Featured Hunt vs White

Keep things in context here. This is you and me. That's the context. Show me my appeals to creeds, catechisms, confessions, and where I've used Calvin. And put and end to your denigration that my authority isn't Scripture.

Fair enough?

 

Give me a break, Luke has started whole threads criticizing me particularly for believing what the scriptures "say", and not what they "mean" according to Calvinist scholars. Over and over he criticized me for disagreeing with famous Calvinist scholars and their interpretation of certain passages.

I believe you have done the same thing. Iconoclast has often ridiculed me for believing what I believe the scriptures are literally saying, and not agreeing with "doctors" and "theologians" of the past, especially REFORMED doctors.

Boy, you have a SHORT memory.

 

Perhaps you don’t comprehend that I have no intention of lower my standards of debate and to begin an agenda with you of meaningless circular scriptural food-fights and argument while chasing the entire Determinist TULIP system down within this thread – I obviously can’t help you get the reasoning for this into your skull, but know this, your tantrums and whining have not changed my opinion of your misguided principles and unethical goals in debate (argument), nor will they.

All 5 points of the TULIP vitally hinge on strict Deterministic views in order to logically support them. Free will/volition and Determinism are logically mutually exclusive. If you believe there is no argument between the non-Cal view over the Determinist’ principles which support the TULIP other than over Irresistible grace you are in denial, delusional or have one heck of a lot to learn about my opposition to your position friend.

It is of no surprise to me that my typical opposition will get up in arms because they don’t want to be pinned down on a logical definition of the principles behind Calvinism/Determinism because of the logical conclusions of “Determinism” defeats the Calvinist’ view and brings it into theological fatalism. I hear you telling you’d rather just continue in never-ending poorly interpreted circular scriptural food-fights while making the typical claim that the Bible supports your Determinist views. So what, you wish to continue without using philosophically reasoned logical debate principles to back your claims up. Some, as demonstrated in this thread will simply “appeal to authorities” that their interpretations are correct. I see these methods of argument as virtually meaningless and unproductive towards the goals which I have learned to be ethical in a “philosophical debate” and see a huge difference between the two kinds of arguing.

Once again, by avoiding things such as definitions and logical conclusions you seem to think you’re onto some kind of great debate methods of never-ending proof-texting which you believe help you from ever losing an argument. Well, I emphasize with your desperation to not be pinned down on the definition of Determinism which would bring fatalistic conclusions to your treasured TULIPs and would rip out the roots from under them. But, like it or not, the philosophical methods designed to draw out a true or false conclusions pertaining to the claims and issues made have long exist and the basics of giving ethical reasons to believe a claim is true begins by defining premises, not by raising so many premises that you cloud (smokescreen) the claims beyond any comprehensible conclusions – you may consider that type of argument ethical and meaningful debate, but in good conscience and for ethical reasons I try to avoid getting into such arguments as they are unproductive on many fronts.

I’m sorry you’re so upset that I won’t bother to engage in argument as per your agenda to continually proof-text and jump topics, and that you feel I am trying to be superior somehow for wanting to maintain a standard of philosophical debate principles which I understand to draw out the truth in a debate.

That said, I will ask you to drop the focus on the personal issues you have against me and style of debate, I merely look at personal attacks as more fallacy (Ad Hominem) and if you knew my intensions better you’d find that although I’m admittedly aggressive in attacking the opposing view, and that may irritate you because it is your view, I do my best to keep out of the truly personal attacks and to stay focused on the topic at hand to try to maintain the aforementioned ethics of debate that I have come to learn to respect. It’s probably better if you don’t engage me if you can’t refrain from taking my attacks on your views as personal, because I am an aggressive debater and will continue to define premises, hold the opponent to their claims and insist on sticking to the topic in order to try to come to logical conclusions if one wants to debate my perspectives on a subject.

 

This was posted by Winman...

I can attest to the truthfullness of this post. Calvinists, just like Catholics, consistantly forsake the the testimony of the scriptures, and flee to the comfort of thier man man doctrines as thier authority

 

Disregarding your straw man arguments and prattle above, do you also agree as well that Jesus could lie?

 

I just went through about 20 or more of your last posts.
You are right. I couldn't find any appeal to a creed, catechism, etc.
Here is what I found. Almost every post was of this nature. It is a typical example:

Blessings? It wasn't a "blessed" post at all.
You made no appeal to anything but ridicule, demeaning another, arrogance, etc. Every post was like that.

You said:
"The Calvinists here have offered objective posts."
Perhaps some of them have, but you haven't.

You said:
"You have offered no basis for your conclusion."
That is your opinion. But it is more substantial than what you offered--arrogance and demeaning another poster.

You said (quite arrogantly),
"you are reaching the unity of error..."
But you provide no proof of that, just state that the person is wrong.

Almost all of your posts are like this.
You don't appeal to Catechisms, true. But you don't appeal to Scripture either. Your appeal is to yourself. You are your own authority, and that is the worst place to be.
Now that is my observation after going back and reading about 20 of your most recent posts.

 

Whether AiC agrees with my views is not the issue. I completely understand that my views are very unorthodox. That does not mean they are error, it is simply that most folks have never been exposed to these alternate points of view.

AiC is simply confirming what DHK, DrAch and others have said, that Calvinists do not really appeal to scripture per se, they appeal to Reformed theologians interpretations of scripture. This is no different than what Catholics do, you could find a thousand Catholic theologians who will all agree that Peter succeeded Jesus as head of the church. And they will all quote the same proof texts, taken out of context and manipulated to mean what they want them to say. This is what Calvinism does too.

