Total Depravity and the American Indian

[Guest]

Steve:

So I would have to ask, "What Bible are you using, Mark?" (I really don't want to know, because I don't want to tempt you to shatter the last vestiges of your integrity by inducing you to break your word one more time).

He can't help but break his word, Steve. He was predestined to do so.

God knew He was going to do so. So how could he have done otherwise?

[Guest]

Would you two in the name of Jesus please "kiss and make up"?
Really brothers, this is getting old. It would be the "brotherly" thing to do.

A fellow brother,
Bob

Thanks Bob, but I have a simple plight.
What can I do to kiss and make up? I am the one here on the back foot.
I am a visitor here. I have been told in so many words I am not welcome.
My posts have been deleted. I have praised Steve several times even though we disagree about a lot. He has at NO TIME ever said anything good about me or ANYTHING I have said, NOT ONCE brother!!

He has the power to extend the arm of fellowship, not me. I am his guest. He has not done so.

I have honestly explained why I have continued to post, right or wrong. I have been responded to at times when I have stayed and replied, and other times I have been squarely hit between the eyes and called dishonest and a man with no integrity etc. To some extent I can see that point, but!!

Steve has even said he will not post where I am, and yet he himself has broken his word. Am I making a big deal about that?
No, I am not. I am more reasonable when it comes to these kinds of exchanges. And please note how Paidion has now on several occasions posted snipes against me, piggy backing on opportune moments, which personally I find weak in a man.

So, again I ask, how do I kiss and make up, since I am being unfairly put on the spot?

Mark

[Guest]

He has the power to extend the arm of fellowship, not me. I am his guest. He has not done so.

Lets not equate extending an arm of fellowship with embracing one's position about something. I guess persecution versus patience is in the eye of the beholder, but I've always thought that Steve has the patience of a saint when it comes to some of the behavior and attitudes that I've seen from some people. As the admin/moderator of another forum, I'd have to say that Steve is a lot more lenient that I would be. But then again, those that I've had to moderate in the past wore a mantle of persecution in their martyrdom as well.
D.

[Guest]

Apparently a different one from you. For example, mine does not contain the phrase, "For when the nations..." in Romans, as yours apparently does. In fact, I did a search of 16 versions of the Bible, and did not find this phrase anywhere in Romans. So I would have to ask, "What Bible are you using, Mark?" (I really don't want to know, because I don't want to tempt you to shatter the last vestiges of your integrity by inducing you to break your word one more time).

You already said you would not post where I was posting, so where is your integrity Steve?
Cuts both ways brother.

However, I will not visit the Calvinism section of the forum as long as he (Tartanarmy) is there.

Steve Gregg.Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: About tartanarmy continuing on the forum

Answer to above statement.....

Rom 2:14 For when nations not having Law do by nature the things of the Law, they not having Law are a law to themselves,

Romans 2:14 (Young's Literal Translation)


For when [those of the] nations, which have no law, practise by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law to themselves;

Romans 2:14 (Darby Translation)

Romans 2:14
For when heathen men that have not law, do naturally [do by kind] those things that be of the law, they not having such manner [of] law, be law to themselves,

(Wycliffe New Testament)

STRONGS G1484

ἔθνος....ethnos...eth'-nos

Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

Mark

[Guest]

D.........I guess people believe whatever they want to believe brother.

Mark

[Guest]

AARONDISNEY...Do you even bother to read what I do actually say?

Mark

[Guest]

But this is not in the context of the argument of Romans one, so it does not necessarily enter into its interpretation.

How on earth can you substantiate such a thing?

Mark

[Guest]

You already said you would not post where I was posting, so where is your integrity Steve?
Cuts both ways brother.
Mark

So when Steve is responding to a topic by Homer and you reply after Steve and are asking him a question followed by "Final word guaranteed" means that he is not breaking his word, since you said essentially that you aren't coming back. So are you now admitting that you lied to try and trap Steve? The only way you can make this claim is by breaking your own word. Amazing! Does a hypocrite have a leg to stand on?

Mat 5:33 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'

Mat 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Steve never kicked you off the forum (yet). Instead of using your time here to show biblically the case for Calvinism (as you were trying to do at first), you continually protest and say you don't want to post anymore and you are going to leave. But you never do. You have broken your word now several times. Even people on doctrines of grace have asked you to keep your word. Apparently they are wrong too? I'd love to continue to debate the issue, but you seem to have given up a while back.

If it were up to me, you'd be banned.

[_AARONDISNEY]

AARONDISNEY...Do you even bother to read what I do actually say?

Mark

While I don't enter into alot of Calvinism debate on this forum, I've researched it pretty extensively and I don't find it convincing in the least bit. So I don't really bother a whole lot. I've found the best arguments for Calvinism are answerable and the best arguments against are not.

I don't mean to just give you a big thing to read that you have no hope of getting through, but just in case you don't believe me when I say that I can answer the arguments against Calvinism well enough to stand solidly in my beliefs.....This is a conversation I had on a blog with a Calvinistic thinker.

http://www.mychurch.org/blog/12808/Pred ... -Chapter-9


I don't really start discussing with him until about one third of the way through. But we covered a lot of ground and if you have any objection that the blogger didn't raise that you think I haven't considered, please let me know. If you don't want to read through it, I also understand, not everyone has all the time in the world. I just don't really care to go on and on about what I've already solidified in my own understandings. And it's pretty clear that you don't want to change positions - so what's the point?

[Guest]

D.........I guess people believe whatever they want to believe brother.

Seems so. Yet when you are in a situation where everyone else seems to be upside down in their thinking, perhaps one should consider the possibility that it is themselves that are standing on their head.
D.