Why do Calvinists debate?

[Josheb]

By tomorrow I will delete this post and Joshebs response to it, to give you time to move it or start a new thread. Hopefully the rabbit trail will not have already begun.

We cannot move posts. You can, though.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I know you do not arrive at your beliefs through proof texting or usually use a scripture as a proof text or arrive at any doctrine from a single text, but that is what you have done here, as there is nothing supporting it but your interpretation. And it is at least presented as being all on its own producing a doctrine.

First we look at what the Bible says about God's sovereignty, therefore what God Himself says about it. Though there are hundreds of scriptures that can be used, I will limit it to a few, that should make His sovereignty clear.

Ps 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Prov 19:21 Many plans are in a man;s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand.

His sovereignty over creation.
Is 43:12-13 "It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, and there was no strange god among you. So you are My witnesses," declares the Lord, "And I am God. Even from eternity I am He. And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?
Is 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.
Is 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.
Lam 3:37-38 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the MOst High that both good and ill go forth?"

And don't forget Job 38-42

These texts fill me with awe and wonder at so great a love that this magnificent God condescends to take our place so that we might live with Him forever. Not only that, but he has forever become one of us in the process.

I think we both firmly agree with what you have written above. Where we may differ is whether He uses his sovereignty to draw people of His choosing irresistibly to Himself or whether he raises all from spiritual death and draws them to see and face their choice choice.

In light of this, how can we say that Jesus is mourning over something He could not do? And that the reason He cannot do it is because He has given His sovereignty over to fallen humanity to make a choice after He has given to all enough grace to believe? How can we interpret Matt 23:37 to mean that Jesus' death was mostly powerless and that it did not have a specific and definite intention?

It was the most powerful act in the universe. It defeated sin and removed its power over mankind. No one is lost because of sins, they are lost because they love darkness more than light. The cross restored mankind's free choice to resist or submit. If it weren't for the cross we would have no free choice at all because we would be dead in our sins and trespasses.

If we cannot in good conscience do that, then what is that passage saying? Since it really is a part of the OT in the covenantal relationship with Israel, its interpretation must be placed there. It does show the compassion Jesus has for those covenant people, He as Son of Man is one of them. It does show that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and yet the wicked must die. But the fact that it uses the poetic analogy of a mother hen and her chicks or that they would have none of it, neither portrays Jesus as impotent or them deciding their own salvation by allowing Him to save them.

They chose to resist even after God had chosen them. They were a chosen nation. God does not want companion bots. He wants love and love must be freely given by choice or it is not love.

The covenant law never promised eternal life, was not intended to produce eternal life. All were born in Adam. They were born sinners and no amount of law keeping or animal sacrifices would change that. Salvation has always and only ever been by faith. The law served many purposes such as instruction in righteousness, and it condemned them and us. But most importantly it was meant to drive us to the coming Savior, whose sacrifice would give eternal life to those who believe.

Yes, to those who believed, but not to those who chose to disbelieve.

Jesus wasn't speaking of salvation to eternal life in that passage. He was speaking to the Jews constant disobedience to the covenant stipulations that broke the covenant with God. That is the "you would not have it."

So not only can it not be used as a proof text or doctrinal foundation, it is not even speaking of what it was used to illustrate.

But it was speaking of the fundamental sorrow God has over the lost. "Why would ye die?" is his question to mankind. Not only was the history of Isreal about the Hebrews, it is also about us.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

When we look into why Jesus died we see a warrior coming to the rescue, not only a people for the Father, but through their redemption, the restoration of the entire creation, the utter destruction of the evil one and all the wicked forever, never more to plague those inhabitants of His kingdom, from the kingdom of darkness.

When we look at why Jesus died we see the Mighty One, stepping down into our world and as one of us, to gain victory over all God's enemies, and ironically that victory was in His death, for through it God place His King on Zion. We do not see a yearning, impotent Savior who made a way of escape. We see a King, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Ancient of Days, crowned with glory. We see an actual Savior who does exactly what He came to do. Rescue and keep all those God gave Him before the foundation of the world. There are a number of scriptures that say this, so to say He died as a yearning Savior who only made a way, is to say He is not the Sovereign God who does as He pleases and always accomplishes what He purposes to do, who turns the heart of kings to accomplish His purpose, and whose purpose and will none can thwart.

I will address the scripture you use to support your statement in a separate post as it may get a bit long when added to this one.

Yes, this reminds me of Psalms 18 which gives me chills every time I read it.

 

[Arial]

We cannot move posts. You can, though.

