Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson

[TCassidy]

And if you don't knock off the squabbling I am going to make you both sit in the corner!

 

[Internet Theologian]

Both #89 and #150 are still in the thread. Nobody has deleted either of them.

I read all the posts Jon deleted from this thread and none of them address the "trolls" issue. (Admins have access to deleted posts.)

In post #89 Jon made a generic statement linking "calvinists" to "trolls." When I questioned him he said it was a generic and not a specific statement. He did not call anyone a troll. I find the linking of "calvinists" to "trolls" to be a bit distasteful but as he did not attach the word to any specific person he has not, in my opinion, violated Baptist Board rules.

Fair enough, but what else would he have said? So, a person can just say 'it was a generic, not specific statement' while broad brushing many, but not really meaning anyone?

lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............................

The linking of trolls to Calvinists in general, and not naming specific names, well, we're smart enough to add 2 and 2 and come up with the correct sum. We know what he meant, and so does he.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I did say that there are trolls here on both sides of the cal arm debate. This was addressing Benjamin. NOT calling icon, or anyone in paticular a troll. Are we in kindergarten?

No we, but you are in kindergarten. You broadbrushed calvinists as trolls, and it is juvenile.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six hour Warning

Sometime after 1200am Pacific, this thread will be closed.

 

[TCassidy]

I can't find any post where Jon applied "trolls" to both sides of the discussion, only to calvinists.

However, I did find, in post #65, where he did include both sides of the argument by saying "And I have seen this unChristian attitude on more than one side of the argument."

So, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But he still has to sit in the corner!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Trolls and unchristian-like are not even on the same hemisphere in scope of their meaning, Brother Tom.

 

[SovereignGrace]

troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

That is what he linked Calvinists to.

This is from urban dictionary, btw...

 

[Iconoclast]

Post 112. Icon said I reject or dont hold the "confessional standard". I have not accused him of such. I am asking where my belief departs.

Try to keep up, bro.

I should get to a keyboard in less than 1 hour

I never said that you did, Icon. I am not sure exactly this departure from orthodoxy you are accusing me of. Where do you believe I have departed from "confessional standards"?

Well now...really.....in post 111 you certainly did, then you changed it, but i type really slow and was already answering your post...so i had already copied your statement....i will refresh your memory in case they also disappear;

your post in 111- as it appears now.....cleaned up and modified,

That, brother, is untrue, however you may not have been involved in those threads. One example was the claim that a denial of Jesus being estranged from God's presence was a denial of scripture. Many Calvinists were quoted (Gill, Owen, Packer, against-Spurgeon and Sproul for). Only a minority believed the disagreement amounted to a denial of scripture.

Another example is foreknoowledge. Some have insisted the Calvinistic understanding denied scripture that describes God acting in response to man.

In discussing the atonement, some have charged those who hold my view as denying John 3:16 as I believe Christ came to redeem only the elect. Others have accused those men of denying Scripture that states Jesus died for His sheep.

There are four examples. I am actually surprised these are new to you, but at least we can lay aside they do not exist. Scripture does not bow to our interpretations. Calvinism is much larger than many would have it defined.

notice the last line as it appears now.....and yet here is exactly what you originally said;

as I quoted it directly in post 112;

That, brother, is untrue, however you may not have been involved in those threads. One example was the claim that a denial of Jesus being estranged from God's presence was a denial of scripture. Many Calvinists were quoted (Gill, Owen, Packer, against-Spurgeon and Sproul for). Only a minority believed the disagreement amounted to a denial of scripture.

Another example is foreknowledge. Some have insisted the Calvinistic understanding denied scripture that describes God acting in response to man.

In discussing the atonement, some have charged those who hold my view as denying John 3:16 as I believe Christ came to redeem only the elect. Others have accused those men of denying Scripture that states Jesus died for His sheep.

There are four examples. I am actually surprised these are new to you, but at least we can lay aside they do not exist. But you, friend, do not get to define Reformed faith or Christianity. Scripture does not bow to your interpretation. Calvinism is much larger than you would have it defined. You gave the right to defend your understanding but not the right to accuse those who disagree as rejecting scripture when they are simply rejecting your positions

Then in 114 you said this;

Iconoclast said: ↑
I did not ask you what "some say"......YOU SAID THREE TIMES THAT......I DID IT.........IT IS CLEAR I DID NO SUCH THING.
That which is already defined in theology stands before you or I was on the scene....it is you who depart from confessional standards..
Not me
I never said that you did, Icon.

By the way....you did call me directly a troll and when i went to respond to it it was gone,lol...at first i thought you thought better of it and maybe edited it out, but now it seems like something else has taken place...something not quite truthful.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I can't find any post where Jon applied "trolls" to both sides of the discussion, only to calvinists.

Yep. Go figure.

However, I did find, in post #65, where he did include both sides of the argument by saying "And I have seen this unChristian attitude on more than one side of the argument."

How convenient, fair, and balanced.

So, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But he still has to sit in the corner!

One told me he deleted posts because he DIDN'T say anything WRONG in the post. I do that all the time, the deleting of posts because I think, man, in that post I didn't say anything wrong! I better delete it!

