.

Ultimately believers DISAGREE because it's a factual heart problem that we all have. There will be no settling these issues until we all see WE ARE ALL FACTUALLY WRONG and WE ALL SEE FACTUALLY ONLY IN PART.

Of course there isn't a christian sect on the face of the planet that can say they are wrong or only have a partial story, but that is the facts of the matters with every single group.

Most of the disputes also have multiple solutions, which brings another set of problems to the table. Once these are seen most of the issues tend to diminish between the parties.

And the single biggest issue between christian sects is the perpetual quest in adherents to 'do some other believer a solid' and 'save them from the error of their ways' which in effect means that most believers think the other believer is hell bound and Jesus is worthless for their supposed opponents, which again is complete and utter nonsense.

It is like praying for God to be for you in your behalf in efforts to kill your enemies. And a believer on the other side of the debate making the same prayer. Both prayers are just plain idiots if they can't see the futility in such quests.

If we started of presuming that God in Christ is in behalf of those in error there'd be a lot less stress. But nearly everyone comes with a predisposition that the other guy is screwed if they 'don't believe like me,' which is a concoction of orthodoxy to begin with and why many object to their views AND ACTIONS.

s

 

[smaller]

In the OSAS category, I have been a firm advocate for that understanding for nearly 30 years now and have found it VERY beneficial for my own heart in my views towards other believers. That understanding I do not just measure to myself, but to all who have simply called upon the Lord to save them. Just as I called and was drawn in.

That has given me the tolerance to put up with these debates as well. And I've found the majority of them are NOT as simple as they are listed.

Even in OSAS I have had to 'modify' my own sights of that matter based on written evidence that shows it to be a bit more complex than a simple yes or no.

Example? [this is sooo easy]

Here is Paul's description of himself. If you read with any understanding whatsoever you'll see more than 'just Paul' in his own depiction:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Was Paul OSAS? Of course! Was the messenger of Satan SAVED? Fat Chance!!! No way.

Is the question itself then too simplistic? Uh, yeah. A believer can be TAKEN VICTIM in this present life by that worker/working and go back into the slavery and blindness of sin. Does that mean the victim isn't OSAS? Not in the temporal sense, they are again blinded. They are again enslaved in this present life. Are they saved? Not in that blinded slavery, NO. But they WILL be saved in the course of time when they are released from that working either by turning from same or by DEATH in the flesh.

So the questions themselves are very often childish to begin with as the flavors of these matters are much more complex.

I don't believe God in Christ ever leaves of forsakes anyone who has called upon Him, even if they are locked down by our enemy. Therefore I quit playing that game with the 'backslidden' in this present life. They are EASIER to restore IN LOVE because Love is still in them and with them to arouse.

Damn them with threats of hell? Never. That is a sear against my own conscience.

And of course there are some here who are only 'may be' saved in their own eyes and they try to convince us they 'might' be saved and try to persuade that position? I mean how absurd can you get? The nonsense of claiming that as a believer you only MIGHT be saved and you want to 'share that' position? WHY? You might NOT be saved whatsoever at all from your own mouth.

zzzzzzzzzz

enjoy!

s

 

[dadof10]

I thought RCC doctrine discussions aren't allowed here? Not that I agree that the RCC believers should be as 'cut off' as they measure to everyone else, but that is beside the point.

And a resounding NAY to your claim. No respectable sola's adherent can go there with a good conscience.



Again a piece of orthodox nonsense. The orothodox don't agree either and divide just as good as anyone else.

The others aren't mentioned in Scripture, that I'm aware of (1 and 10. 11 is a straw man). This method can only lead to division and "agree to disagree" on almost every topic.

Ultimately believers DISAGREE because it's a factual heart problem that we all have. There will be no settling these issues until we all see WE ARE ALL FACTUALLY WRONG and WE ALL SEE FACTUALLY ONLY IN PART.

Of course there isn't a christian sect on the face of the planet that can say they are wrong or only have a partial story, but that is the facts of the matters with every single group.

Most of the disputes also have multiple solutions, which brings another set of problems to the table. Once these are seen most of the issues tend to diminish between the parties.

And the single biggest issue between christian sects is the perpetual quest in adherents to 'do some other believer a solid' and 'save them from the error of their ways' which in effect means that most believers think the other believer is hell bound and Jesus is worthless for their supposed opponents, which again is complete and utter nonsense.

It is like praying for God to be for you in your behalf in efforts to kill your enemies. And a believer on the other side of the debate making the same prayer. Both prayers are just plain idiots if they can't see the futility in such quests.

