Well that wasn't as nice as you tried to make it seem, wrapping it in some syrup. What you said is what i have said all along, except I am keen to a number of things you are not, although i just posted an explanation to Steve that you might try and read before you answer a matter. The Corinthians thought they were quite loving and mature because of their tolerant atitude towards the fornicator in their midst. Paul had a different take on it.Why must you pepper your posts with these arrogant remarks? You always do this (I have read many of your posts elsewhere), and it servers no other purpose than to make you appear to be just kind of a jerk. You are a smart guy, and I have enjoyed many things that you have written in the past (even saved some to my computer), but always found your snide remarks to be so off-putting. Surely you don't do it to strengthen your argument? Do you think that it does this? Does it make you feel smarter, when you are condenscending to your brother? I think you're plenty smart bro. So feel free to just be a nice guy. It's ok!
Monsieur Calvin and UN-Limited Atonement?
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
Well Derek, maybe some of us can attain to that high and lofty level of spirituality and maturity that you seem to think you walk in, even though you posted this to tart:
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
SSS,
Are you comparing Calvinism to sexual immorality (I Cor 5)? If that is the case, then does that mean just as impenitent sexually immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9-11), so also impenitent Calvinists will not inherit the kingdom?
There have been too many Calvinists on this forum who have personally attacked others for their views. Two wrongs do not make a right. From what little I know about Arminius, he was no wimp, taking on the heads of his seminary and the Reformers where he thought necessary, but there is a reason why he was called the "Quiet Dutchman". You may share his theology, but based on your comments to Derek, you seem more in line with your caricature of John Calvin. I am not sure Arminius would want this kind of advertisement.
Are you comparing Calvinism to sexual immorality (I Cor 5)? If that is the case, then does that mean just as impenitent sexually immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9-11), so also impenitent Calvinists will not inherit the kingdom?
There have been too many Calvinists on this forum who have personally attacked others for their views. Two wrongs do not make a right. From what little I know about Arminius, he was no wimp, taking on the heads of his seminary and the Reformers where he thought necessary, but there is a reason why he was called the "Quiet Dutchman". You may share his theology, but based on your comments to Derek, you seem more in line with your caricature of John Calvin. I am not sure Arminius would want this kind of advertisement.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Christ,
David
David
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
David:
No I was not comparing Calvinism to sexual immorality and the consequences that follow such a position. There have always been, and always will be good Calvinists, who have the fruit of the Spirit, because the grace of God in their lives went so deep and wide in their hearts, that it naturally overrides whatever is in their head, no matter how jolting it may be.
What i am saying is that the Corinthians thought it was loving and mature to tolerate a fornicator in their midst and not confront him and that sin. In the same way some think that ignoring the sins and tactics of a certain stripe of Calvinists, while they scheme to draw others into their traps and errors is maturity and being spiritual. I don't.
No I was not comparing Calvinism to sexual immorality and the consequences that follow such a position. There have always been, and always will be good Calvinists, who have the fruit of the Spirit, because the grace of God in their lives went so deep and wide in their hearts, that it naturally overrides whatever is in their head, no matter how jolting it may be.
What i am saying is that the Corinthians thought it was loving and mature to tolerate a fornicator in their midst and not confront him and that sin. In the same way some think that ignoring the sins and tactics of a certain stripe of Calvinists, while they scheme to draw others into their traps and errors is maturity and being spiritual. I don't.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
SSS,
I wish your last post had replaced the one preceeding it. The last post is one that another blogger can take seriously and respond to. I agree with you that the Corinthians were impressed with their tolerance when they should have put the impenitent man out, but that was over sexual immorality. This is a doctrinal disagreement, where godly men have disagreed for centuries, not a cut and dry judgment such as whether God allows fornicating. This particular topic stretches across the entire Bible and deals with very central issues about the Christian life and apologetic. Paul prayed his readers would be given a spirit of wisdom and revelation regarding his teachings on topics such as election in Eph. 1, so to me it is understandable why people do not quickly change sides.
I do not know very much about James White. I had never heard of him prior to checking back in on this forum last week. I decided to listen to some of his audio files. I understand some of the things you have pointed out - the sarcasm in particular. There is room for this, of course, and it can be used to make a valid point, but he lays it on pretty thick. I think in a discussion like this, where historically people become pretty heated pretty quickly, it would be better if White did not use sarcasm at all.
The concern you feel about people falling sway to "Calvinist tricks" is somewhat how I feel about people rejecting doctrines that I sincerely consider to be "doctrines of grace". I do not think you or I concede a millimeter of ground, however, by taking a meeker approach and realizing that whether granted or enabled, God must teach the ones in error the truth. And since the wrath of man does not bring about the righteousness of God, I think you and Mark need to call a truce on the war of words.
You have mentioned Dan Corner in some of your earlier posts. Some advice - you may believe that his exposition of certain passages is true, but do not copy part and parcel his attitude. Handing out Skull and Crossbone awards is just childish. It is no better than what happens on some Calvinist blogs.
I wish your last post had replaced the one preceeding it. The last post is one that another blogger can take seriously and respond to. I agree with you that the Corinthians were impressed with their tolerance when they should have put the impenitent man out, but that was over sexual immorality. This is a doctrinal disagreement, where godly men have disagreed for centuries, not a cut and dry judgment such as whether God allows fornicating. This particular topic stretches across the entire Bible and deals with very central issues about the Christian life and apologetic. Paul prayed his readers would be given a spirit of wisdom and revelation regarding his teachings on topics such as election in Eph. 1, so to me it is understandable why people do not quickly change sides.
