Calvinism in a White Ford Van

[Timtoolman]

Bill, it appears then that you and I are too far from each other for a civil conversation. YOu tell others how not too attack then throw out lines that I and JackRus pt out that indeed not only insult but lack real understanding of the issues. I would say there is not much we can gain if you can't see that simple truth. For you will spout the same crap and when it comes back too you cry unfair. Sorry not wasting my time on people who make no atempt to deal with reality. If you want to try a civil conversation you will have to drop the attacks and debate from scripture.

 

[J.D.]

Bill, stay on course. You're doing fine. Try not to get in the mud with them like I do. It leaves you all muddy!

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Bill, it appears then that you and I are too far from each other for a civil conversation. YOu tell others how not too attack then throw out lines that I and JackRus pt out that indeed not only insult but lack real understanding of the issues. I would say there is not much we can gain if you can't see that simple truth. For you will spout the same crap and when it comes back too you cry unfair. Sorry not wasting my time on people who make no atempt to deal with reality. If you want to try a civil conversation you will have to drop the attacks and debate from scripture.

Tim, I agree. We probably have no basis for continued dialouge. You believe I am insulting. I believe your mind is closed to profitable debate. Seeing as that is the case I will generally withhold posting on your threads unless I find it be absolutely necessary.

May the Lord bless you and your service for Him.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Bill, stay on course. You're doing fine. Try not to get in the mud with them like I do. It leaves you all muddy!

JD, I'll try not to. If you read my last post to Tim you may understand my perspective when it comes to unfruitful debate. Sometimes you have to make the decision to just bless the brother and move on. It's not personal...just a realization that continued dialouge is going to be for naught. I am sure Tim is a great guy, we just don't see eye to eye.

That said, I can't ignore posts that promulgate bad doctrine. I have to respond to them. Not so much for the sake of the poster but for others that read them. I suppose that is my parental role at work.

I look forward to trading posts with you in the future.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Bill

 

[Timtoolman]

AAAHHHH posturing for the higher ground. Its not too obvious, is it?

God bless you too Bill.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Bill, stay on course. You're doing fine. Try not to get in the mud with them like I do. It leaves you all muddy!

He is the one that whipped up the mud. surely you can see that after you made this statement on another thread.

As for that title that some claim "biblicist", I find that offensive because it claims the moral high-ground against all opponents. Like those in Corinth that were better than the followers of Paul, Appolos, or Peter; they were "of Christ". I can better endure those other titles like "calminian".

J.D.

And here are some qoutes on this thread of the man you are telling not too get into the mud with US!

Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning.

The typical Arminian reponse is usually (and I'll be generous here) light on substance and heavy on opinion.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

I will not back down form my orginal statement.
This man is so full of pride dialouge would be uselss.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Bill, stay on course. You're doing fine. Try not to get in the mud with them like I do. It leaves you all muddy!

I seem to recall that Jesus used mud to make a blind man see.

[This is a joke. This is only a joke. The author understands the difference between the reason Jesus used mud and the slinging of mud as insults (even though Jesus DID in fact use mud as a deliberate insult to the Pharisees).

For those who missed this point, the Pharisees had gotten so legalistic about interpretation of the law that they made the following rules:

1. It was legal to spit on a rock on the sabbath, because all you made was a wet rock.

2. It was illegal to spit on dirt on the sabbath, because that made mud, and making mud created something you could use for work. Work was prohibited on the sabbath, therefore making mud was prohibited on the sabbath.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.]

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
AAAHHHH posturing for the higher ground. Its not too obvious, is it?

God bless you too Bill.

Tim, I don't have to posture for higher ground. I am not always in the debate mode. Sometimes it is helpful to disengage from the debate and try to see the substance. The fact is that our dialouge with each other has been caustic and filled with misunderstanding. Do you consider that profitable? I don't. I'm sure that you don't either. We don't see eye to eye (which is fine). We are both critical of each other. I just don't have the energy for that type of continued dialouge.

As far as opposing posts that I consider to have false teaching, I stand by that comment. And that is not a Tim directed comment. That goes for anyone who posts. I certainly would expect to be challenged if I post something false or inaccurate.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J.D.:
Bill, stay on course. You're doing fine. Try not to get in the mud with them like I do. It leaves you all muddy!

I seem to recall that Jesus used mud to make a blind man see.

[This is a joke. This is only a joke. The author understands the difference between the reason Jesus used mud and the slinging of mud as insults (even though Jesus DID in fact use mud as a deliberate insult to the Pharisees).