If we started of presuming that God in Christ is in behalf of those in error there'd be a lot less stress. But nearly everyone comes with a predisposition that the other guy is screwed if they 'don't believe like me,' which is a concoction of orthodoxy to begin with and why many object to their views AND ACTIONS.

s

What part of "not a debate thread" don't you understand, smaller? If you would like to copy this drivel into another thread, I would be happy to destroy your ridiculous arguments there, as I always have.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[smaller]

I thought RCC doctrine discussions aren't allowed here? Not that I agree that the RCC believers should be as 'cut off' as they measure to everyone else, but that is beside the point.

And a resounding NAY to your claim. No respectable sola's adherent can go there with a good conscience.



Again a piece of orthodox nonsense. The orothodox don't agree either and divide just as good as anyone else.

The others aren't mentioned in Scripture, that I'm aware of (1 and 10. 11 is a straw man). This method can only lead to division and "agree to disagree" on almost every topic.

Ultimately believers DISAGREE because it's a factual heart problem that we all have. There will be no settling these issues until we all see WE ARE ALL FACTUALLY WRONG and WE ALL SEE FACTUALLY ONLY IN PART.

Of course there isn't a christian sect on the face of the planet that can say they are wrong or only have a partial story, but that is the facts of the matters with every single group.

Most of the disputes also have multiple solutions, which brings another set of problems to the table. Once these are seen most of the issues tend to diminish between the parties.

And the single biggest issue between christian sects is the perpetual quest in adherents to 'do some other believer a solid' and 'save them from the error of their ways' which in effect means that most believers think the other believer is hell bound and Jesus is worthless for their supposed opponents, which again is complete and utter nonsense.

It is like praying for God to be for you in your behalf in efforts to kill your enemies. And a believer on the other side of the debate making the same prayer. Both prayers are just plain idiots if they can't see the futility in such quests.

If we started of presuming that God in Christ is in behalf of those in error there'd be a lot less stress. But nearly everyone comes with a predisposition that the other guy is screwed if they 'don't believe like me,' which is a concoction of orthodoxy to begin with and why many object to their views AND ACTIONS.

s

What part of "not a debate thread" don't you understand, smaller? If you would like to copy this drivel into another thread, I would be happy to destroy your ridiculous arguments there, as I always have.

I'm OK with the RCC 'might be saved' proponents keeping it amongst their might be saved selves.

s

 

[WIP]

This thread has lost its way I suspect. Let's get back on topic.

 

[childeye]

In my view debating scripture is an important part of learning and growing in one's faith. The problem comes when those involved begin to take things personal and get defensive; not defensive in their faith but defensive from a personal perspective. When this happens, as a moderator looking in, I struggle with the task of determining whether to allow the exchange or not. I read what is said and sense an attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong, period!" Of course, not everyone is right so who is it? If we really approached the discussion with an attitude of, "Where is God leading me and what does he want me to take from this?" I think we would grow much more rapidly but our human pride gets in the way and we get defensive and close our minds.

Pride Pride Pride. Oh the vanity of vanities.

 

[chessman]

This thread has lost its way I suspect. Let's get back on topic.

In the spirit of this OP thread

So far I've come across these debates that move in circles. No it isn't, yes it is. No it isn't, yes it is etc etc..

I’ll add my observation to this thread as to why these so called “debates” seem to move in circles.
The reason these debate topics “move in circles” is in large part due to comments/posts such as

If you would like to copy this drivel into another thread, I would be happy to destroy your ridiculous arguments there, as I always have.

The man just called @smaller ‘s comment about 2 Cor 12:7 “drivel” and “ridiculous”. I cannot see why anyone (the hearer or the speaker) would think a comment such as that would provide any evidence to support one’s position, one way or the other. Telling someone they are wrong or “ridiculous” is not Apologetics or Theology. Providing Biblical evidence to show why someone’s view is wrong, now that’s evidence. Then it’s up to the hearer to evaluate the Scripture and the exegesis thereof. Two people might possibly then come to differing conclusions on what the Scripture means, sure. But at least you know WHY someone feels as they do, not just that they feel a certain way.
I believe you’ll also find that the disagreements are actually most often more about the meaning “behind” the terms being used (such as “saved” in this case) than they are about the Scripture’s message. Which is why it is very useful sometimes to study the Scripture in Greek (not Latin).
My point/claim toward the OP topic is that the more you evaluate the actual Scriptural message and the less you look at personal opinions/comments such as the one above, the less “circular” your views become.
As post #7 pointed out,

The problem comes when those involved begin to take things personal and get defensive; not defensive in their faith but defensive from a personal perspective.

