# How should one answer this?



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 20, 2006)

I'm not quite sure where to post this but this forum seemed like the most logical place.


Awhile back I was having a disscusion with a professed Christian brother(albeit Arminian Charismatic) over some points of doctrine.

When he had "discerned" that I was a Calvinist he briefly stated that Calvinists were anti-semites and refused to continue our disscusion.

First: Where on earth would someone get this idea?

Second: How does one logically answer such an allegation?


----------



## turmeric (Nov 20, 2006)

He's heard this from Dispensationalists, no doubt. Because covenant theology does not teach that the nation of Israel will rule the earth for a thousand years, and build a real temple and have real animal sacrifices in it under the reign of Christ - we just don't like Jews, says the "logic" of their position.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> I'm not quite sure where to post this but this forum seemed like the most logical place.
> 
> Awhile back I was having a disscusion with a professed Christian brother(albeit Arminian Charismatic) over some points of doctrine.
> 
> ...


First: Probably from TBN or from his Calvary Chapel pastor.

Second: How can you respond? A man who refuses to continue a conversation? You could ask him: "Well, since you won't even call me Brother, at least you could obey God and love your enemy enough to be courteous to me." I don't know if that would be snide but if the guy was just being obnoxious I guess I might just leave him be.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 20, 2006)

Good points. Don't know why I didn't make the possible dispensationalist connection. I guess because when I was a Dispensational I didn't feel that way about Calvinists.

Also a good point Rich, how does one respond to someone who walks out on a conversation? One really can't I suppose.

Any other suggestions/opinions?

If someone didn't just bail on the conversation what can someone say in response to such an accusation? (Again provided the person doesn't just bail out of the talk and is willing to hear what one has to say.)


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Nov 20, 2006)

His objection makes no sense in reference to Calvinism. He probably just realizes that many Calvinist are not Dispensationalist, but one could be both in my opinion. 

If his argument is against covenant theology then he is begging the question. This is assuming that if his view was right that would make the view of a non-dispensationalist a anti-semite. Although I think such logic is flawed, even if we grant him his argument he still begs the question, because only on his view would it be anti-semite (although that could be questioned as well). It seems like this to me at least.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2006)

Anti-Semite? Its the Dispensationalists that are slavering (is it ok to use that to describe their edge-of-the-seat anticipation) for Armageddon to happen, and millions of Jews to get slaughtered.

We non-Dispensational calvinists think nothing of the kind. We just hope millions become Christians before they go the way of all flesh, sooner or later, and before the 2nd Coming. So what if we don't have a theology that teaches a divinely appointed haulocaust?

Oh, right. That makes us anti-Semitic. click


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 21, 2006)

I understand the frustration and the sarcasm. It is warranted and even humourous. 

Still, what would be the counter argument (point for point if you will) that one would use to answer such an accusation?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2006)

I'd ask him, "Hey bud, that's a pretty bold accusation of some pretty serious sin. Now if you're serious about the Bible, then you know you have a Mt. 18 duty to confront me about that and point out to me from Holy Writ where my sin an error is. "Ye that are spiritual restore such an one" (Gal. 6). So I'm waiting. But if you don't have anything to say, then I have a duty to confront you about the sin of slander. That's a violation of the 9th commandment. That is the kind of sin that was used to accuse Jesus before the high priest. Not even Michael durst bring a railing accusation against Satan (Jude). So which will it be? Will you take me to the Scriptures to show me my "racism," or will you retract and repent of your evil speech toward me?"


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 21, 2006)

Thanks, thats the kind of thing I'm looking for. I'm not very good at talking to people sometimes and it helps if I learn a counter argument.

Any more suggestions. If a conversation ensues from the confrontation what direction should one "steer" it in?(provided it does become a conversation and not just a verbal fight)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Thanks, thats the kind of thing I'm looking for. I'm not very good at talking to people sometimes and it helps if I learn a counter argument.
> 
> Any more suggestions. If a conversation ensues from the confrontation what direction should one "steer" it in?(provided it does become a conversation and not just a verbal fight)



I would steer it into the direction of a desire to be faithful to God's Word and taking every thought captive to it. Honestly, there is so much baggage with a dispensationalist that is nigh impossible to overthrow all the excrement they have learned in a single conversation. I've been laboring in teaching at my Sunday School for about a year and I've gotten many to the point that they can appreciate some "hard sayings" because they know I love them and I love the Word. If I tried to do that in a 15 minute conversation it would go over their heads.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 21, 2006)

Thanks Rich.

Thanks all of you for your answers.

You make a very good point Rich. When I was leaving dispensationalism it took me awhile before I shed all of the "baggage". Still,I found it an unusual statement from the guy to begin with since durring the time in my walk when I was a dispensationalist (and Old Landmarkist BTW) I never had that belief regarding Calvinists and certainly never would have accused them of racism. I guess thats why the whole remark caught me off guard. 

Certainly though, you are right. We must have patience and approach the conversation from the Scripture's light.

Again thank you all for your guidance.


----------