I had trouble moving them so will let them stand. But please don't continue that same back and forth. The fact that it is about things that are in Calvinism does not make it relevant to the OP or what the OP is asking and looking for. You did not address it to Mercy and it did not deal directly with the OP. I am weary of everytime you meet resistance from mods because you have stepped out of line, you blame them and spend a whole long OFF TOPIC post defending yourself and accusing admin. If you do it to this one it will meet the same consequences as the last one. Bite the bullet and move on from it. One of the rules is if you have a beef with staff you take it privately to the appropriate forum. Talk to admin/mods.

 

[David1701]

Yup - To declare YOU'RE INTERPRETATION of the "Truth", and to oppose theological opinions that you believe to be inaccurate.

Don't put words in my mouth.

You know what projection is, don't you?

 

[Arial]

I think we both firmly agree with what you have written above. Where we may differ is whether He uses his sovereignty to draw people of His choosing irresistibly to Himself or whether he raises all from spiritual death and draws them to see and face their choice choice.

Why would He use His sovereignty that way? What makes you think He did? No where does He ever say that or even imply it. On the contrary: John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up at the last day. The one He draws are not everyone, they are not also the unbelieving, they are the very same ones He will raise up at the last day. And if that were not clear enough He drills down on it later in verse when He identified why some did not believe (v64) Him in verse 65. And He said, "This is why I told you that no one CAN come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.

And in John 10:14-18 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; (Directly making that intimate connection between Jesus and His sheep and that of the Father and Him) and I lay down my life for the sheep. ANd I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd, or this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take if up again. This chard I have received from my Father.

Jesus had given the example of the sheep two different ways at this point. But still they asked Him to tell them plainly whether He was the Christ or not. And He said it again doubling down to drive it home. 25.Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 25 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27. My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.

If that is not enough we have Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.

Who are the foreknown etc?

Or what of Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

What does it mean that they were appointed to eternal life believed? And that only scratches the surface of where could go in the Scriptures to make my point. But as to you statement that He raises all from spiritual death to spiritual life----someone raised to spiritual life is spiritually alive. It is not a matter of choosing to stay alive or choosing to remain spiritually dead.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Why would He use His sovereignty that way? What makes you think He did?

The continuing theme throughout scripture of God making His appeal to men to be reconciled to him. People start dead in sins and trespasses. A dead person cannot communicate with God or hear of spiritual things. Unless God intervenes and brings them to spiritual life, they will never hear a word God says. But God also does not want instinctually righteous "pets." If He did, He could have created us to be righteous and always behave. He dod not do that and since He never changes, He still does not do that. He brings people to where they can make that choice. It all rides on that choice. If we submit to Him he is able and just to save us. If we resist He delivers us over to the darkness we love.

No where does He ever say that or even imply it. On the contrary: John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up at the last day. The one He draws are not everyone, they are not also the unbelieving, they are the very same ones He will raise up at the last day. And if that were not clear enough He drills down on it later in verse when He identified why some did not believe (v64) Him in verse 65. And He said, "This is why I told you that no one CAN come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.

And yet just a few verses down Jesus asks, “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. They had a choice to make. The rich young ruler is another example of a man who was drawn to Christ and asked sincerely, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life." Jesus read this man's heart and He loved him, but sadly the man chose to resist.

Even the Pharasee's were courted by the Holy Spirit but they resisted. As Stephen said, to them, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you."

And in John 10:14-18 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; (Directly making that intimate connection between Jesus and His sheep and that of the Father and Him) and I lay down my life for the sheep. ANd I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd, or this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take if up again. This chard I have received from my Father.

Jesus had given the example of the sheep two different ways at this point. But still they asked Him to tell them plainly whether He was the Christ or not. And He said it again doubling down to drive it home. 25.Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 25 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27. My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.

They were not his sheep because they resisted the Holy Spirit. God, through the prophet Isiah said of the Jewish leaders, "All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations—" They could have been His sheep but they were not willing. And yet some were.

If that is not enough we have Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.

Who are the foreknown etc?

Simply those whom God observed would not resist. God sees the beginning and the end all at once, but that does not mean that He manipulates it.

Or what of Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

What does it mean that they were appointed to eternal life believed? And that only scratches the surface of where could go in the Scriptures to make my point. But as to you statement that He raises all from spiritual death to spiritual life----someone raised to spiritual life is spiritually alive. It is not a matter of choosing to stay alive or choosing to remain spiritually dead.

All who do not resist are appointed to eternal life. Jesus desired to appoint the Rich Young Ruler to eternal life but the man would not submit.

 

[makesends]

Rev 3:21 is the other side of the two-edged sword: To the one who overcomes... We must, by the power of the Holy Spirit, strive to understand all of scripture to arrive at truth. This teaching to the Church at Laodicea brings out several key points such as, we must overcome even as Christ overcame.

