Defend Steve Tassi? James White?

[Iconoclast]

"Van,

Folks,

Did you ever notice......these imaginary folks never respond to your posting?

Dr. White's presentation has been shredded.

...only in your imagination.....the correct words for you would be....Dr. Whites presentation went right over my head, I failed to understand any true elements of the discussion, and I really related to the error os Steve Tassi..

All the posters have is "taint so" and you are mistaken.

Biblicist, Archangel, and everyone else have posted in detail offering correction which you have turned from.

IT has no idea what post 71 attempted to demonstrate.

Sure he did....in fact he has believed the identical truth and expressed it many times.....the common denominator is you have failed to come to truth.
You seek to derail another thread by inserting your repeated errors,the same wrong teaching over and over.

Icon says 1 Cor. 3:1 does not mean what it says.

Icon said no such thing. Icon did not mention your pet verse. Icon understands 1 cor 2:14......so Icon would not follow your error.

The Icon says Romans 8 says what it does not say.

No....he understood it clearly, as does everyone else on here not named Van.

Next he denies God chose so the older would serve the younger (verse 12).

Icon believes the doctrines of grace,so he would not deny this at all....why would you suggest such a falsehood?

Next the claim is made that the election of the twins was for salvation.

Icon did not do any of this.....you are confusing reality with those voices in your head can you show where Icon even spoke of any of this?
This reminds me of Steve Tassi when he could not answer jn 6:44 he kept mentioning James White........Icon is not the focus of the OP, threadkiller

Never-mind "Esau I hated." The actual idea is that God can choose one baby for one purpose and another baby for another purpose, He has the creators right.

I know you cannot explain any doctrinal portion of scripture so I do not read your posting expecting a real answer. It seems as if you just seek to disrupt every thread....no more, no less.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Dr. White has been 'shredded'? By Tassi? That's not a truthful representation whatsoever. It's bearing false witness.

To prove your false witness as being true Van please show us:

- That Tassi addressed Romans 9 and exegeted the text.

- That the opening statements of Tassi were not mere slander and ad hominem of Dr. White and had nothing to do with the topic.

- Prove that Dr. White is a Synergist, Open Theist (as you are Van), and a Universalist.

- Show us any proper interpretations of Tassi that 'shredded' Dr. White.

Simply making up conclusions that are baseless is bearing false witness. The burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up.

 

[Van]

More of the same, smoke and smear campaign.
Did we see the Calvinist doctrine defense ploy - you do not understand? Yep.
Did we see allusion to great rebuttals of the past, un-referenced of course? Yep.
Did we see where they claimed I was wrong? Yep
Now Icon agrees men of flesh can receive spiritual milk. Or he denied his own view.
Anyone in the flesh, that is with their mind set on fleshly desires, cannot please God. But where Calvinism goes off the rails is the claim men of flesh cannot receive spiritual milk.
Next we get the usual shuck and jive, first deny, then agree God's choice of the babies was conditional.
Next Icon disagrees wtih Dr. White's mistaken view the elections of Romans 9 demonstrated elections for salvation were not based on the characteristics of those chosen.
Finally, Icon finishes with yet another slander, another smear, another fiction.

Folks, this is all they have. But we have got to love them.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.

 

[Internet Theologian]

More of the same, smoke and smear campaign.

Yep, and all of it is below:

Did we see the Calvinist doctrine defense ploy - you do not understand? Yep.
Did we see allusion to great rebuttals of the past, referenced of course? Yep.
Did we see where they claimed I was wrong? Yep
Now Icon agrees men of flesh can receive spiritual milk. Or he denied is own view.
Anyone in the flesh, that is with their mind set on fleshly desires, cannot please God. But where Calvinism goes off the rails is the claim men of flesh cannot receive spiritual milk.
Next we get the usual shuck and jive, first deny, then agree God's choice of the babies was conditional.
Next Icon disagrees wtih Dr. White's mistaken view the elections of Romans 9 demonstrated elections for salvation were not based on the characteristics of those chosen.
Finally, Icon finishes with yet another slander, another smear, another fiction.

Folks, this is all they have. But we have got to love them.

Bottom line, there is absolute no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.

All you've done Van is offer some banter and not a bit of substance. None. Try adding some real evidence instead of bearing false witness based on unsupported and unsubstantiated conclusions.

 

[Van]

Post #82 and #84 are complete works of fiction, calculated to change the subject. No quote will be forthcoming where I said Dr. Tassi did anything. They misrepresent their opponents view to derail any discussion of the bogus doctrines of Calvinism. This is all they have, folks.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.

The above 3 points shred Dr. White's presentation of the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Post #82 and #84 are complete works of fiction, calculated to change the subject.

More false charges Van? Please spend some time and come up with some substance to substantiate your claims other than your false conclusions. You know that it is bearing false witness, correct?

No quote will be forthcoming where I said Dr. Tassi did anything.

That' s because you cannot and have absolutely nothing to support your false witness that he shredded White.

I'm beginning to think you've not even watched the debate.

They misrepresent their opponents view to derail any discussion of the bogus doctrines of Calvinism. This is all they have, folks.

Bottom line, there is absolute no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.

The above 3 points shred Dr. White's presentation of the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.

...and absolutely no exegesis. Nothing again as usual.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van,

More of the same, smoke and smear campaign.

Just you killing another thread....

Did we see the Calvinist doctrine defense ploy - you do not understand? Yep.

