Be Careful!

[Rippon]

On 4/15/2008 I told DHK that "God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above."

DHK replied:"God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make, but he did't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies..."

 

[Rippon]

Pastor Bob said on 9/28/2013 :

"I've gone on record here many years ago to say that the belief that God could save all, but He chooses not to do so, is in my opinion a 'damnable heresy' (2 Peter 2:1)."

"These passages, any (sic) many more, would clearly refute the damnable heresies of unconditional election and limited atonement."

 

[DHK]

On 4/15/2008 I told DHK that "God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above."

DHK replied:"God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make, but he did't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies..."

You will never learn will you.
I am not going to change my views. God did not make me a robot. He is not my puppeteer; nor me his puppet.
But if that is your lowly view of God than I feel sorry for you, and I suggest that you go and find some books other than Calvinist books that would teach you to have a more reverent and Biblical attitude toward the Lord.

Quoting statements of mine with no context, and from ten to six years ago, is really desperate, and I mean really, really desperate. Two statements now in the last ten years, and that is it?

I can go into your search history and find dozens of posts, something like a very recent one, like this:

He has never encounted a bar he didn't like --but every church meets with his distain. He has a thousand excuses. Going beyond 15-20 minutes from his place is such a chore. He needs to humble himself and get with an assembly of believers and stick with them despite his quibbles. Nearly five years of lame excuses is too much. Trust me, there are believing congregations that the Lord has for him --the Primitive Baptists aren't the be-all and end-all.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2164046#post2164046


Now there is an insulting post that should have earned you an infraction, but didn't. You attack your brother with impunity. You tell him that he spends more time in bars than in churches, a charge that you don't know is true or not. You have besmirched his name. This is a terrible post.

And it is common. You do it over and over and over again. It is easy to find examples. If the moderators were consistent, then seven of these would get you banned.
The moral: stop digging up dirt. Anyone can do it. It may come back to haunt you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Revmitchell

First, I never quote what I "think" one has said oh arrogant one.

oh arrogant one????
Excuse me your royal highness....

I forgot your rule, when any cal answers you with scripture of course they must be "arrogant"

You can call me arrogant if you must, I think if it as a confident boldness in that each time a false charge against the cal himself , or the teaching is repelled...it strengthens the person attacked.

I post within board rules....I go closer to the edge than some....yes.

You do not like it...it bothers you because you sort of know that what we offer is biblical, except you think your understanding trumps all of us...so it is easier to say we are not teaching scripture accurately.
I have not done anything as DHK has done....maybe with one exception, when the banned poster winman said I did not believe the gospel, then I assured him that he indeed must have another gospel ,as Jesus has saved me by His blood and gospel work.

Here is the link you suggest "proves" your accusation...it does not...lets look-

steaver says-
With TULIP being so blatant and clearly being expressed in the scriptures, could we conclude the Holy Spirit is failing to teach this truth to the children of God

I answer this charge[that the Holy Spirit is failing}
No.....Jesus declared that the sheep will hear His voice, others who do not, are not His sheep...that is why they do not hear;
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,

Jesus said this...He gives the reason these persons did not believe the teaching...guess what...[it is election unto salvation] sorry RM...I did not write it or teach it...JESUS DID however.....I and other Cals believe it....Do You?
We know this because Jesus explains;
as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Steaver in spite of this offers a subjective opinion
;

seeing how most Christians simply don't believe it?

I respond based on the text

most Christians do believe it.

there are some Christians who are still learning and growing and coming to this truth
Steaver persists as he has done several times before

Or, could it be that those who do not see the obvious are simply still blinded in unbelief and not Christians at all?

To which I replied;

that remains a distinct possibility, doesn't it?

Do you think it is not a possibility oh exalted royal highness??? Steaver makes a provocative statement, to which I say it is a distinct possibility, and yet you see this as either not possible, or arrogant:wavey::wavey:

Where do you think this proves your false accusation or violates any rule?

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Icon, you should know that if one did an extensive search of your posts (as Rippon did with mine) that one could find many posts that are inaccurate and have misrepresented the views of others. Agreed?

It is one thing for a person to sometimes mis-read a post, and over react based on that...before clarification is made
[I would like to see a live chat room available} that might eliminate many of the misunderstandings and strawmen...

Now look at what Rippon has posted. He has to go back to 2005 and 2008 to find some statement which he thinks is inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Even if true, that is a post or two after nine years of posting here, and he brings it up now!! See the records that he keeps!

Rippon has a gift to recall, and take careful notes on both church history ,doctrine, timelines etc...that I surely lack...I am glad he backs up his p.o.v.....even if not all agree with his understanding....I personally enjoy both his posting and Archangel as they offer substance...even if it annoys those who are the object of their sharp posts....

We are not talking about a thread that existed in 2005 nine years ago.

It is true that a person can change, grow, and modify his or her position over time...especially 9 yrs ago....However....it is informative that you look as if you have resisted many a fine post since then...as even today you double down on your attack upon cals and their biblical position.

Why should you then be surprised that when you are directly answered, or caught in falsehoods , or caricatures...that you get a strong reaction?

We are speaking of a thread that was brought to the front just this week. It has relevance to us now, not nine or ten years ago.

I think you asked him to back up his post...HE DID.....

I back up the statement I made

.

You are doing damage control, however the horse is out of the barn.if you are going to make such accusations...post more carefully because it looks like lying and cover up is going on.....this is not the first time:thumbsup:

Do this for me. Put "New Calvinism" into a search engine like google, and see what you come up with. Then analyze what I said.

I am not a fan or a total enemy of "new Calvinism".....I am not a fan of Pentecostalism, or kjo, or many other things.....I am aware of them, and would like to see some good come out of them despite the error.

I will not defend those in that movement as described....I have not looked at it much because as soon as I hear error by some of it's leaders....even those who claim to hold the 5 pts.....I have to distance myself from them....

If you re-read this thread...somewhere you linked the primitive Baptists as CALs....and yet...they reject being identified that way.....

You must maintain the distinctions and not broad brush if you are being critical.

Perhaps you might want to start with the first thing that pops up:
http://www.newcalvinist.com/

[/QUOTE]


At first glance I agree with much of the link you posted here...I just saved it and will go over it . I have many of the same objections..

If you had presented this link in the first place...you might be surprised that many of us[ I do not speak for the other brothers] would be in agreement.....this might be an instructive and helpful link worthy of discussion.....

 

[DHK]

At first glance I agree with much of the link you posted here...I just saved it and will go over it . I have many of the same objections..

If you had presented this link in the first place...you might be surprised that many of us[ I do not speak for the other brothers] would be in agreement.....this might be an instructive and helpful link worthy of discussion.....

I shouldn't have had to post any link. Think about it.
Archangel started a thread and entitled it The New Calvinism
In the OP he provided a link which described some of the things that are happening. Then he asked for "thoughts?" Apparently no one was thinking.
They simply took what I posted about "New Calvinism" as an attack on "their Calvinism," which was not true. Archangel himself was the worst offender, and he began the thread.

I will stand by my position. The movement, known as "New Calvinism," has some grave errors, possible heresies, and seriously needs to be objectively critiqued before being accepted as what is usually termed as conservative evangelical Christianity.

 

[kyredneck]

.... If the moderators were consistent, then seven of these would get you banned.
The moral: stop digging up dirt. Anyone can do it. It may come back to haunt you.

Doesn't sound like a 'moral' to me, it sounds like a threat, like a mod abusing his position to stifle free speech.

If you're going to start delving out infractions, are you going to at least voice a warning beforehand that one is in danger of receiving an infraction, or will it be 'lightning from a clear sky' as you've done to me once before?

 

[Rippon]

I am not going to change my views.

Despite being corrected numerous times, you have remained stiff-necked.

God did not make me a robot. He is not my puppeteer; nor me his puppet.
But if that is your lowly view of God than I feel sorry for you, and I suggest that you go and find some books other than Calvinist books that would teach you to have a more reverent and Biblical attitude toward the Lord.

What a pointless paragraph --yet very typical of your normal M.O.

You attribute absolute nonsense to me --things I have never said or believed --destroy it and have a victory dance. To what end Mr. Moderator?

A sample of your past conduct follows. On 4/11/2008 you told me:

"It is true that God knows the choices of individuals. If He didn't, He wouldn't be God. Are you suggesting that He is less than omniscient? I feel sorry for you."

You have not amended your behavior.

The moral: stop digging up dirt.

So you admit your comments are dirt. It's just a record of your interactions DHK. If you wish to recant --do so. Be my guest.

