Calvinists can't stand when smart people don't agree with them.

[webdog]

I am not attacking anyone. This whole thread is nothing but a personal attack. It is immature and silly.

Of course it would appear silly, it implicates your doctrine. That doesn't make it a personal attack, though.

And yes, as a matter of fact I HAVE reproved those on "my side" for doing the same thing. I have no problem with rigorous debate of the issue. But attacking someone who is simply asserting that reading the opposite side further solidified his own position, is just ridiculous and immature. We should cheer someone for such investigation, not chide them for it.

I am glad you are one of the minority to do so...but you have mis-interpreted the OP.

 

[Havensdad]

Of course it would appear silly, it implicates your doctrine. That doesn't make it a personal attack, though.

This has nothing do with the Doctrines of Grace. This has to do with someone acting immaturely, and people who are unwilling to call them out on it, simply because they agree with them on their doctrine.

I am glad you are one of the minority to do so...but you have mis-interpreted the OP.

I don't think I have.

 

[OldRegular]

Unfortunately you are right...and those will be the ones with the least rewards, or who are there "by the skin of their teeth" :tear:

Nonsense! No one gets there "by the skin of their teeth". All who are saved by the Grace of God and only by the Grace of God are, as the Apostle Paul writes:

Romans 8:15-17
15. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

[annsni]

I'm certainly no smartie and I came face to face with the doctrines of grace in Scripture. If it were only intellectual who come to that same place, then I guess I'm the oddball.

 

[webdog]

Nonsense! No one gets there "by the skin of their teeth". All who are saved by the Grace of God and only by the Grace of God are, as the Apostle Paul writes:

Romans 8:15-17
15. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

distinction without a difference.

 

[OldRegular]

I'm certainly no smartie and I came face to face with the doctrines of grace in Scripture. If it were only intellectual who come to that same place, then I guess I'm the oddball.

If you don't come "face to face with the doctrines of grace in Scripture." then it is a false doctrine but it is there and it is the Biblical doctrine of Salvation.

I was an adult before I was saved. I had always believed and still do that Salvation is not the repetition of a "mantra" but a supernatural act of God.

In my early years as a child of God I believed, as many do, that I had simply responded to the Holy Spirit and made a "profession of faith". After many years of Bible study I came to the conclusion that Salvation is only through the Sovereign choice and Grace of God. The Doctrine of Grace are a marvelous doctrine because they magnify the Grace of God.

 

[OldRegular]

distinction without a difference.

Nonsense again webdog!

No one gets to heaven "by the skin of their teeth" they get there by the Grace of God. Getting there "by the skin of their teeth" is not "distinction without a difference."

 

[webdog]

Nonsense again webdog!

No one gets to heaven "by the skin of their teeth" they get there by the Grace of God. Getting there "by the skin of their teeth" is not "distinction without a difference."

Your Scripture is speaking of believers. Stillborn Christians are believers.

If you don't like that phrase, chew on as through fire (1 Corinthians 3:15).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Nonsense again webdog!

No one gets to heaven "by the skin of their teeth" they get there by the Grace of God. Getting there "by the skin of their teeth" is not "distinction without a difference."

Yes, they get there by "the Grace of God" WD knows this, all truly regenerate people know this, it is also not up for dispute: This is not a direct contradiction of the idea that some get there by the "skin of their teeth". It is really a simple idea....I hate to explain for WD and he doesn't need me to....But someone who gets there by the "skin of their teeth", would be someone like OHHH...let's see....the thief on the cross? You are not bothering to consider what he is saying....you are simply looking for an opportunity to sound as though your Theology is more pious, sanctimonious and God-glorifying....It is on average every 7 Cal posts or so, that somehow or another they work in the suggestion that they have a uniquely God-honoring theology....this post of yours is merely an example of that. You are suggesting that there is a contradictory idea behind what WD said, and the idea that we are saved by grace. They are not contradictory at all. I think you probably know that too.

 

[OldRegular]

Your Scripture is speaking of believers.

No one gets to heaven except they are believers webdog. And no one gets there by the skin of their teeth. They get there by the Grace of God.

Stillborn Christians are believers.
If you don't like that phrase, chew on as through fire (1 Corinthians 3:15).

Have you worn your pacifier out? Need a new one send me your address!

 

[webdog]

No one gets to heaven except they are believers webdog. And no one gets there by the skin of their teeth. They get there by the Grace of God.

I take it you didn't read HOS's post

Keep setting up your "nonsensical" false dichotomies...

Have you worn your pacifier out? Need a new one send me your address!

Ad Hominem is the norm when you cannot refute Scripture.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No one gets to heaven except they are believers webdog. And no one gets there by the skin of their teeth. They get there by the Grace of God.

O.R:

Whenever you say "WD..No one gets to heaven by: (fill in blank) , they get there by the Grace of God."

You are directly suggesting that WD does not believe in Salvation by Grace....by extension, it is necessarily infered that he is un-saved.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

false dichotomies...