We cannot lie. You do not understand, indeed you cannot understand, not even the "milk" of Calvinism which is truth that you hate.

Did we see allusion to great rebuttals of the past, un-referenced of course? Yep.

Guys like you are all the same.....you spam the board so much hoping that we will not remember when Biblicist and Archangel and Rippon and everyone else went word for word exposing your false teaching. It is not just a different point of view. It is deliberate false teaching.

Did we see where they claimed I was wrong? Yep

That is true in every post as you are wrong. Why do you write this as if it is a surprise.

Now Icon agrees men of flesh can receive spiritual milk.

No I don't. That is an unbiblical absurdity that you have invented . You hold a wrong view of man and the effects of the fall......truth will not come to visit you as long as you hold these errors.

Or he denied his own view.

No need to do that.

But where Calvinism goes off the rails is the claim men of flesh cannot receive spiritual milk.

No one believes this false statement but you. Nobody.....stop repeating it unless the "folks" speak up and demand more of these foul ideas.

Next we get the usual shuck and jive, first deny, then agree God's choice of the babies was conditional.

No one is reading your posts except for comedic purposes. This makes no sense. If anyone is reading these posts ,they are like the rubberneckers who slow down traffic by gawking at the accident scene looking for blood and gore.

Next Icon disagrees wtih Dr. White

Icon does not disagree with DR. White on much of anything.
Dr. White teaches Icon many things.
Icon likes Dr. White and considers him both a friend,and brother in Christ.
That God can save a sinner like Dr. White and use him to bless local churches is wonderful.

Dr. White's mistaken view the elections of Romans 9 demonstrated elections for salvation were not based on the characteristics of those chosen.

?Dr. White has offered the correct view of election, he always does.

Finally, Icon finishes with yet another slander, another smear, another fiction.

Do you mean when I gave an accurate description of your error's?

Folks

,
These "imaginary folks" have never revealed themselves in public

this is all they have. But we have got to love them.

You do not have to love us....it is okay...

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.

Another off topic attack on the truth. You must be so frustrated to resist truth but like Steve Tassi ....you are unable to show why

1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.

[/QUOTE]

Here are the falsehoods dragged into yet another thread

 

[Internet Theologian]

Calvinism goes off the rails is the claim men of flesh cannot receive spiritual milk.

Actually that's the Holy Spirits wording and conclusion of the lost and we happen to accept His Word:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
- 1 Corinthians 2:14.

But Van says nay, they can understand it. This is a clear denial of the Word of God.

 

[Van]

Van,
Just you killing another thread....

Off-topic, addressing the poster rather than the topic.

We cannot lie. You do not understand, indeed you cannot understand, not even the "milk" of Calvinism which is truth that you hate.

Repeating the falsehood that non-Cals lack spiritual enlightenment, does not cut any mustard.

Guys like you are all the same.....you spam the board so much hoping that we will not remember when Biblicist and Archangel and Rippon and everyone else went word for word exposing your false teaching. It is not just a different point of view. It is deliberate false teaching.

As I said, all they do is claim great arguments were made in the unreferenced past, and then they hurl worthless smears.

That is true in every post as you are wrong. Why do you write this as if it is a surprise.

The old "taint so" ploy, trotted out once again.

No I don't. That is an unbiblical absurdity that you have invented . You hold a wrong view of man and the effects of the fall......truth will not come to visit you as long as you hold these errors.

He cannot make up his mind, first he was against the idea, then for it, and now once again against it. 1 Cor. 3:1 teaches men of flesh can receive spiritual milk. No verse anywhere in scripture says they cannot.

No one believes this false statement but you. Nobody.....stop repeating it unless the "folks" speak up and demand more of these foul ideas.

Now Icon "knows" what everyone else thinks. Pay no attention to those who claim to read minds. Just read it folks, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ." Ask yourself why would speak to people as to men of flesh, using spiritual milk, if they could not receive it? He wouldn't. As far as the claim, "no one believes this" here is a snippet from one commentary, "Paul had to speak to them as he would to men wholly natural, inasmuch as they are still carnal (1Co 3:3) in many respects, notwithstanding their conversion (1Co 1:4-9).

No one is reading your posts except for comedic purposes. This makes no sense. If anyone is reading these posts ,they are like the rubberneckers who slow down traffic by gawking at the accident scene looking for blood and gore.

Yet another off-topic smear.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.

1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.​

The above 3 points shred Dr. White's presentation of the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[Van]

How many times have I addressed this verse, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Which things, all things, or some things? The answer is found in 1 Corinthians 3:1, where Paul speaks to new Christians as to men of flesh. Thus the men of flesh can indeed understand some spiritual things, spiritual milk.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually that's the Holy Spirits wording and conclusion of the lost and we happen to accept His Word:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
- 1 Corinthians 2:14.

But Van says nay, they can understand it. This is a clear denial of the Word of God.

yes....it is vile. A proud spirit alone can come up with this

 

[JonC]

This thread has out lived its usefulness and become just another a DoG pile. I think it best to simply close the thread......so I'm simply closing the thread.

If there is more to say about the White-Tassi debate or the opinion expressed in the OP then of course someone can start another thread (or start afresh discussing Romans 9).

 

[TCassidy]

I have thought right from the beginning that this thread needed an "Idiot" moji. But I can't find one.

Oh, wait a minute! Yes I can!

There you go. Take your pick.