There are some in this world wide web, however, that are just not going to keep their personal opinions and personal attacks in check. It’s a shame that they so often force an end to the Scriptural study and debate (via forcing closed threads) for the others that are open minded and desire to learn/grow in the topic’s area.
I wish there was a sanctuary for studying/debating these “agree to disagree debates” that was totally free from posts such as the one above (and others like it) and that those allowed to participate there actually were there to learn what the Scriptures’ teach on these topics.
I understand there’s a 1 on 1 debate option, but how would that make the personal attacks and meaningless posts less prevalent with less rules and moderation? It would actually seem to increase the prevalence of the personal attacks. Plus your just getting one other person’s point of view, not the community of knowledge.

 

[smaller]

In the spirit of this OP thread
I’ll add my observation to this thread as to why these so called “debates” seem to move in circles.
The reason these debate topics “move in circles” is in large part due to comments/posts such as
The man just called @smaller ‘s comment about 2 Cor 12:7 “drivel” and “ridiculous”. I cannot see why anyone (the hearer or the speaker) would think a comment such as that would provide any evidence to support one’s position, one way or the other. Telling someone they are wrong or “ridiculous” is not Apologetics or Theology. Providing Biblical evidence to show why someone’s view is wrong, now that’s evidence. Then it’s up to the hearer to evaluate the Scripture and the exegesis thereof. Two people might possibly then come to differing conclusions on what the Scripture means, sure. But at least you know WHY someone feels as they do, not just that they feel a certain way.
I believe you’ll also find that the disagreements are actually most often more about the meaning “behind” the terms being used (such as “saved” in this case) than they are about the Scripture’s message. Which is why it is very useful sometimes to study the Scripture in Greek (not Latin).

dadO and I are not going to see much eye to eye becuz

A. his format is not accepted here, so we can't 'really' even discuss it
and
B. because his format is a stand alone system, whatever he and I may think it means exactly nothing to that format anyway

What I WAS trying to point out is similar to your statement above on what the terms mean or entail. Most of the time the matters are vastly more interesting than the topic matter implies and I gave the OSAS debate against the non-OSAS and tried to show how maybe the 'set up questions' are severely lacking to begin with, therefore a false debate ensues when it's much more interesting than just that.

Here is a repeat of that example, not that it's a debate put forth, but it's meant to show that it is not as simple as a surface blast of one side or the other:

Even in OSAS I have had to 'modify' my own sights of that matter based on written evidence that shows it to be a bit more complex than a simple yes or no.

Example? [this is sooo easy]

Here is Paul's description of himself. If you read with any understanding whatsoever you'll see more than 'just Paul' in his own depiction:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Was Paul OSAS? Of course! Was the messenger of Satan SAVED? Fat Chance!!! No way.

Is the question itself then too simplistic? Uh, yeah.

We can see in the example above that at least the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh was assuredly not saved. So it is pointless to look at Paul without seeing that 'other' factor, regardless of what we might think about Paul himself one way or the other. One thing we should all be able to see is that the messenger of Satan was assuredly NOT saved and that working/worker was 'with' Paul.

It makes theology so much more interesting when we can get all the parties on the table for viewing. The topic matter get's much more interesting that way.

It's quite entirely fascinating, this Word of God.

s

 

[dadof10]

The man just called @smaller ‘s comment about 2 Cor 12:7 “drivel†and “ridiculousâ€. I cannot see why anyone (the hearer or the speaker) would think a comment such as that would provide any evidence to support one’s position, one way or the other. Telling someone they are wrong or “ridiculous†is not Apologetics or Theology. Providing Biblical evidence to show why someone’s view is wrong, now that’s evidence. Then it’s up to the hearer to evaluate the Scripture and the exegesis thereof. Two people might possibly then come to differing conclusions on what the Scripture means, sure. But at least you know WHY someone feels as they do, not just that they feel a certain way.

Did you read the rest of the very short post? I would be happy to show smaller the error of his ways, JUST NOT HERE. Urk made this thread for a reason, and it's not for debating. BTW, I didn't call smaller "ridiculous", I called his arguments ridiculous.

There are two active threads that deal with works and OSAS. If you would like to post over there I would be happy to converse with you also.

 

[dadof10]

dadO and I are not going to see much eye to eye becuz A. his format is not accepted here, so we can't 'really' even discuss it and

We are allowed to discuss OSAS and whether works effect salvation, though, which are not purely "Catholic" doctrines. I have posted almost 2000 times here, and almost ALL of them have been defending Catholic doctrine. I have found that the Mods are pretty lenient here, as long as we don't discuss specifically Catholic doctrine. So, feel free to engage me on those other threads...

 

[chessman]

It's quite entirely fascinating, this Word of God.

Exactly. I love studying it, even with people that disagree with me about what it says. I’ve been properly corrected in the past on my interpretations of certain individual passages.

