Featured I'm scratching my head on this one

Why?!

This is exactly what happens when DHK is allowed to question the salvation of an entire segment of Christianity. He was allowed--by you, I might add--to continue to do so. Should it really surprise you that "his non-Calvinism or bust" fire was met with some version of "Calvinism or bust" fire???

Since you didn't censor DHK, what did you expect?

Rippon was merely doing--in reverse--what DHK had done. Why would you have a problem with what Rippon said if you don't have a problem with what DHK said????

The Archangel

 

Yes because calvinists never question the salvation of those who are not cals on this board.

Give us a break:BangHead:

 

To the OP....


You mean in everything DHK posted, that's the only thing that causes you to....-------------> :BangHead: ????

 

Also, admins are allowed dual memberships, too. There's two sets of rules on here as plain as day. One set for us and one set for the admins/mods.


I call that abuse of privilege...

 

Most people scratch where it actually itches.

As Archangel said, why didn't you scratch your head when a whole segment of Christianty was deemed totally evil and fell under the eternal curse of God via DHK's edict.

You didn't scratch, flinch or consider it problematic. But my mild statement is a problem? What alternate universe do you inhabit?

You exerted no administrative duty to allow a mod to say, repeatedly, that a man of God, --Dr. Al Mohler, is outside the bounds of historic Christianity.

That inaction on your part is mystifying --no mere head scratching.

 

Why would a person be offended or even care if their salvation is questioned?

 

I guess some on here need this....

 

Troy Palomalu suggests this....





This is for the 'head scratchers' on here...

 

Yes, I would these hypocrisy issues addressed.

 

Don't hold you breath Brother....

 

It's against BB rules....that's why....if they can't abide by them...

 

Stating that it is the rule is not an answer of why. Maybe some are not sure of salvation because of weak faith?

 

Yes, Calvinists do--wrongly--question the salvation of the non-Calvinists. But, as some others have said, that isn't the point.

Calvinists who have questioned the salvation of non-Calvinists should be and have been censored. Non-Calvinists who question the salvation of Calvinists should be and have been censored, though likely to a lesser extent.

The issue is not which group questions the salvation of the other group. The issue is that any questioning of the others' salvation wasn't addressed at all--not who did the questioning.

As has been demonstrated, when one questions the salvation of others and gets away with it a mis-application of the rules we all agree to abide by has happened. If we're going to have "rules" they need to apply equally to Calvinists and non-Calvinists as well as regular posters and Moderators.

The Archangel

 

Both theologies are not correct at the same time. it is not a multiple choice test.
Everyone posts what they believe as truth.

One time you posted something to the effect that you believe this interaction is a waste of time and no one changes their views.
here it is;

I believe that is a statement of unbelief. God can and does change people as he sees fit and through whatever means, even a debate site.

Have you never modified or changed an end time view? or something regarding sanctification?
Some who claim to be very very knowledgeable on this topic...even some Moderators, demonstrate they do not know what they profess to know.

What causes the "heat' is lying on a Christian forum. Then covering the lie.

This is not the first time and there have been many appeals to not do this.

If we are concerned about truth at all...honesty must have it's rightful place.

I defend DHK's right to oppose what we believe if he feels he must. He is free to speak openly on it and offer his defense.

I do think it is abusive for him to give infractions to someone when he is more guilty of the offense than the person he gives or threatens infractions to. A neutral moderator would need to give the warning, and or infraction or it turns into censorship.

To suggest Al Mohler is outside the faith is very bizarre...by talebearing and not offering first hand knowledge.....I ordered the book he mentioned, I will look for myself. I might ask Al mohler if he would respond to these critical ideas spoken toward him...I jst feel a bit funny taking time from His busy schedule for such a matter that does not seem legitimate.

 

No, it's not that at all. And you very well know it. His "deeply held sentiments" break BB rules as well as Christian ethics.

Since when has Dr. Mohler not been individualized?

 

I do not think it is or was the debate per se that was at issue this time. If time is taken to review the interaction...it was not the theology that was causing the heat.
Honest inquiry should be welcomed and if it is offered it is met with honest answers. AA or Rippon and others would spend as much time as necessary with an honest inquirer . The results belong to God. The truth delights to be investigated.

 

All of us can overheat and go beyond what we should. This in and of itself can be instructive. It is not so easy to see at the time . When I have looked at an archived post, I see times where I spoke in a regrettable way,and sometimes just plain sinful.
I still owe Con 1 a lunch because of one such episode in times past.....[it was originally a breakfast, but I up graded to lunch since I spotted a Golden Corral near his neck of the woods....exit 15 willis..lol]