Featured For the Truth Seeker

Chemo treatments have given me one GOOD thing....time to read a lot.

So we're talking about seeking truth. I'm looking at Calvin's Institutes not for truth so much as I am to see if Calvinism is Calvinism. Gonna get it from the horse's mouth.

Again, I know enough to know that TULIP is a set of counterpoints; it is NOT a full theological system. Much the same way "The Five Methods of Attack" are not the entirety of Bruce Lee's art Jeet Kune Do..... just like understanding 3-phase power's advantages is NOT the sum total of electrical engineering.

 

The bolded words were put in my mouth, yet the person seeking to honestly discuss doctrine says "I never did that and you know it."

Nuff said, they slander, then deny the slander, they have no commitment to truth, or even the suggestion of brotherly love.

 

Hi Steaver, you will get no answer. The Calvinists pour this mistaken doctrine into the text by "defining" being dead in our sins, as being unable to seek God or trust in Christ. So everywhere you see any reference to being spiritually dead, why that proves the Calvinist doctrine. Yes, the idea is lame, but 100% of the Calvinists will claim its true. Thus Calvinism is poured into the text by (1) adding to the text, and (2) redefining the meaning of words found in the text, such as from means before. No one seeks God becomes no one seeks God at any time. And then they claim they did not add to scripture.

 

Van, I'm using a hypothetical to demonstrate how you answer questions. When I asked whether or not you saw Calvinists as brothers, I did get an answer (sort of...I was looking for a Yes or No...I mean, you're the one who extorted the virtues of letting your yes be yes and your no be no). Then in addition to what I would consider an iffy response, you accuse me of slander by innuendo for asking a legitimate question. I have been here for many MANY years and I can't think of anybody else who is as defensive as you are, much less someone who accuses others of slander as much as you do.

And you still didn't answer my question "what do you mean by shuck and jive"? I'm STILL waiting.

 

It's pretty much the story-line of biblical theology from Genesis to Revelation.

The Archangel

 

It's funny that you--in seeking to "educate" me as to an Arminian position--demonstrate a complete lack of understanding the Calvinist position on freewill by stating that it is "predetermined directive."

If, and this appears to be a big "if" with many here, you don't like the Calvinist understanding of free will, that's fine. But mis-stating the position, making up some red herring or strawman does nothing to help your efforts to debunk the position. If you really wanted to debunk the position, you'd learn it, state it correctly, and then try to poke holes in it from a biblical-theological standpoint. Until you are able and/or able to do so, you really don't have a case to make.

The Archangel

 

To not believe they are brothers would be to question their salvation, something forbidden on this forum. So you suggested I might not believe Calvinists are saved, when I have answered that question literally dozens of times, because asking the question is part of the M.O of Calvinists.

BTW, the question had nothing to do with the topic, so yet another effort to avoid honest discussion of the topic by changing the subject to my character. The topic is whether scripture teaches we make an autonomous choice between life and death, or was that choice predestined by God before creation.

When you answer my question, which of the five points of the TULIP do you reject and assert are mistaken doctrines, then you might ask me another question. Recall do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Now I am reading up on the subject and so cannot give you a straight answer to your simple question. (Here ends the lesson on shuck and jive behavior.)

Evasion and obfuscation, dodge and weave, answer a question with a question, run from truth, engage in misdirection, question a person's character, rather than honestly discuss his or her viewpoint, shuck and jive.

(See post #108 for a classic example of a shuck and jive post.)

 

IOW, jkdbuck....no answer IS the answer.....

 

Post #110 is shuck and jive, misdirection, putting words in my mouth, and evading the fact I answered the question. This is typical behavior, continually on display by Calvinists.

 

Post #110 is the truth....he's asked you numerous times to answer him, and continually refuse to do so.....

 

You'll be the next to go....

 

Folks, note the silence from all Calvinists, fostering the shuck and jive culture of the Calvinists. Next, post #113, we get a veiled threat. These tactics do not seek truth, foster growth in Christian maturity, nor exhibit brotherly love.

 

Waah, waah, waah!!!


That's all we get from you. Grow up son.

All you do is spew venom, vitriol, non-uplifting posts to those who don't hold your views...

I'm tired of being the "good guy", the "nicest poster on the board", to get repeatedly dumped on.

GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

More vulgar snide remarks, having nothing to do with the topic. Their devotion to logical fallacy, arguing against Van's character and behavior, rather than the topic is laughable.

Question for truth seekers, who is getting dumped on, the Calvinists or Van. Read post # 115 carefully.

 

Just a quick post to present a return to topic, the topic not found in all the Van bashing posts of some of the "nicest posters" on the forum.

 

Speaking in the third person is pretentious.

 

The interesting thing, steaver, is that God spoke to Cain. A very ugly chapter in human history. I'm not sure where this leads us, but Genesis 5 records God speaking with Cain.