For those who missed this point, the Pharisees had gotten so legalistic about interpretation of the law that they made the following rules:

1. It was legal to spit on a rock on the sabbath, because all you made was a wet rock.

2. It was illegal to spit on dirt on the sabbath, because that made mud, and making mud created something you could use for work. Work was prohibited on the sabbath, therefore making mud was prohibited on the sabbath.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.] </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J.D.:
Bill, stay on course. You're doing fine. Try not to get in the mud with them like I do. It leaves you all muddy!

He is the one that whipped up the mud. surely you can see that after you made this statement on another thread.

As for that title that some claim "biblicist", I find that offensive because it claims the moral high-ground against all opponents. Like those in Corinth that were better than the followers of Paul, Appolos, or Peter; they were "of Christ". I can better endure those other titles like "calminian".

J.D.

And here are some qoutes on this thread of the man you are telling not too get into the mud with US!

Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning.

The typical Arminian reponse is usually (and I'll be generous here) light on substance and heavy on opinion.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

I will not back down form my orginal statement.
This man is so full of pride dialouge would be uselss. </font>[/QUOTE]

Right on Tim! Until I see an Arminian who can support their position biblically my comment will not change. When I am proven otherwise I will be happy to shake their hand (virtually of course) tip my hat to their scholarship. Until then I suppose I will have to continue to read your ranting and raving.

 

[Timtoolman]

No, unless you can find a calvinist who can back the teachings of Johan Calvin with scripture then I will have too put up with your rantings and ravings.

 

[Bill Brown]

Tim, do you think it is possible to conclude that you and I are just so entrenched in our positions that to discuss it further is just a waste of time? I honestly mean this next comment: If you and I met in church or at a social event I am sure we would get a long fine. There are Arminians in my church and we are more than just cordial...we are friends. How much of this is internet related? This venue creates these types of conflict. We are hidden behind the cloak of java script.

Truce?

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
No, unless you can find a calvinist who can back the teachings of Johan Calvin with scripture then I will have too put up with your rantings and ravings.

Why would you? Just don't read my threads. Tim, not every post on this board is going to revolve around me or vice versa. If what I say really aggravates you....avoid it! Just tune me out. I'm fine with that.

 

[J.D.]

I just hope Bill can rise above the ugliness that goes on here. It was my intent to do that but the hecklers get to me sometimes.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Until I see an Arminian who can support their position biblically my comment will not change. When I am proven otherwise I will be happy to shake their hand (virtually of course) tip my hat to their scholarship. Until then I suppose I will have to continue to read your ranting and raving.

Free willers support their opinion Biblically. They just provide shorter quotes than we do. We provide quotes like:

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

They provide quotes like:

all

whosoever

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Until I see an Arminian who can support their position biblically my comment will not change. When I am proven otherwise I will be happy to shake their hand (virtually of course) tip my hat to their scholarship. Until then I suppose I will have to continue to read your ranting and raving.

Free willers support their opinion Biblically. They just provide shorter quotes than we do. We provide quotes like:

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

They provide quotes like:

all

whosoever

</font>[/QUOTE] Biting my lip. Be good Bill. Shut your mouth. Don't say anything. You're already insulting and holier-than-thou.

 

[webdog]

Bill, I have a hard time reading your posts. The correct use of the quote function is this:

[word "quote here] Sentence you would like to quote, [/word "quote"]

It will look like this when done correctly...

Sentence you would like to quote

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Until I see an Arminian who can support their position biblically my comment will not change. When I am proven otherwise I will be happy to shake their hand (virtually of course) tip my hat to their scholarship. Until then I suppose I will have to continue to read your ranting and raving.

Free willers support their opinion Biblically. They just provide shorter quotes than we do. We provide quotes like:

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

They provide quotes like:

all

whosoever

</font>[/QUOTE]I would rather have single words in their correct context than half quotes taken out of context, as the likes of some of the calvinists post.

 

[Bill Brown]

This is a test

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Good job as dispelling those false assertions that people make about Calvinists. There certainly are false assertions and misconceptions about Calvinism. What I have found is that most of these misconceptions are based on hearsay. It is the bandwagon approach. It is easy to go with the crowd and attack Calvinism. Calvinism appeals to the quest for truth. Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning. Now that sounds like a prideful statement, doesn't it? "It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning." I suppose some would take this comment and label it as imflamatory. But just look at the facts. Allow me to parallel the Arminian belief that man is not completely fallen (total depravity)with scripture.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

ARMINIANISM: Man is not completely fallen. He is able to understand the gospel and can accept or reject it by free will.
SCRIPTURE:

Genesis 6:5 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

</font>[/QUOTE]This passage, of course, is talking about the wickedness of almost all mankind right before the flood. God chose to save Noah's family who He counted as righteous. It is NOT a general statement about man. Otherwise none of us would be here today.