It’s evidence toward the Bible’s Holy inspiration, to my way of thinking anyway, just how consistent God’s word is throughout its message from Gen to Rev. Just look at how many posts there are that say one thing at the first of their post, then something totally opposite somewhere else, even within the same post. News opinions/articles the same way.
But for multiple different people (on their own) over centuries of time writing consistently about the deepest subjects imaginable, no way without inspiration. Obviously, I’m not the first person to point this out. But with regard to this OP’s topic, that’s what is missing in these “agree to disagree†debates. The discussion and evidence of how the whole Bible is consistent toward any particular OP topic. When someone is plucking one particular verse out of context then “trying†and prove their opinion on the topic with just that one verse, that’s potentially out of context anyway, it’s not good study.

Also, trying to tackle too many topics or to large of a scope is not very productive. What’s the saying, “how do you eat an elephant?â€

Was Paul OSAS? Of course!

I agree. It’s hard to imagine any of Paul’s writings that would disagree with his statement here:

2 Cor 13:3 you are seeking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you.</SPAN> 4 For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you.
​

But if someone can point some of Paul’s statements out elsewhere that, WHEN evaluated in their proper context, contradict his opinion here on God’s might and power and Jesus’ purpose, I suppose I’m willing to listen. I’ve just never seen any that do contradict his position on OSAS here and dozens of other places like it.

Thus my point(s) in this thread that OSAS is different than Vasectomy and that the reason these “debates†seem circular is because people are not really looking at Scripture.

There’s just too much name-calling instead.

 

[smaller]

dadO and I are not going to see much eye to eye becuz A. his format is not accepted here, so we can't 'really' even discuss it and

We are allowed to discuss OSAS and whether works effect salvation, though, which are not purely "Catholic" doctrines.

They are from your end.

I have posted almost 2000 times here, and almost ALL of them have been defending Catholic doctrine.

Uh, yeah. Obviously it's tolerated to a point. That's why it's kind of unfair to have to listen to you pump the RCC angle and not fully expose the depths of their measures.

Your demands to have to heed 'an authority' other than scripture is in fact an RCC claim.

I have found that the Mods are pretty lenient here, as long as we don't discuss specifically Catholic doctrine. So, feel free to engage me on those other threads...

Uh, no, it can't happen here as it does tend to get ugly in short order, particularly when the realities of what said sect in question really brings to the table. That's when the members themselves go theologically nuclear.

s

 

[chessman]

As another evidence as to why God's Word and message is infallible not human word or messages:

BTW, I didn't call smaller "ridiculous", I called his arguments ridiculous.

I didn’t say you did. I said:

The man just called @smaller ‘s comment about 2 Cor 12:7 “drivel” and “ridiculous”.

Yet you mis-read that part.

 

[dadof10]

They are from your end.



Uh, yeah. Obviously it's tolerated to a point. That's why it's kind of unfair to have to listen to you pump the RCC angle and not fully expose the depths of their measures.

Your demands to have to heed 'an authority' other than scripture is in fact an RCC claim.

I have found that the Mods are pretty lenient here, as long as we don't discuss specifically Catholic doctrine. So, feel free to engage me on those other threads...

Uh, no, it can't happen here as it does tend to get ugly in short order, particularly when the realities of what said sect in question really brings to the table. That's when the members themselves go theologically nuclear.

s

IF you would simply stick to TOPICS instead of looking for opportunities to bash Catholicism, you would soon realize that there is no unfairness. When I simply argue points of doctrine from a Catholic perspective, I am free to post anything I want. Its when you start all the "your sect" garbage that the thread breaks down. I realize its all you have, so I don't really expect more from you. If you think you can actually deal with the doctrinal points instead of cheap theatrics and rhetoric, please post on the threads mentioned above.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dadof10]

As another evidence as to why God's Word and message is infallible not human word or messages:

BTW, I didn't call smaller "ridiculous", I called his arguments ridiculous.

I didn’t say you did. I said:

The man just called @smaller ‘s comment about 2 Cor 12:7 “drivel†and “ridiculousâ€.

Yet you mis-read that part.

I misread nothing. From the post in question:

"Telling someone they are wrong or “ridiculous†is not Apologetics or Theology."

If it was unintentional, just say so.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dadof10]

Your demands to have to heed 'an authority' other than scripture is in fact an RCC claim.

Its a Biblical claim, and if you would like to discuss Acts15, again, I would be happy to, just not here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[smaller]

Believers who fly christian 'rule' flags of their groups who can't own up to those rules they portend to swear by tend to my impatient side. What can I say?

s

 

[reba]

This thread has lost its way I suspect. Let's get back on topic.

When are the members going to understand the value of moderators ... Take your personal battles to PM thank you

Closed for review.