50 Most Influential Christians on the BB

[reformedbeliever]

And God knew you were gonna say that all along.:laugh:

Absolutely!........... read psalms 139

Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

 

[Brother Bob]

Allan was predestinated in your life before you were born. Amazing Allan, just think where you been. Does that mean Allan was partly predestinated and partly free-will, or what?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Allan was predestinated in your life before you were born. Amazing Allan, just think where you been. Does that mean Allan was partly predestinated and partly free-will, or what?

I think Allan was predestinated to be almost a calvinist, but then God changed his mind and made him almost ........ no I can't call him an arminian..... he'd get upset with me. :laugh:

 

[tragic_pizza]

tragic_pizza

Thank you!

 

[Allan]

Allan is absolutely the best calvinist non-calvinist on the board! :applause:

You like that name don'cha now?

I actaully had a freind who visits here once in a great while ask me if I had gone nuts when he read these posts of yours. This is like the 4th thread you have place that on. I think it is quite funny actualy, and appreciate the compliment.

But I like being in the least catagory. You, Brother Bob and webdog are welcome to join me. I seem to remember something in the scriptures concerning the last shall be first...thingy. :thumbs:

For those who are least will be greatest in the Kingdom. :tonofbricks:

 

[Allan]

Allan was predestinated in your life before you were born. Amazing Allan, just think where you been. Does that mean Allan was partly predestinated and partly free-will, or what?

If there was a BB dog for a mascot, I think right about now I would feel like one of ita pull toys used in a tug of war.

What is this, pick on Allan day??
:laugh: :laugh: :tongue3:

 

[Allan]

I think Allan was predestinated to be almost a calvinist, but then God changed his mind and made him almost ........ no I can't call him an arminian..... he'd get upset with me. :laugh:

Hey, now... no sense in getting personal.

I don't even resemble that remark. And even if I actually did I'd get a face lift. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Allan]

In all honesty though...

I like being at the bottom. No expectatoins of false assumptions about me.

But I know of many I would put on that list because I believe each in their own right stands out to me in a Christlike way that overshadows their faults that we presume we see. Sometimes that fault is just a mirror image of ourselves looking back at us through some elses eyes (or screen).
However I would much like Spurgoen concerning Whitefield and Wesley.
Paraphrase...If there were a need to fill two of the apostles position today I would not hesitate to offer up for those positions Whitefield (Calvinist) and Wesley (Arminian)...
Is that not a strange thing.

But I set forth mine in no particular order but with honorable mention:
Blammo
Tom Butler
Webdog
ReformedBeliever
Brother Bob
Jathor01

Of course there are others however as I stated, these are those for honorable mention.

 

[reformedbeliever]

In all honesty though...

I like being at the bottom. No expectatoins of false assumptions about me.

But I know of many I would put on that list because I believe each in their own right stands out to me in a Christlike way that overshadows their faults that we presume we see. Sometimes that fault is just a mirror image of ourselves looking back at us through some elses eyes (or screen).
However I would much like Spurgoen concerning Whitefield and Wesley.
Paraphrase...If there were a need to fill two of the apostles position today I would not hesitate to offer up for those positions Whitefield (Calvinist) and Wesley (Arminian)...
Is that not a strange thing.

But I set forth mine in no particular order but with honorable mention:
Blammo
Tom Butler
Webdog
ReformedBeliever
Brother Bob
Jathor01

Of course there are others however as I stated, these are those for honorable mention.

Well I agree with all but that reformed guy you listed Allan. But I have to give a big second to the Blammobot.

 

[DQuixote]

Was this post of mine difficult to comprehend? After posting your candidates:

Determine what it is in the doctrine of each of your candidates that allows you to list them together. Once you have completed that analysis, meet with your group privately, come to an agreement, then reduce it to writing and present it to the BB. No departure from this rule.

1. You post your candidates.
2. You meet with your candidates to determine what it is in their doctrine
that all of you can agree with. OSAS? Salvation by grace thru faith
plus something? Just discover where all of your group can agree.
3. Reduce it to writing. Present it, as a group, to the BB. You can choose
a presenter.

No departure from this rule.

Now all you have to do is debate your group's point of view with those who do not agree with it. Let's say that there are 5 in your group, 5 in another group, 5 in still another group. Obviously, three topics can't be debated all at once. Choose one, and, after you've ridden that horse to death, go to the second topic, do the same, then go to the third. You are simply acting as a group rather than debating the item individually, perhaps a refreshing departure from what normally passes for debate.

Surely some of you were in debating societies in high school or college.

I won't raise the suggestion again.

 

[EdSutton]

Was this post of mine difficult to comprehend? After posting your candidates:



1. You post your candidates.
2. You meet with your candidates to determine what it is in their doctrine
that all of you can agree with. OSAS? Salvation by grace thru faith
plus something? Just discover where all of your group can agree.
3. Reduce it to writing. Present it, as a group, to the BB. You can choose
a presenter.

No departure from this rule.

Now all you have to do is debate your group's point of view with those who do not agree with it. Let's say that there are 5 in your group, 5 in another group, 5 in still another group. Obviously, three topics can't be debated all at once. Choose one, and, after you've ridden that horse to death, go to the second topic, do the same, then go to the third. You are simply acting as a group rather than debating the item individually, perhaps a refreshing departure from what normally passes for debate.

Surely some of you were in debating societies in high school or college.

I won't raise the suggestion again.

With all respect, this post you are now asking to be responded to is ex post facto, for the OP only read this way.

50 Most Influential Christians on the BB
Just type in one or more.

​

I did, and gave my reasons, for the brass of the BB. I do not know what any believe, that I could comment in that much detail, so I shall let my responses stand, as posted. And I was never in any debating society, FTR. We are nowhere close to hitting the 7 day bit you later suggested, and besides, I personally do not play in games when the rules change in the middle of it. So I won't post again on this thread.
And FTR, although I certainly do not expect to be any sort of selectee, should I accidentally be so honored, I shall respectfully decline the honor.

Ed

 

[DQuixote]

Ed, I did not expect anyone to venture a reply to the OP. I was surprised when they did. I then posted again, to set in motion the guidelines. When I saw that they weren't being followed, I posted again, reminding folks that it was doctrine that was key. No, the 7 days are not up. However, between now and then, I'd like for folks to consider doctrine as the key, not the other likes and dislikes that were raised. For an example, see the post by McDirector at 7:44 a.m., tinytim at 12:27 a.m., and yourself at 1:46 a.m. The goal posts weren't moved, Ed. The thread had faded from current consideration. Efforts were made to move the posters back to doctrine as the salient feature of the effort to form the groups, and to indicate how that might be accomplished.

 

[Brother Bob]

I think you just put the clincher on it myself.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mel Miller is among the oldest individuals on this board: age = 86.
He therefore can rightly be called 'Elder'.

P.S. - He knows a lot of interesting Doctrine also about
eschatology (last days).

 

[DQuixote]

Let the group debates begin!

Spokesperson or Captain for your group present your group's doctrine, whatever you have agreed upon!!

 

[LeBuick]

Mel Miller is among the oldest individuals on this board: age = 86.
He therefore can rightly be called 'Elder'.

Isn't Jim1999 also about that age?

P.S. - He knows a lot of interesting Doctrine also about
eschatology (last days).

Not according to Bob Ryan :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards: //Mel Miller is among the oldest individuals on this board: age = 86.
He therefore can rightly be called 'Elder'.//

LeBuick: //Isn't Jim1999 also about that age?//

Jim1999 is old enough to be called an 'elder' (80)
But young enough for Mel Miller to call him 'boy'. :flower: