A Seeker Asks, "Does this BB fairly represent Calvinism?"

Direct questions are sometimes deceiving and do not tell the truth.

Did you finally stop getting drunk yesterday?

 

At least you gave a straight answer to my question. You just hate the implications, and then devolve into irrational claptrap to "prove" your point.

 

And the straight answer to that question is, "No."

How can one stop getting drunk if he wasn't drunk in the first place?

 

I just posted that on this board which has how many hundreds of members multiplied by how many more viewers on the WEB? Do you think they all know that? Not a chance! They all don't know who he is, what his habits are, what his vices are, etc. They don't know how many times he was drunk or if he ever was, and quite frankly neither do I.

So, yes, it is a slanderous question meant to defame.

So is the question that you asked--a direct question meant to defame.

 

Yes DHK...I finally stopped getting drunk 35 yrs ago when God saved me:thumbsup:

Seriously.....in a debate forum the more direct the better....however that being said....we all have to work on keeping the issue seperate from the person.....it is not easy to do especially when continually being provoked by ad hominem attacks.

DHK....I have noticed you are not shy in stating your views. That is good. Hold them until God allows you to see where you have missed the mark so to speak.
You might have noticed that many of us are not shy to call you out on some of your views and opinions.

The question becomes....if you are in error...how can I come directly at the error.....without seeking to crush your spirit?

I think we will not do this sucessfully unless we pause and make a conscious effort to think out why am I posting.??? To help a brother to grow in truth, or to defend truth against an enemy of the cross.

Even if you are speaking against an enemy...you can still attempt to lead him to face the claims of God's law against him, and that the cross is the only way to heaven.

 

I apologize for drawing you into this. I was not even intending to enter into this particular discussion were it not for Aaron's post:

This post was an affront to many, and I also had some complaints about it. As was pointed out by some, we are all believers here and we all serve the same Christ. By questioning "the Christ of your doctrine" is questioning the salvation of all who doesn't agree with Aaron. It is calling into question the Savior whom we worship. I am appalled that such a post would be made.

Perhaps if he were addressing Benny Hinn who believes there are nine persons in the trinity, then the quote might have some credibility, but not here. It is simply an inflammatory post. And I am sorry that you got caught up in this.

 

1. I did give you a straight answer. I told you that I believe both camps worship the same Christ but that we understand him differently. Obviously, I believe my camp understands him more correctly than yours, otherwise I'd still be in your camp. But, I'm not going to play your game of pitting us against each other as if one of us is IN (as believing in the REAL Christ) and the other is OUT (as believing in the FALSE Christ). For the same reason DHK has already said, such things are deplorable and you really should be ashamed of yourself.

2. If you have a problem with the rules of the board take it up with the Administrative counsel. Right now it has been told to the moderators that such things are not allowed because they are seen as unnecessarily inflammatory.

And many Calvinistic scholars like Bruce Ware (recently quoted by Luke), Spurgeon, and some even say Calvin himself didn't support the concept of Limited atonement. Do you think they don't believe in the same Christ as you either?

I can give a description of my son and then his teacher can give a description of him and those descriptions would no doubt be different. Does that mean only one of us know the real son? No, we just understand him differently and one of us is probably more accurate than the other.

Uh, we have no problem with you faithfully expounding on what you believe. We have a problem when you make implications regarding how you are the only ones who really believe in the real Christ, as if the "christ" we believe in is not the real one. We all see what you are doing.

ok

I would only get jealous if the people who are coming to know Christ are the type of people I'd want to be around and want to emulate. The kind of people who exude joy and love. Contagious Christians who humbly serve others and give of themselves to build up his kingdom. People like that might win me over to their "view" of Christ, because I'd know them by their fruits....love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

I see from you the fruit of faithfulness to your system, but I haven't gotten to know you well enough to see any of the others, so frankly there is nothing to get jealous about. :saint:

 

I wanted to give this a post of its own. Here are the things Iconoclast said that are a complete and utter misrepresentation of our views and our interaction on this board to a new comer seeking answers:

You wouldn't have corrected that with a firm stance, if the accusation where on the other foot? We know you better than that.

How about Andy's advice regarding prayer, study and reading objectively both views?

How many times does he say we don't use scripture, that we misuse scripture, oppose truth, and can't respond biblically??? That wouldn't offend you, when you come here day after day presenting text after text and answering biblical objection with biblical exegesis?

I can't count how many countless threads where I have hashed out verse by verse through long passages as has many of the other non-Cal on this board. So, really who has the "teeth" in this exchange and who is "dove-like?"

How many doves do you know?

 

Cut from the same cloth I see.

I love you and forgive you, but you should really be ashamed of this.

 

Why would Dr. Bob need to be ashamed of this? What part of this are you addressing?

 

This is a mischaracterization of those who do not hold to either Reformed soteriology or Calvinism in general. It is not fair nor logical to think that those who are not Calvinist are by default Arminian. Yet that is the thinking of most Reformed here. (We could be Hindus. :smilewinkgrin: ). Not everything falls into two camps. The apostles and early believers lived long before Calvin or Arminius. I refuse to be boxed in by any man's theology.

I resent anyone's remark that because I don't adhere to reformed theology that I have chosen to save myself. That is a ridiculous accusation to make.
God saved me in the same way he saved you--by His grace.

 

Amen!

Nobody "saves themselves".

It matters not what "Reformed soteriology" says...what matters is "What does Scripture say"?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.