The funny thing is, you, and Luke and a few others have criticized me for believing "what the scriptures say" and not "what they mean". Now, I think that is hilarious, because I believe the scriptures mean "what they say".

When Jesus said "and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you:" , I take Jesus at his word literally. The word "if" implies possibility.

Jesus could easily have said, "it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to lie", but that is not what he said. And Jesus does not make careless mistakes.

Your problem is that you interpret scripture to agree with your Calvinist doctrine, I interpret scripture for what it says. HUGE difference.

But AiC probably has not really reflected on this verse before.

 

My post was only in regard to calvinists and catholics heeding their unbiblical teachers rather then the scriptures alone.

Regarding Jesus lying...why are you quick to change the subject?

 

Your false witness is duly noted.

 

Ya think?

Exactly. I appealed to Scripture. Your accusations are false. No surprise here.

Go prove my alleged ridicule. Do so outside your arbitrary prattle, you know, like without your false accusations that my final authority is not Scripture? Go prove both accusations. I've asked you to end your false accusations.

Go prove this accusation as well. At this point you continue upon your arbitrary accusations without substance.

Go prove my arrogance and demeaning another poster. Are are you referring to things like your accusations and your example that Calvinists use anything but Scripture as authority? Yet this accusation of yours is not demeaning, correct?

Oh no!!!!!!!!! Not the 'arrogance' accusation. Purely subjective on your part. You sling much mud hoping it will stick.

I'd say likewise, but such an appeal would be to admit a false witness twofold. You've claimed Calvinists here don't see Scripture as their final authority. You've leveled more charges against them as well.

Then quit falsely accusing and go instead and garner real facts. You really believe somehow that all who read your accusatory posts will simply believe them true because 'you say so.'

Think again.

I've in fact appealed to Scripture often and have shown your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:10 false.

Show me where I've appealed to myself as authority. That's right, you can't. You offer more arbitrary prattle here.

Yes, I noticed you visited my profile to try to dig up mud, and all you've offered is again up to this point arbitrary.

That said, I offer this again:

- Blessings

 

Yes, we know you believe winman and that you believe calvinists are false teachers.

what JohnDeereFan said.

So could Jesus lie? The one you attest to believes this. Answer the valid question.

 

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :wavey:

 

It is not false witness, take for instance this post by Luke;


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1899419&postcount=2

Now I can tell you right now that this post, and in fact this entire thread was directed at me. Luke especially cannot stand that I quote scripture to support my views.

Notice what Luke says, he says I don't know how to interpret the scriptures, and that I think I don't need "teachers" to help me.

What Luke really means is that I need to listen to Reformed theologians and believe everything they say. Only their interpretations are the correct interpretations of scripture.

This is not one bit different from the Catholics who warned folks against reading and studying the scriptures on their own.

Iconoclast does the same, he constantly quotes creeds and insists they are perfect. According to him, we should all take these Reformed theologians at their word.

This is no different than the JWs telling their people they must interpret scripture according to the Watchtower.

 

Just can't resist following the pack can you?

 

But it is false witness. You guys consistently paint us in the most evil light you can muster, even to the point of declaring us apostates and heretics.

It's just not right and you know that if we did that, you'd scream bloody murder.

There comes a point where lying ceases to be a momentary moral lapse of someone "caught up in the moment" and becomes an ongoing pattern of sinful behavior.

It's to the point now that I'm starting to wonder if I can continue to consider you my brothers in Christ, because it's clear that you don't reciprocate.

Or, at the very least, I should just consider you trolls and put you on ignore with annsi and the other trolls.

You need to repent. Period.

 

I believe most Calvinists are DECEIVED, not evil.

Give me a break, you just accused me of being either a Christadelphian or a Pelagian.

I agree.

I'm going to let you in on a secret, Cals and non-Cals will NEVER get along.

Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

You already ignore us, or rather you ignore the scripture we present that clearly refutes Calvinism. There is far more scripture that refutes Calvinism than supports it. I could show you scripture all day long.

 

I get along fine with non cal BAPTISTS.

I've yet to meet a true Baptist that believes Jesus could've lied as you allege.

 

ROFL....then:tonofbricks:

 

There's the problem, right doctrine is not a matter of popularity. If I believed everything that was popular, I would believe in Original Sin. And if I believed in Original Sin, I would probably end up being a Calvinist like you, because that is the logical end of Original Sin.

Do you not think I realize my personal belief is absolutely unorthodox? Trust me, I knew that going in, but I see too much scripture that refutes OS.

And I don't care what everybody else believes, I want to know exactly what God is saying in his word, even if that means I end up all alone.

Look, I've showed you scripture that directly says God made men upright, not sinners. You can read, you know I am not making that scripture up.

I have showed you scripture where God forbids any son with being charged for his father's sin, or vice versa. Again, you have seen with your eyes.

I am not twisting or manipulating these many scriptures, I am reading them as literal for what they simply say.

You have seen where Jesus said the prodigal was alive AGAIN, and you are smart enough to know if all men are born dead in sin, then no person could be said to be alive again. But there it is.

I would say to you, quit worrying about what men think, and worry about what God thinks.

 

I see. So then, you believe we're "deceived" and so you believe the remedy to that is to lie about us?

What you're describing about yourself and your beliefs is consistent with Pelagianism.

So, now that you know, do you plan to repent?

And...? There are people I don't get along with, but I don't slander them or treat them disrespectfully.

The sproblem is that you haven't shown any scripture that refutes Calvinism, only what you claim Calvinism to be, which is incorrect. That's called a strawman and is dishonest.

So you claim.

So could a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness. That doesn't make them right.