This does not answer what I said

I think appeals to is a better choice of words. And yes, unless the Father draws them, They will never come to Christ. We also know that this drawing includes all men. As Jesus said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." Some resist and others submit. Just as the Ark was open to all who would come and it drew all people to it, only 8 submitted themselves to it and climbed aboard.

Not that it is relevant, but, where does Scripture say the ark was open to all who would come? Maybe I can learn something here.

We know, by drawing parallels to the parable of the sower that many who are brought to spiritual life fall away because they lose faith in God. Being made alive, it would seem, gives the spiritually resurrected the ability to make an informed decision as to whether to submit or resist. If God's Grace were irresistible Jesus would never have wept over Jerusalem, crying, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

Not all God's grace is irresistible. Nobody is claiming that it is. The term, 'Irresistible Grace', only refers to that grace of the gift of the Holy Spirit, taking up residence in the person he thus regenerates. The resulting faith is made by God, only called our faith because it is done in us, not by us. It is irresistible because we are not consulted for permission nor advice concerning this transformation from death to life.

We are talking different languages, probably as a result of having two different points of view.

You came on this forum asking questions. I'm beginning to see that they were only rhetorical, intended to draw out replies for you to contend or agree with. I don't see your objections here as anything but you proselytizing, or worse, trolling, rather than asking for clarification or explanation.

 

[makesends]

You do not know what could have happened after it happens. You know what did happen after it happens. Know what did happen, you assume it is the only thing that could have happened, and that assumption is made employing a post hoc logical fallacy. The "argument" is irrational. Calvinism is not irrational. If you do not know what could happen then you have no basis for saying there is no possibility that anything that does not happen could have happened. That is not the same thing as saying "Nothing happened but what happened."

Yet you have no evidence showing that anything else could have happened. All you have is the fact of choice, and the centuries-worth of people supposing that it could have gone either way. You have habit.

It is self-evident, that what could have happened, happened, since it did happen.

What is irrational is to "argue" that what never happens could happen.

 

[makesends]

Secondary causes are not identical to or synonymous with second, third, fourth, fifth causes. The word "secondary" is ordinal, not nominal. Throughout these threads you've argued the first cause indirectly and necessarily caused all subsequent causes and that is true. However, it has nothing to do with God adding multiple OTHER unrelated causes. You haven't tried to correct. me. What you've been doing is trying to persuade me to accept an error. God is not only the first cause. He is also the subsequent cause, the second cause and not the secondary cause, the third, fourth, fifth, the multiple-causing cause and not the tertiary cause.

Are you saying that God not only is first cause, deistically, but also inserts himself into the mix from time to time as producing new 'first effects' (which also turn out to be causes with their own chains of causation)? —I have no argument with that. I've said as much several times, I thought.

 

[makesends]

Is that the question you would like me to answer and us to engage in discussion? If so, then please affirm that intent and goal.

If not, then start over. State the thesis or inquiry you want answered and discussed.

My question was directed at another poster, or at least, it was meant to be.

 

[Arial]

The continuing theme throughout scripture of God making His appeal to men to be reconciled to him.

The continuing theme throughout scripture is God, period. He is not appealing to men to be reconciled to Him, as one pleading. He commands our obedience and He commands our righteousness. What you present is a misapprehension of our position as a creature, one He created, compared to His position as self existent, eternal and completely other than us. His holiness is more than just His moral perfection, it is His otherness. He reconciles any to Himself because He wants to. We can not reconcile ourselves to Him, we are born in iniquity. He is making a way for us to be reconciled and that is through the person and work of Jesus.

But God also does not want instinctually righteous "pets." If He did, He could have created us to be righteous and always behave. He dod not do that and since He never changes, He still does not do that. He brings people to where they can make that choice. It all rides on that choice. If we submit to Him he is able and just to save us. If we resist He delivers us over to the darkness we love.

This is just a presumption from only seeing things from the human perspective and then defining them as such. It also completely warps the Reformed teaching. It argues from the position that irresistible grace or effectual grace would make pets or puppets out of people, when it does no such thing. That they are forced to love Him and follow Him, when in fact they are given a whole new birth, a new creation in Christ. One that does love Him. And He did create us righteous. But He also created us corruptible and mortal. Why is something you will have to ask Him, but if it was something He intended we know or we needed to know, He would have in His word. We are not the center of His purpose. His glory is. And what He is doing through the redemption of a people has the end result of one who is not corruptible (because all that can corrupt Him is destroyed) and therefore is immortal. His immutibleness is not relevant. Not in the way you have used it.