I do not know very much about James White. I had never heard of him prior to checking back in on this forum last week. I decided to listen to some of his audio files. I understand some of the things you have pointed out - the sarcasm in particular. There is room for this, of course, and it can be used to make a valid point, but he lays it on pretty thick. I think in a discussion like this, where historically people become pretty heated pretty quickly, it would be better if White did not use sarcasm at all.
The concern you feel about people falling sway to "Calvinist tricks" is somewhat how I feel about people rejecting doctrines that I sincerely consider to be "doctrines of grace". I do not think you or I concede a millimeter of ground, however, by taking a meeker approach and realizing that whether granted or enabled, God must teach the ones in error the truth. And since the wrath of man does not bring about the righteousness of God, I think you and Mark need to call a truce on the war of words.
You have mentioned Dan Corner in some of your earlier posts. Some advice - you may believe that his exposition of certain passages is true, but do not copy part and parcel his attitude. Handing out Skull and Crossbone awards is just childish. It is no better than what happens on some Calvinist blogs.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Christ,
David
David
I was asking a question. There is no venom in my post at all. He does make many arrogant remarks, in my opinion. However, there is not the same divisive spirit in his posts that I see in yours.Super Sola Scriptura wrote:Well Derek, maybe some of us can attain to that high and lofty level of spirituality and maturity that you seem to think you walk in, even though you posted this to tart:
Well that wasn't as nice as you tried to make it seem, wrapping it in some syrup. What you said is what i have said all along, except I am keen to a number of things you are not, although i just posted an explanation to Steve that you might try and read before you answer a matter. The Corinthians thought they were quite loving and mature because of their tolerant atitude towards the fornicator in their midst. Paul had a different take on it.Why must you pepper your posts with these arrogant remarks? You always do this (I have read many of your posts elsewhere), and it servers no other purpose than to make you appear to be just kind of a jerk. You are a smart guy, and I have enjoyed many things that you have written in the past (even saved some to my computer), but always found your snide remarks to be so off-putting. Surely you don't do it to strengthen your argument? Do you think that it does this? Does it make you feel smarter, when you are condenscending to your brother? I think you're plenty smart bro. So feel free to just be a nice guy. It's ok!
You don't only show this evil spirit with regard to Calvinism, but show it towards any position that is not consistant with your own.
Take for instance, the thread on the KJV version of the bible. You got so out of hand that you were almost ejected from the forum, but you repented of your horrible behaviour, at least temporarilly (apparently it didn't take!).
This is my last post to you. You can have the last word.
Regards,
Derek
Last edited by _AlexRodriguez on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
"Evil" attitude? I'm evil now? You can have the last word. Your post speaks for itself(mischaracterizations).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Super Sola Scriptura
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
I went back and re-read the KJV posts, and again, misrepresentation on your part. Exaggeration is a fleshly trait that needs to be put to death on your part. It does not honor Christ.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
It was your KJV-only post entitled "The Alexandrian Cult" that I was thinking of. Sorry about that.Super Sola Scriptura wrote:I went back and re-read the KJV posts, and again, misrepresentation on your part. Exaggeration is a fleshly trait that needs to be put to death on your part. It does not honor Christ.
Heres the thread, in case you forgot about it.
The Alexadrian Cult
It seems that when I respond to your posts, I often respond in the flesh. That is not right, and I apologize. This is not the place for pointless arguments. I think it's best if I just don't respond to you anymore.
I would also like to apologize to anyone who has been reading this little exchange.
God bless,
Last edited by _AlexRodriguez on Sat May 05, 2007 8:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Super Sola Scriptura,
I have been receiving private messages (from people of both sides of this debate) suggesting that I ban you from the forum. The problem is not your positions, but the spirit in which you voice them, and the personal venom which everyone can feel coming through your posts.
It is possible that it is merely this Calvinist topic that gets you steamed, so instead of banning you from the forum, I would like to request that you voluntarily take a moratorium from posting on the subjects of Calvinism or James White.
Personal attacks against particular Christian teachers (including myself), and broad-brushed lambastes about Christians of a certain theological persuasion, may be welcome on other message boards, but those who read this one (including myself) find them defiling and odious—certainly they don't adorn the truths that you believe in.
So, please, take a break from this topic. If I continue getting complaints, I will consider taking more permanent action.
I have been receiving private messages (from people of both sides of this debate) suggesting that I ban you from the forum. The problem is not your positions, but the spirit in which you voice them, and the personal venom which everyone can feel coming through your posts.
It is possible that it is merely this Calvinist topic that gets you steamed, so instead of banning you from the forum, I would like to request that you voluntarily take a moratorium from posting on the subjects of Calvinism or James White.
Personal attacks against particular Christian teachers (including myself), and broad-brushed lambastes about Christians of a certain theological persuasion, may be welcome on other message boards, but those who read this one (including myself) find them defiling and odious—certainly they don't adorn the truths that you believe in.
So, please, take a break from this topic. If I continue getting complaints, I will consider taking more permanent action.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Thanks Derek, I am taking your comments on board brother. I do not intend to come off as arrogant! really! 
Maybe it's the Polemicist in me!
Mark
Maybe it's the Polemicist in me!
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: