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

[webdog]

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

:laugh: Appears that way, huh?

 

[webdog]

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

What ad hominem's?

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.

This is a classic example of begging the question.

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.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you overlooked the Scripture I posted...and like I said, there was nothing of yours to refute. I believe the Scripture you posted. Nothing is at odds of what I posted that you took issue with.

 

[quantumfaith]

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




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

Please explain PRECISELY how you feel that this is "vomitus". I just don't see it, but then again, I am biased to the opposite side of the aisle.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

and the vomitus by hoss.

Possibly, what I posted might be called "vomitus". I also nearly admitted as much...

I believe you are correct enough.....

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

I was gracious enough at the time (since you appear not to be over it yet) not to explain that technically....this was not ad hominem. You are broadening the definition. No one recently has posted anything like an actual ad hominem. Do you just like it when something sounding vaguely akin to latin comes from your computer?

And these would be yours:

May I also say you have an apt pupil in "hos"!

I just thought your "paci" might be worn out!

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

I am seeing specks...I am seeing boards...and I doubt comparing or counting them will serve any of us much good.

 

[OldRegular]

What ad hominem's?



This is a classic example of begging the question.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you overlooked the Scripture I posted...and like I said, there was nothing of yours to refute. I believe the Scripture you posted. Nothing is at odds of what I posted that you took issue with.

Apparently neither you, hoss, or itl understand the Scripture I posted since it clearly shows that no one gets to heaven "by the skin of their teeth"!

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.

 

[webdog]

Apparently neither you, hoss, or itl understand the Scripture I posted since it clearly shows that no one gets to heaven "by the shin of their teeth"1

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.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? You are just not getting what we are saying.

Care to address the passage of Scripture I posted?

 

[humblethinker]

...and not a trace of the "Calvinist" beliefs can be found in the teachings of the earliest churches and the early fathers.

This is something I am yet to look into. I have heard the claim before. I believe they claim Augustine, no?

This comment is also very interesting to me: "Augustine was radically influenced by Platonism." The whole idea of God being immutable, impassible and atemporal in the Platonic sense just doesn't seem to be congruent with the Biblical narrative... that is unless all depictions of God being 'mutable', 'passible' and 'temporal' are actually not true or accurate depictions but are actually anthro- pomorphisms and popathisms... just poetry and allegory.

 

[OldRegular]

Please explain PRECISELY how you feel that this is "vomitus". I just don't see it, but then again, I am biased to the opposite side of the aisle.

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.

If you don't see the above and in particular the following excerpt as vomitus then

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.

In my initial comment to webdog, which I repeated above, I said nothing about my theology other than that all are saved by Grace. I assume that all Baptists believe the same. I used the writing of the Apostle Paul to show that all the saved are "children of God" and "joint heirs" with Jesus Christ, NO "skin of the teeth" Christians! So hoss simply jumped in and slimed those who believe the Doctrine of Grace as the OP intended!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

These are wonderful passages OR...they are also the inspiration for my screen-name (I am an adoptee...both physically and spiritually) Since Christ gave up what might have been his "inheritance" that he might be able to gain us as his children, brothers, and co-heirs....

The problem is: In these passages you will note that the words:

"grace" "teeth" "skin" or anything vaguely akin to the notion of getting in by "the skin of their teeth" is not mentioned.....I furnished an example for clarification of someone who might be described as "getting in by the skin of their teeth" the thief on the cross. (Also undeniably saved by grace). Somehow you have taken that to mean a denial of Salvation by grace. I simply don't get it. I think you are "straining at a gnat". WD (by using the phrase "skin of teeth") was merely using a figure of speech. He was decidedly not asserting a particularly signifigant Soteriological fundamental doctrine of the faith on the level of "grace".

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You seriously got worked up about that didn't you...did I strike a nerve?

Thou dost protest too much sir!!

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion

 

[12strings]

If this thread has proven anything, it has proven this:

Neither Calvinists, nor non-calvinists, like it when anyone disagrees with them about anything, whether the person is considered to be smart or not!

So the title of the thread is technically true, but only because it also applies to EVERYONE ELSE as well!

I refer you to this blog article I found:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=78787

 

[12strings]

From the final paragraphs of John Wesley's "The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace

John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

...a smart guy, that Wesley!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If this thread has proven anything, it has proven this:

Neither Calvinists, nor non-calvinists, like it when anyone disagrees with them about anything, whether the person is considered to be smart or not!

So the title of the thread is technically true, but only because it also applies to EVERYONE ELSE as well!

I refer you to this blog article I found:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=78787

:thumbsup::thumbsup::applause:

Although...really the position of the OP is that "smart" or "intelligent" dissenters are of particular annoyance to the Cal....It never bothers anyone when an idiot disagrees with them. I love the link you posted :thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

From the final paragraphs of John Wesley's "The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace



...a smart guy, that Wesley!

This would serve to demonstrate that a particular hero of Arminianism was un-bothered by the fact that an intelligent Calvinist disagreed with him.

 

[InTheLight]

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

Thanks HOS. I'm really getting ripped here the past couple of days and I can't understand why.

OldRegular, which post is an attack?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thanks HOS. I'm really getting ripped here the past couple of days and I can't understand why.

OldRegular, which post is an attack?

LOL!! :laugh: NP....anyone going after me would be fair-game. I admit I give as good as I get or at least try to, and I often feel that I am more coarse than I should be, but what did YOU do that was so very hateful?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

From the final paragraphs of John Wesley's "The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace



...a smart guy, that Wesley!

John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible persecutor and murderer. But he wasn't alone, so I'm not singling him out unjustly.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Isn't it interesting that Calvinists have tried to take grace and make it exclusively their own possession and concept, as if no other Christians believe in grace but them? To try to co-opt the term "Doctrines of Grace" into an exclusivist Calvinist possession is dishonest, false, and un-Christian.

No one has written of grace more eloquently, completely, and in-depth than John Wesley, and yet Calvinists would deny that he believed and taught the "doctrines of grace". What he denied were the Calvinistic doctrines of grace that make man a puppet and God a puppetmaster.

 

[annsni]

John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible persecutor and murderer. But he wasn't alone, so I'm not singling him out unjustly.

Show me where he murdered anyone.

 

[Skandelon]

I think Piper was dead on the money. He was not "insulting" non-calvinists.

It wouldn't be insulting to you for me to suggest that because you are a Calvinist that you couldn't really understand the depth of God's glory or sovereignty? It should be.

#1 You need to grow up. Seriously. You cannot keep accusing 5 pointers of being obstinate and argumentative, when many of the arguments and obstinate silliness that breaks out on these threads, continually originates with you. You need to mature a little, and quit trying to affirm yourself by bashing the other side.

Who is getting personal and who is dealing with the topic? You are calling me immature, obstinate, silly, threatening and telling me to grow up which is all against the rules. I've been cordial, even conceding some points that 12stings made, and have remained on topic. You, on the other hand, have not.

#2 This thread yet again confirms who it is that is continually causing problems and starting arguments.

GASP I started an argument on a debate forum???!!?? Call the cops! :thumbsup:

#3 You have no business being a moderator.

Again, only one of us here has broken the rules...

Please address personal concerns via PM, thanks!