1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Protestant, Jun 5, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And if you don't knock off the squabbling I am going to make you both sit in the corner! :D
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    991
    Fair enough, but what else would he have said? So, a person can just say 'it was a generic, not specific statement' while broad brushing many, but not really meaning anyone?

    lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............................

    The linking of trolls to Calvinists in general, and not naming specific names, well, we're smart enough to add 2 and 2 and come up with the correct sum. We know what he meant, and so does he.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    991
    No we, but you are in kindergarten. You broadbrushed calvinists as trolls, and it is juvenile.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Six hour Warning

    Sometime after 1200am Pacific, this thread will be closed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I can't find any post where Jon applied "trolls" to both sides of the discussion, only to calvinists.

    However, I did find, in post #65, where he did include both sides of the argument by saying "And I have seen this unChristian attitude on more than one side of the argument."

    So, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But he still has to sit in the corner! :D
     
  6. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Trolls and unchristian-like are not even on the same hemisphere in scope of their meaning, Brother Tom.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Faith:
    Baptist
    troll
    One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

    That is what he linked Calvinists to.

    This is from urban dictionary, btw...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I should get to a keyboard in less than 1 hour
    Well now...really.....in post 111 you certainly did, then you changed it, but i type really slow and was already answering your post...so i had already copied your statement....i will refresh your memory in case they also disappear;

    your post in 111- as it appears now.....cleaned up and modified,

    notice the last line as it appears now.....and yet here is exactly what you originally said;

    as I quoted it directly in post 112;



    Then in 114 you said this;


    By the way....you did call me directly a troll and when i went to respond to it it was gone,lol...at first i thought you thought better of it and maybe edited it out, but now it seems like something else has taken place...something not quite truthful.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  9. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    991
    Yep. Go figure.

    How convenient, fair, and balanced. :rolleyes:

    One told me he deleted posts because he DIDN'T say anything WRONG in the post. I do that all the time, the deleting of posts because I think, man, in that post I didn't say anything wrong! I better delete it! :Roflmao
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Protestant

    Protestant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    159
    Protestant wrote:

    Mr. Woody responded:

    A few simple definitions of terms are in order:

    CAN = be able to CANNOT = not able to

    DO = perform, execute NOT DO = not perform, not execute

    Our opponents preach:

    · God’s universal love for all mankind, none excepted

    · Christ’s universal atonement for all mankind, none excepted

    · Christ’s mission and purpose to save all mankind, none excepted

    Logically speaking, either God achieved His purpose to save all or He did not.

    Universalists believe He will achieve that purpose.

    Our Pelagian, Arminian, non-Cal friends believe He ‘kind of’ achieved His purpose in that He saves those who believe on Christ.

    Ultimately, they believe Christ’s atonement limited in success.

    His atonement is only good for believers.

    Christ’s blood was shed in vain for unbelievers, they must admit.

    Therefore, by using clearly defined verbiage, our adversaries preach Christ CANNOT save all because of their unbelief.

    If He were able to do so, He would. But in their theology, He cannot.

    To say that Christ DOES NOT save unbelievers is not a point in contention.

    We agree. Christ DOES NOT save unbelievers.

    Where we disagree lies in the fact that our detractors insist that man’s unbelieving, rebellious will is the cause of his condemnation, God allowing man the right of self-determination, honoring his evil decision, which God cannot and will not take it into subjection, turning it at His good pleasure.

    This premise we vehemently reject.

    Scripture teaches all men have sinned, and with sin comes condemnation.

    Christ was not sent to condemn the world, but to save the world of the condemned.

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

    Christ, who cannot lie, declares He loses not one sinner for whom He died (John 6:39; John 17:12).

    Therefore, Christ successfully and perfectly achieved salvation for the world of the condemned to which He was sent.

    These are called the ‘Elect.’

    All were in unbelief and condemned.

    Yet Christ, by His Spirit, worked the miracle of saving grace, and took away their unbelief, replacing it with the gift of faith. Though once a people who were afar off, they were made nigh by the blood of Christ shed effectually for them (Ephesians 2).

    Therefore, those in our camp understand the true nature of amazing grace.

    Christ turned our wills from unbelief to belief, not by our power, but by His almighty, infinite power.

    Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned (Lamentations 5:21).

    We believe God CAN and DOES save unbelievers, according to His will of good pleasure.

    Nothing and no one can hinder or stay His hand, not unbelief, not sin, not Satan….. to the praise of His glorious grace.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    991
    Yuuuuup. 'Calvinists are trolls, but by that I don't really mean anyone at all, just everyone generally who is a Calvinist.'
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    991
    Exactly. This is what I saw and this is what has been covered up and lied about all along. Trying to be patient about it all, but the facts are the facts.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've been in the corner before, Prof. :Biggrin

    To clarify, I do see trolling (in general and on both sides of the Cal-Arm debate throughout my 15 years on this board) to crop up, often related to issues being discussed. I did not mean my comment directed at specific people but trolling in general. I never called Icon a troll.

    I believe that this was a diversion to hide that my question was never answered. Icon said that my view denies some portion of the "confessional standard". My question is in what ways? When we call out people on this board we need to at least defend our claim. As I have denied my beliefs fall short of this standard, it is up to Icon to show where they do. Otherwise the comment is nothing but gossip and unsubstantiated accusation.

    So again, Icon, what portion of my belief falls short of the "confessional standard"?
     
  14. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This was my PM reply
    And I am a Calvinist, "you big dummy" (in my best Fred Sanford voice). :Laugh
     
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This thread is now closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...