That is precisely what this is.

 

[OldRegular]

It is really a simple idea....I hate to explain for WD and he doesn't need me to....But someone who gets there by the "skin of their teeth", would be someone like OHHH...let's see....the thief on the cross?

That is more asinine than what webdog said. Have you heard Jesus Christ say? To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

You are not bothering to consider what he is saying....you are simply looking for an opportunity to sound as though your Theology is more pious, sanctimonious and God-glorifying....It is on average every 7 Cal posts or so, that somehow or another they work in the suggestion that they have a uniquely God-honoring theology....this post of yours is merely an example of that. You are suggesting that there is a contradictory idea behind what WD said, and the idea that we are saved by grace. They are not contradictory at all. I think you probably know that too.

I believe that the above "vomitus" is what is called an "ad hominem" attack.

 

[OldRegular]

I take it you didn't read HOS's post

Keep setting up your "nonsensical" false dichotomies...

webdog

In all the years you and I have exchanged barbs on this Board I have never seen you refute any Scripture I posted. All I get, and for that matter most others get, is a snotty remark that addresses nothing. May I also say you have an apt pupil in "hos"!

Furthermore, do you ever present Scripture to defend your remarks?

Ad Hominem is the norm when you cannot refute Scripture.

You were the one talking about "stillborn Christians"! I just thought your "paci" might be worn out!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That is more asinine than what webdog said. Have you heard Jesus Christ say? To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

UHHH.....yes, of course....therefore, due to God's Grace....he was saved....he was also 8 or fewer hours away from death...hence "by the skin of his teeth". He will receive few rewards....but he got there solely by the Grace of God. What is your point? This is why you often get fewer "Scriptures" than you want.....because posting Scriptures to demonstrate a point to you, which you do not already agree with, is futile. You don't know what to do with the Scriptures you do have, as your non-sequitor above demonstrates.

I believe that the above "vomitus" is what is called an "ad hominem" attack.

I believe you are correct enough.....I also believe it is true. If it weren't, you would not have trapped yourself into defending an utterly indefensible group of posts. You looked for an opportunity to give yourself the more sanctimonious "high-ground" and were called on it. Now you are being forced to defend the non-sense of the false dichotomy you raised.

 

[InTheLight]

Have you worn your pacifier out? Need a new one send me your address!

Ladies and Gentlemen: Exhibit 'C' in evidence that the thread title is correct.

 

[OldRegular]

Ladies and Gentlemen: Exhibit 'C' in evidence that the thread title is correct.

Actually the recent ad hominem attacks by webdog, hoss, and now you ITL demonstrate that the converse of the OP is more appropriate.

I've noticed that Calvinists can't seem to stand it when obviously smart and well respected believers are known to be non-Calvinistic.

The converse of the OP
I've noticed that "freewillers" can't seem to stand it when obviously smart and well respected believers are known to believe the Doctrines of Grace.

A short list of those who believe the Doctrine of Grace includes: the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Keach, Bunyon, Gill, Spurgeon, Fuller. LeLand, Judson, Wayland, Dagg, Mell, Carroll, Boyce, Broadus, Manly Sr., Manly Jr., all the old Baptist Saints; then there are Strong, Conner, Mullins, Reisinger, Mohler.

I took issue with the following post by webdog and responded with Scripture. Neither you, hoss, or wd have refuted what I said by Scripture rather respond by a series of silly remarks and the vomitus by hoss. I can only assume the revised OP above fits you three well.

Originally Posted by webdog
Unfortunately you are right...and those will be the ones with the least rewards, or who are there "by the skin of their teeth"

Response by OldRegular
Nonsense! No one gets there "by the skin of their teeth". All who are saved by the Grace of God and only by the Grace of God are, as the Apostle Paul writes:

Romans 8:15-17
15. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Actually the recent ad hominem attacks by webdog, hoss, and now you ITL demonstrate that the converse of the OP is more appropriate.

Just for fun....and to perhaps, pin you into an even deeper corner, I decided to paste the sum total of all posts ITL has on this thread. Precisely which one O.R. are you suggesting is an "ad hominem"?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1850074#post1850074
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1849684#post1849684
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1849665#post1849665
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1849652#post1849652
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1849633#post1849633

 

[webdog]

webdog

In all the years you and I have exchanged barbs on this Board I have never seen you refute any Scripture I posted. All I get, and for that matter most others get, is a snotty remark that addresses nothing. May I also say you have an apt pupil in "hos"!

What Scripture did you post that I needed to refute? I agreed with what you posted, however it does not refute what I said.

Furthermore, do you ever present Scripture to defend your remarks?

I did just that on this very thread (that you ironically did not even address).

You were the one talking about "stillborn Christians"! I just thought your "paci" might be worn out!

Ah, so it was a take on humor. I must have missed it considering stillborn babies have no need for pacifiers, but at any rate...