 

[steaver]

I answer this charge[that the Holy Spirit is failing}
No.....Jesus declared that the sheep will hear His voice, others who do not, are not His sheep...that is why they do not hear;
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,

You do not have the right to cut off half of the "charge" and then declare you answered it justly. The charge is "failing to teach TULIP!! At which you replied with the sheep passage declaring those who do not believe TULIP (this is the charge) are not Jesus' sheep. Stop with your spinning!!! Why don't you humble yourself and admit what you said? It wasn't even a mistake or a misspeak, because it is evident from many of your post that you genuinely believe those who do not embrace TULIP, at least after being instructed by your most highly educated self on it, are as you declare "not Jesus' sheep".

 

[Iconoclast]

You do not have the right to cut off half of the "charge" and then declare you answered it justly. The charge is "failing to teach TULIP!! At which you replied with the sheep passage declaring those who do not believe TULIP (this is the charge) are not Jesus' sheep. Stop with your spinning!!! Why don't you humble yourself and admit what you said? It wasn't even a mistake or a misspeak, because it is evident from many of your post that you genuinely believe those who do not embrace TULIP, at least after being instructed by your most highly educated self on it, are as you declare "not Jesus' sheep".

in your original statement you acknowledged tulip as true you said something like if it is so blatantly true so I'm just taking your statement and clarifying it.....read what you posted.

 

[DHK]

Despite being corrected numerous times, you have remained stiff-necked./quote]
You are a real joke. What do you want me to do?
Become a Calvinist? Admit the Calvinist error? It is not coming.

What a pointless paragraph --yet very typical of your normal M.O.

The paragraph points out that every time you point out an error of someone else's you have at least four times as many pointing back at you. Remember that.

You attribute absolute nonsense to me --things I have never said or believed --destroy it and have a victory dance. To what end Mr. Moderator?

A sample of your past conduct follows. On 4/11/2008 you told me:

"It is true that God knows the choices of individuals. If He didn't, He wouldn't be God. Are you suggesting that He is less than omniscient? I feel sorry for you."

You have not amended your behavior.

I have not amended my position. Get it right.

So you admit your comments are dirt. It's just a record of your interactions DHK. If you wish to recant --do so. Be my guest.

If you have to go back 10-15 years to find something on me it is truly pitiful for you to spend your time on such a hobby. I thought Calvinists majored on glorifying God. Is this glorifying to God?

 

[The Archangel]

I shouldn't have had to post any link. Think about it.
Archangel started a thread and entitled it The New Calvinism
In the OP he provided a link which described some of the things that are happening. Then he asked for "thoughts?" Apparently no one was thinking.
They simply took what I posted about "New Calvinism" as an attack on "their Calvinism," which was not true. Archangel himself was the worst offender, and he began the thread.

I will stand by my position. The movement, known as "New Calvinism," has some grave errors, possible heresies, and seriously needs to be objectively critiqued before being accepted as what is usually termed as conservative evangelical Christianity.

First: The title of the piece is "The New Calvinism." The words "New" and "Calvinism" are never used in conjunction in the piece.

Second: Those interviewed--Daniel Montgomery and Al Mohler--clearly state the Calvinism in question is a return to Reformed theology, not some modern bastardization of it.

Third: Nothing espoused by Mohler or Montgomery is outside of orthodox belief. Adam Greenway's segment clearly refutes the notion that Calvinists don't believe in evangelism.

Fourth: Lemke's critique of Calvinism is dishonest (though, probably, unintentionally so). Lemke is discussing a distorted caricature of Calvinism, not actual Calvinism (see earlier comment about Adam Greenway's statement).

Therefore, either you didn't watch the video, you are incapable of objective comprehension, or...you knew EXACTLY what you were saying.

There is nothing "New" about the Calvinism espoused by Mohler, Montgomery, or Greenway.

What you are doing is questioning the salvation of Mohler, et al. and those who have a similar theology. So, saying that the Calvinism represented in the piece is "another gospel" is to say those holding to the Calvinism presented in the video (which is both historic and orthodox) are not saved.

You are questioning the salvation of every Calvinist here and you know it. What is more, you're too chicken to admit it, instead choosing to hide behind your position as a Moderator and hiding behind the Arminian-friendly environment afforded to you here by Squire and others.

As a Moderator, you should know better. Clearly you think your title gives you the privledge to not apply to yourself the rules you are asked to enforce. It is you that is "playing the hypocrite" here, not me. All I am doing is holding you accountable--something that Squire apparently won't do. Calvinists seem to be the only ones called to give an account when they step over the rule-line. You and your ilk here are given a blank check.

I have confronted fellow Calvinists and other non-Calvinists for doing exactly what you've done here. It is so tiring to have to moderate the Moderators. But that's what people have to do when the foxes guard the hen house.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

in your original statement you acknowledged tulip as true you said something like if it is so blatantly true so I'm just taking your statement and clarifying it.....read what you posted.

Exactly! :laugh: The very point we are making to you!

Icon - No belief in TULIP = No sheep! Thank you! :tonofbricks:

 

[OldRegular]

I believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace! But I am not a Calvinist! I am not a Calvinists for at least two reasons:

1. Calvin held some doctrines that I believe are unbiblical.

2. The Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace did not originated with Calvin; God is their author!.

I have always believed that Salvation was a supernatural transaction between God and man. When I made my profession of faith at the age of 34 I was what some call "a one point Calvinist", as are most Arminian Southern Baptists. Some years later I read a book contrasting Roman Catholicism and Presbyterianism. I learned that most denominations believed that one could lose their Salvation. I recall feeling a little proud of us Southern Baptists, we believed that God kept those He Saved without that terrible doctrine of Sovereign Election.

In time, as I studied Scripture, understood myself better, and observes those around me, believers and nonbelievers, I came to understand that passage of Scripture my father often quoted to me:

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

What a wonderful passage of Scripture! From this and further study of Scripture I came to believe fervently the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace.

If Sovereign Election and Grace are true then one thing is certain: God will bring all His Elect, those He has Chosen in Jesus Christ, to Salvation!

Now ar far as I am concerned whether one holds the doctrine of "Arminianism" or 'Calvinism" or as I do, the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace, has nothing to do with whether they are saved or not: It is God who saves!

 

[DHK]

First: The title of the piece is "The New Calvinism." The words "New" and "Calvinism" are never used in conjunction in the piece.

The title in your thread is:
"The New Calvinism" on PBS
Note: "The New Calvinism" is in quotes. "The New Calvinism" is a modern day movement that holds some very erratic, irrational, falsehoods, if not heresies. Examine it for yourself, before wrongly accusing me.

Second: Those interviewed--Daniel Montgomery and Al Mohler--clearly state the Calvinism in question is a return to Reformed theology, not some modern bastardization of it.

Perhaps you don't understand your own video. Did you know that Mohler is one of the founders of "The New Calvinism" movement. Again do some research.

Third: Nothing espoused by Mohler or Montgomery is outside of orthodox belief. Adam Greenway's segment clearly refutes the notion that Calvinists don't believe in evangelism.

Mohler himself stands outside of orthodox belief. Do your own research.

I shall first describe the origin of New Calvinism, and its association with the Gospel Coalition, and then discuss four theologians widely accepted as standing at the centre New Calvinism, namely Dr Tim Keller, Pastor John Piper, Pastor Mark Driscoll and Dr Albert Mohler. While the term New Calvinism is seldom used in the UK, the philosophy of this movement is being eagerly adopted by many churches in this country....

Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, is quoted: ‘everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle’s pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention.’...

The Coalition is completely given over to contemporary worship and many Coalition Conferences have included hip-hop concerts. An article by Collin Hansen, entitled ‘The Hip-hop Opportunity’, published on the Coalition website, describes a hip-hop concert held in the Moody Bible Institute: ‘The auditorium pulsated with youthful energy for nearly three hours. A diverse crowd of nearly 2,000 had formed large lines long before the doors opened to general admission seating. During the sold-out concert, they shouted out familiar lines and danced with abandon among friends and new acquaintances who shared common affinity for the music. But the message took priority over the music and even the musicians on this evening. And that’s just the way everyone wanted it… The concert—featuring rappers Lecrae, Trip Lee, Sho Baraka, Tedashi, Pro, and DJ Official—made Jesus Christ the star of the show.’
The one thing that appears to bind New Calvinists together is their devotion to contemporary worship and holy hip-hop....


New Calvinism is a broad tent that encourages doctrinal freedom, and discourages doctrinal disagreements. Both charismatic practices and some emerging church ideas have found an eager welcome in the New Calvinist tent. Despite lip service to the doctrines of Calvin, few in the New Calvinist movement adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the 1689 Baptist Confession. We shall see that the doctrines of New Calvinism bear little relationship to the doctrines of grace associated with Calvinism.

http://www.newcalvinist.com/who-are-the-new-calvinists-part-1/

Fourth: Lemke's critique of Calvinism is dishonest (though, probably, unintentionally so). Lemke is discussing a distorted caricature of Calvinism, not actual Calvinism (see earlier comment about Adam Greenway's statement).