 

[Protestant]

Protestant wrote:

The theology of our Pelagian, Arminian, non-Cal friends which states God loves all people, yet despite His love, cannot actually save the souls of all the people He allegedly loves, posits an impotence in our Lord which parallels the love of Isaiah’s mother.

Mr. Woody responded:

But something inside me stirred when I read the OP say that non-Cals teach that God "cannot" save someone, when in fact it is not taught. This is why I entered the thread at all, was to show that "does not" isn't the same as "can not". No one I've ever heard in my entire life has ever said God cannot save anyone.

A few simple definitions of terms are in order:

CAN = be able to CANNOT = not able to

DO = perform, execute NOT DO = not perform, not execute

Our opponents preach:

· God’s universal love for all mankind, none excepted

· Christ’s universal atonement for all mankind, none excepted

· Christ’s mission and purpose to save all mankind, none excepted

Logically speaking, either God achieved His purpose to save all or He did not.

Universalists believe He will achieve that purpose.

Our Pelagian, Arminian, non-Cal friends believe He ‘kind of’ achieved His purpose in that He saves those who believe on Christ.

Ultimately, they believe Christ’s atonement limited in success.

His atonement is only good for believers.

Christ’s blood was shed in vain for unbelievers, they must admit.

Therefore, by using clearly defined verbiage, our adversaries preach Christ CANNOT save all because of their unbelief.

If He were able to do so, He would. But in their theology, He cannot.

To say that Christ DOES NOT save unbelievers is not a point in contention.

We agree. Christ DOES NOT save unbelievers.

Where we disagree lies in the fact that our detractors insist that man’s unbelieving, rebellious will is the cause of his condemnation, God allowing man the right of self-determination, honoring his evil decision, which God cannot and will not take it into subjection, turning it at His good pleasure.

This premise we vehemently reject.

Scripture teaches all men have sinned, and with sin comes condemnation.

Christ was not sent to condemn the world, but to save the world of the condemned.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Christ, who cannot lie, declares He loses not one sinner for whom He died (John 6:39; John 17:12).

Therefore, Christ successfully and perfectly achieved salvation for the world of the condemned to which He was sent.

These are called the ‘Elect.’

All were in unbelief and condemned.

Yet Christ, by His Spirit, worked the miracle of saving grace, and took away their unbelief, replacing it with the gift of faith. Though once a people who were afar off, they were made nigh by the blood of Christ shed effectually for them (Ephesians 2).

Therefore, those in our camp understand the true nature of amazing grace.

Christ turned our wills from unbelief to belief, not by our power, but by His almighty, infinite power.

Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned (Lamentations 5:21).

We believe God CAN and DOES save unbelievers, according to His will of good pleasure.

Nothing and no one can hinder or stay His hand, not unbelief, not sin, not Satan….. to the praise of His glorious grace.

 

[Internet Theologian]

troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

That is what he linked Calvinists to.

This is from urban dictionary, btw...

Yuuuuup. 'Calvinists are trolls, but by that I don't really mean anyone at all, just everyone generally who is a Calvinist.'

 

[Internet Theologian]

I should get to a keyboard in less than 1 hour

Well now...really.....in post 111 you certainly did, then you changed it, but i type really slow and was already answering your post...so i had already copied your statement....i will refresh your memory in case they also disappear;

your post in 111- as it appears now.....cleaned up and modified,



notice the last line as it appears now.....and yet here is exactly what you originally said;

as I quoted it directly in post 112;



Then in 114 you said this;


By the way....you did call me directly a troll and when i went to respond to it it was gone,lol...at first i thought you thought better of it and maybe edited it out, but now it seems like something else has taken place...something not quite truthful.

Exactly. This is what I saw and this is what has been covered up and lied about all along. Trying to be patient about it all, but the facts are the facts.

 

[JonC]

I can't find any post where Jon applied "trolls" to both sides of the discussion, only to calvinists.

However, I did find, in post #65, where he did include both sides of the argument by saying "And I have seen this unChristian attitude on more than one side of the argument."

So, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But he still has to sit in the corner!

I've been in the corner before, Prof.

To clarify, I do see trolling (in general and on both sides of the Cal-Arm debate throughout my 15 years on this board) to crop up, often related to issues being discussed. I did not mean my comment directed at specific people but trolling in general. I never called Icon a troll.

I believe that this was a diversion to hide that my question was never answered. Icon said that my view denies some portion of the "confessional standard". My question is in what ways? When we call out people on this board we need to at least defend our claim. As I have denied my beliefs fall short of this standard, it is up to Icon to show where they do. Otherwise the comment is nothing but gossip and unsubstantiated accusation.

So again, Icon, what portion of my belief falls short of the "confessional standard"?

 

[JonC]

He admitted in PM that he deleted it.

This was my PM reply

No the only thing deleted was your accusations. An admin can see what was deleted.

No we, but you are in kindergarten. You broadbrushed calvinists as trolls, and it is juvenile.

And I am a Calvinist, "you big dummy" (in my best Fred Sanford voice).

 

[TCassidy]

This thread is now closed.