Please support the statement that He brings people to where they can make that choice. Then we can examine it together and see if that is correct or not.

And yet just a few verses down Jesus asks, “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. They had a choice to make. The rich young ruler is another example of a man who was drawn to Christ and asked sincerely, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life." Jesus read this man's heart and He loved him, but sadly the man chose to resist.

So Jesus said one thing and then the opposite? If the statements I quoted are clear as a bell, and they are, then the problem is in the way you are looking at the ones you say don't mean what the clear passages mean. For one thing, it is two different subjects. And neither one of those instances ever states that God draws and enlightens everyone and then they make a choice. That is absolutely read into them.

They were not his sheep because they resisted the Holy Spirit.

Does it say that? No. It says nothing about the Holy Spirit. It says they didn't believe Him because they weren't His sheep. Which mean if they were His sheep they would have believed Him. My sheep hear my voice.

God, through the prophet Isiah said of the Jewish leaders, "All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations—" They could have been His sheep but they were not willing. And yet some were.

They could have obeyed Him but they didn't. This is not about salvation. And read the entirety of John 10. It is an agricultural analogy and one those hearing knew well. It is literally true that literal sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger, but will always follow the voice of their shepherd. They may be all jumbled together in the sheep pen when they were brought in for safety at night. They were separated in the morning to go out to pasture, by the voice of their shepherd. They only followed their shepherd. The sheep did not decide to belong to a different shepherd. They were either a sheep belonging to a particular shepherd or they were not. A sheep cannot take ownership of a shepherd. The shepherd has to take ownership of the sheep. ANd besides Jesus said He knew who were His becase they had been given to Him before the foundation of the world. Think bigger.

Simply those whom God observed would not resist. God sees the beginning and the end all at once, but that does not mean that He manipulates it.

Then God is not sovereign. What did those scriptures on His sovereignty say? That is the definition Geisler gives to foreknew. Read the Potter's Freedom by James White. Geisler changes foreknew God seeing the future as you say and then His determining becomes God determines to see that what He sees happening happens as He sees it happening. That is skewed beyond the pale. And it is all for the sake of man retaining HIS freedom over and above that of God. God choosing only people He knows will choose Him---is not love.

All who do not resist are appointed to eternal life. Jesus desired to appoint the Rich Young Ruler to eternal life but the man would not submit

But that is not what it says. It says, "And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Therefore those who were not appointed to eternal life didn't believe. Where is that discourse between Jesus and the rich young ruler does it say that Jesus desired to appoint him to eternal life. We must not, must not, must not, read into scripture what is not there or we will never arrive at the truth.

 

[makesends]

Okay. I stand corrected. However, you are still arguing God as the sole cause of all other secondary causes based solely on the one first cause when scripture tells us God is adding new and different causes throughout history. All secondary causes are NOT consequences of the one cause caused by the First Cause.

And you do say that. We can see it in the previously quoted portion of Post #45.

I expect this is what you are referring to: "God IS the first cause, that has caused many other causes, and, indirectly —that is, by means of secondary causes— has caused all other causes, to include the human will. And every one of these causes, except for First Cause himself, is an effect of an 'earlier' cause." Perhaps in my focus on the question at hand (you had said I had denied everything except direct cause), in that part of what I said I did not mention that God does 'insert himself' to directly cause along the way. But I have said it elsewhere; in fact, it can be argued by Immanence that God is involved in every cause, but there's no need to argue that question today.

My point is that our biggest departure, at this point, is that I see your view as that of things coming to pass by way of man's choice that are not by God's decree/ ordaining. Second to that, though part of the same, is the notion that things can come to pass, which God has not decided, and that simply doesn't add up to me, nor do I see it in Scripture. I only hope I am hearing you wrong, or, at least, that your view does not actually represent Calvinism.

You just did so! You posted, "God IS the first cause, that has caused many other causes, and, indirectly —that is, by means of secondary causes— has caused all other causes, to include the human will. And every one of these causes, except for First Cause himself, is an effect of an 'earlier' cause."

This is hugely inconsistent with both scripture and your own posts. If God adds subsequent causes, then all the secondary causes are not effects of the earlier First Cause caused cause. They are effects of First Cause caused second cause that then causes other secondary causes that are NOT effects of any earlier cause, or any earlier causality.

I see I closed up shop too early. My bad. Yes, I did not finish the point. Not all causes are directly caused by God, nor are all the effects caused within time results of other causes but some are directly caused by God.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Of course he has added subsequent causes. That's what every effect ever caused (as far as I know) always turns out to be —a subsequent cause.