Dishonest? Perhaps you are simply naive and don't know what this movement is about.

Therefore, either you didn't watch the video, you are incapable of objective comprehension, or...you knew EXACTLY what you were saying.

There is nothing "New" about the Calvinism espoused by Mohler, Montgomery, or Greenway.

If you equip yourself with a little knowledge aforetime, you will see how "new" this is, or rather how old it is to the "camp of heresies."

What you are doing is questioning the salvation of Mohler, et al. and those who have a similar theology. So, saying that the Calvinism represented in the piece is "another gospel" is to say those holding to the Calvinism presented in the video (which is both historic and orthodox) are not saved.

I will continue to question doctrine, motives, methods, etc. Please look it up. Do your own research.

You are questioning the salvation of every Calvinist here and you know it. What is more, you're too chicken to admit it, instead choosing to hide behind your position as a Moderator and hiding behind the Arminian-friendly environment afforded to you here by Squire and others.

You continue to be dishonest. Why? Is ignorance bliss?

As a Moderator, you should know better. Clearly you think your title gives you the privledge to not apply to yourself the rules you are asked to enforce. It is you that is "playing the hypocrite" here, not me. All I am doing is holding you accountable--something that Squire apparently won't do. Calvinists seem to be the only ones called to give an account when they step over the rule-line. You and your ilk here are given a blank check.

I am not a moderator here. Squire made that clear, or did you not read that sticky thread? The hypocrite is yourself because you are posting in ignorance and then accusing me of attacking those whom I am not attacking. These are false allegations, otherwise known as lies.

I have confronted fellow Calvinists and other non-Calvinists for doing exactly what you've done here. It is so tiring to have to moderate the Moderators. But that's what people have to do when the foxes guard the hen house.

The Archangel

Do your own research, and then be quiet about. I think you have embarrassed yourself enough. Educate yourself.

 

[robt.k.fall]

DHK, I fear that for some in this discussion nothing less than our kow towing (unconditional surrender) to their position will suffice.

 

[Rippon]

What do you want me to do?
Become a Calvinist?

All in the Lord's time. First of all,l I want you to acknowledge that you have been untruthful on many occasions with your posts on the BB. Secondly, the manner in which you deal with those who differ with your theologically is disturbing. You attribute things to them that are completely false and then attempt to demolish an argument that does not exist by the one you have issues with.

I have not amended my position. Get it right.

Your positions are sometimes correct and sometimes in error. No, I was speaking of your conduct.

If you have to go back 10-15 years to find something on me

Your math is messy. The year 2008 was six years ago --not 10-15.

There are plenty of examples I could furnish from the last 12 months if you wish. It's part of your record.

 

[DHK]

All in the Lord's time. First of all,l I want you to acknowledge that you have been untruthful on many occasions with your posts on the BB. Secondly, the manner in which you deal with those who differ with your theologically is disturbing. You attribute things to them that are completely false and then attempt to demolish an argument that does not exist by the one you have issues with.


Your positions are sometimes correct and sometimes in error. No, I was speaking of your conduct.

The pot calling the kettle black??:sleep:
In the past few days you have called out one of your own and slanderously accused him of going to the bar more times than going to church, and that without any evidence. You are not to judge.

Your math is messy. The year 2008 was six years ago --not 10-15.

There are plenty of examples I could furnish from the last 12 months if you wish. It's part of your record.

You do the math. One of your quotes was from 2005. In a few days it will be 2015. This conversation is closed as far as I am concerned.

 

[Rippon]

Mohler himself stands outside of orthodox belief. Do your own research.

That is a reprehensible charge. Further, nothing in your quoted article said anything of the kind.

 

[OldRegular]

T
Mohler himself stands outside of orthodox belief. Do your own research.

I looked on Mohler's web site. There was nothing commending hip hop!

But then there is this:

In Defense — Albert Mohler, "Thinking about Thinking about Rap — Unexpected Thoughts Over Thanksgiving"

The good, the beautiful, and the true are to be combined to the greatest extent possible in every Christian endeavor, rap included. I have no idea how to evaluate any given rap musical expression, but rappers know. I do know how to evaluate the words, and when the words are saturated with the Gospel and biblical truth that is a wonderful thing. Our rapping Gospel friends will encourage one another to the greatest artistic expression. I want to encourage them in the Gospel. Let Bach's maxim drive them all — to make (their) music the "handmaid of theology."

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/debatable-is-christian-hip-hop-ungodly