Featured Call on the name of the Lord is necessary

No, he said that Calvinists claim "draw" means "drag", not Particular Redemptionists.

If you're going to constantly make a distinction between Calvinists and Particular Redemptionists, please keep your accusations straight as well.

You want a Calvinist to say that "draw" means "drag"? OK...

And what have you said about thatbrian's posts?

 

This was an interesting post!

I suppose it must be true that exuberance is often overstatement.

 

Yes, well anyone that can read can see that SheepWhisperer said "Calvinists believe it means drag" and then they can see where you accused him of "claiming Particular Redemptionists drag sinners".

Yet, I utterly fail to understand. Okey-dokey.

 

Actually I fail to see the big deal with viewing "draw" as a "dragging." The same word is used in reference to being drawn (dragged) to court, and drawing nets, which implies dragging.

And by the way, just responding on this to your post because your so neutral in the matter.




God bless.

 

Well, excuse me for thinking Calvinists ARE NOT Particular Redemptionists. For thinking you do, indeed, make a distinction between Calvinists and Particular Redemptionists.

See this thread:

Or this one:

Yeah, yeah, I know your response--"You don't understand." Well, maybe you haven't explained it well enough.

 

Hello ITL,
You can solve the puzzle easily....not by straining over a word definition, but by realizing it is teaching that the drawing, dragging, persuading, being made willing.......IS EFFECTUAL.

 

[QUOTE="InTheLight,

]Well, excuse me for thinking Calvinists ARE NOT Particular Redemptionists. For thinking you do, indeed, make a distinction between Calvinists and Particular Redemptionists.

Yeah, yeah, I know your response--"You don't understand." Well, maybe you haven't explained it well enough.[/QUOTE]
ITL,

TC.....is a baptist....a real baptist.
TC believes...the doctrines of grace...the 5 pts...[he likes to qualify them, in his own language]...that is also okay....
Sometimes others who believe the 5pts...are not baptists...so TC is careful not to get lumped in to the Calvinist label.....so he holds the teaching, as far as soteriology goes.....but does not feel he has to explain The life of Calvin, who was it that had Servetus burnt at the stake, The foul language of some of the reformers, etc...

There is not as if everyone has their own unique idea of the 5pts, and we clash...
Think of it this way,ITL.... we have some differences yes??? And yet if we were in the food court of mall of America,and a group of JW's were trying to promote their anti Christian false ideas...we would set aside our differences and join together to confront the enemies of the cross, and see if we could plant seeds of truth that could lead them from darkness to light...
Tc is trying to clarify the issues and many times he does so, even if you do not like his M.O......

 

You're missing my main objection. TCassidy is calling people out for saying things they never said, then offering up things like "Calvinism = Particular Redemption" to cover his error when he has said many times in the past they are not the same thing. That is not clarifying things, that's muddying things.

He tells people they have said stupid things and to "own it and move on", he tells people they "once again don't understand", says things like, "show me where I said that", etc. etc. in this condescending manner that is quite tiresome.

 

Darrell C,

Quote: Enabling someone is not programming someone, in a context that does not leave one with the ultimate response.

This is the precise method by which the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed to the natural man:

So right. Jesus said, "...to them gave he power to become the sons of God", John 1:12. Enabling and empowering gives us the right sense of His predestination. Whom He foreknew He enabled to become a child of God. This part of it is not really very hard to figure out if we consider all that the Lord revealed to us in His word.

 

There is a biblical response to what you just said, but I won't give you one, brother. I will try to say it politely: until you apologize for your unjust castigation of what I posted on the haunted house/spiritual warfare issue and because you arbitrarily claimed that what I said was false then I don't believe you merit an answer from me. I had the evidence, the witnesses, and my own personal observations of the events that I described on this forum. I even offered to let you communicate personally not only with my many witnesses to what happened in that house but to the owners of that house who experienced both the horrors and the victory over the devils who haunted the place. But you wouldn't do anything to investigate the matter, much less talk to them for confirmation.
Of the fifteen witnesses who experienced the supernatural things we encountered in 2005-2007, one has passed away, two moved away, but 12 are still with us here to testify to the truthfulness of my statements.

I do not know if your response to what I posted was a lack of understanding of spiritual warfare or of a true fear that such things can and do happen but it's one or the other. The things I said stand as truth before the throne of God and will not change because of the skepticism others, including sincere Christian brethren who have never seen such things.

I wish you well but you won't be hearing from me on this issue or any other issue on this forum unless this matter is resolved.

 

You will hear yourself repeat those mocking words before the throne of Christ in that great and coming day.

To the ignore pit, O brave one..