Again, this is self-contradictory. God adding causes may have absolutely nothing to do with any prior cause He caused. God is not limited by His own (uncaused) causality. That's absurd.

I wasn't addressing those. You had said something to the effect that I had denied ....argh! Let me go look it up... here it is:
Josheb said:
You have also denied the possibility God could/can and according to scripture, has added subsequent causes.
So I said that he has indeed added subsequent causes, and that I don't deny it. By what I said, which you say is self-contradictory, (unless I misunderstand what you are talking about), that as far as I know, every effect caused subsequently turns out to also be a cause. I don't know what is self-contradictory about that, nor absurd. Who said anything about God being limited in any way, nevermind limited by his own (uncaused) causality? I don't even imply that, unless by poor use of language or sentence structure.

 

[Josheb]

Yet you have no evidence showing that anything else could have happened. All you have is the fact of choice, and the centuries-worth of people supposing that it could have gone either way. You have habit.

It is self-evident, that what could have happened, happened, since it did happen.

What is irrational is to "argue" that what never happens could happen.

Are you saying that God not only is first cause, deistically, but also inserts himself into the mix from time to time as producing new 'first effects' (which also turn out to be causes with their own chains of causation)? —I have no argument with that. I've said as much several times, I thought.

My question was directed at another poster, or at least, it was meant to be.

I expect this is what you are referring to: "God IS the first cause, that has caused many other causes, and, indirectly —that is, by means of secondary causes— has caused all other causes, to include the human will. And every one of these causes, except for First Cause himself, is an effect of an 'earlier' cause." Perhaps in my focus on the question at hand (you had said I had denied everything except direct cause), in that part of what I said I did not mention that God does 'insert himself' to directly cause along the way. But I have said it elsewhere; in fact, it can be argued by Immanence that God is involved in every cause, but there's no need to argue that question today.

My point is that our biggest departure, at this point, is that I see your view as that of things coming to pass by way of man's choice that are not by God's decree/ ordaining. Second to that, though part of the same, is the notion that things can come to pass, which God has not decided, and that simply doesn't add up to me, nor do I see it in Scripture. I only hope I am hearing you wrong, or, at least, that your view does not actually represent Calvinism.


I see I closed up shop too early. My bad. Yes, I did not finish the point. Not all causes are directly caused by God, nor are all the effects caused within time results of other causes but some are directly caused by God.

makesends said:
Of course he has added subsequent causes. That's what every effect ever caused (as far as I know) always turns out to be —a subsequent cause.

I wasn't addressing those. You had said something to the effect that I had denied ....argh! Let me go look it up... here it is:
Josheb said:
You have also denied the possibility God could/can and according to scripture, has added subsequent causes.
So I said that he has indeed added subsequent causes, and that I don't deny it. By what I said, which you say is self-contradictory, (unless I misunderstand what you are talking about), that as far as I know, every effect caused subsequently turns out to also be a cause. I don't know what is self-contradictory about that, nor absurd. Who said anything about God being limited in any way, nevermind limited by his own (uncaused) causality? I don't even imply that, unless by poor use of language or sentence structure.

Take it to the other thread.

 

[Arial]

Take it to the other thread.

Thank you.

 

[makesends]

Take it to the other thread.

lol, my bad. I forgot which thread we were in.

 

[makesends]

We cannot move posts. You can, though.

@Arial I have copied my last two, and pasted them to the other thread, https://christcentered.community.fo...more-than-what-happens-can-happen.1353/page-5

I was not given the option to cut, nor can I edit them out after 15 min has passed. Maybe I still have time to get to the last one.

 

[makesends]

@Arial I have copied my last two, and pasted them to the other thread, https://christcentered.community.fo...more-than-what-happens-can-happen.1353/page-5

I was not given the option to cut, nor can I edit them out after 15 min has passed. Maybe I still have time to get to the last one.

@Arial and @Josheb it appears I was able to delete my last two in time.

 

[Josheb]

Thank you.

This is how I think the posts can be moved: Admins should have a small square at the bottom left corner of the post(s) to be moved. Clicking on that puts a check in the box and a menu ribbon appears at the bottom of the webpage and in that ribbon is a menu box that says, "Choose an action..." In that options box select "Move posts," and then "Go." From there a menu box opens asking if you're sure you want to move the posts with options for which forum and which thread - a new one or an existing one (and the url of the existing thread has to be put in there, which can be found in Post #19 of this thread). I'm not sure, but I think it might be possible to move more than one post at a time (that is, if God has determined that possibility ).

You can deselect the option to notify us because we'll know the posts were moved and if we can't find them, we should be able to go to our own posting history and connect to them from there. Or we can go to the contents page of the Arm v Cal board and find any new threads.