Featured Hunt vs White

As you agree QF perhaps you can list what you thought DH said that was on topic, or instructional??? Name 4-5 things if you could.
I have my notepad ready....

 

You are quick to knock everything that multitudes have found instructive and helpful.That is all I see you post;

reformers are no good, confessions are no good, creeds no good, puritans no good, listening to sermons no good,......commentaries no good, on and on.

The reformers and puritans are all about scripture.....that is why we like them.

you rip on them and offer no scripture in most of your posts...just snide comments and disappear.

 

Now I would like you to back up your claims here. Please give specific examples of each one of these.

 

So you cannot make a case as to why the reformers had to be the issue in a debate between White and Hunt? Why is it ok for White to impose that on Hunt?

 

Unfortunately I'll have to totally agree with your assessment here Icon. It is factual.

I've heard preachers say, in ignorance ' 'nary a piece of literature!' (only Scripture fallacy) but here you call it spot on with mitch ' 'nary a piece of Scripture!' And I will add and 'nary a factual or solid argument have I seen from him. Instigating and antagonizing remarks with malice towards the reformed? Perpetually. And he complains about the use of smilies? They must really get to him!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Evidently and conclusively this is all he has to bring to the table. :wavey:

 

There are many in your archived posts...I have to travel now, but I will show you exactly what I am talking about.You can tell me if i am over -reacting.

....one of the cals make a statement...you and some others make a charge about them....this charge is not really on topic...some of us respond to you....if it is a scriptural response of more than one verse...you go into hiding and re-surface on other threads.....I will show that,but when and if I do.....would you change that pattern?????


I would also have to listen to the discussion of JW and DH again...to see how it was raised....if I recall James was seeking to understand what DH understood or did not understand which is common...when two people do not agree. i will also go back and give you the exact time on the video as i get a chance.

Listen Rm.....This pattern needs to change here on BB if this site can be more helpful....that is my pet peeve on all of this.

 

Oh you mean like these posts:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86845&page=4

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1996277&postcount=42

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1996207&postcount=33

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1996272&postcount=38

 

These posts are offered to get you to stop what you do everytime and offer something to discuss....look at what these posts are in response to.
You do not offer anything to warrant any scriptural response except those that would be considered as a sharp rebuke.
No i will show you very clearly what i am talking about.

Then of course you can call me proud and arrogant for showing you your own words and lack of scriptural response.... I might try and find one example now before i travel around....

 

You will not find any as I do not believe any of those things and have not said any of those things. And I find it I have posted a good number of time my clear position on things layed out with scripture in detail and you have never responded to them.

 

In this thread for example;

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86595&page=2


In post 54 after several of us go back and forth i point out that this thread was because they closed another thread,and you said this;

So i respond scripturally with several issues and verses,links etc...let's see your responses in the thread.....

000000000000000000000 yes.....zero !
Maybe you did not see the thread...that is possible...we are all busy with real life issues
so I will give you another opportunity to respond ...not so much ...to me...but rather to the points made.....

The writer was doing it in chapter 2,and 4, when he starts to develop teaching about the priestly work and what is accomplished...not potential but actual.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
** notice he took on actual sins plural...not just sin in general**

-4 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

***the teaching of the priestly work is clearly and consistently addressed to the people who are drawing near, holding fast***

he wants to explain more.....but the people are dull of hearing....

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

He wants now to tie in the Covenant of Redemption, and the mediator of the Covenant,as Surety....

15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

He links these who have draw near,come boldly to the throne of grace to Jesus as eternal High Priest ,Mediator, and Surety;

Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.


[1.] , a “surety,” is one that undertaketh for another
wherein he is defective, really or in reputation. Whatever that undertaking
be, whether in words of promise, or in depositing of real security in the
hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life and
body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any one becomes a
surety. Such an one is sponsor,

[1.] He undertook, as the surety of the covenant, to answer for all the sins
of those who are to be and are made partakers of the benefits of it; — that
is, to undergo the punishment due unto their sins; to make atonement for
them, by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for their expiation;
redeeming them by the price of his blood from their state of misery and
bondage under the law and the curse of it, Isaiah 53:4-6, 10;
Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Romans
3:25, 26; Hebrews 10:5-10; Romans 8:2, 3; 2 Corinthians 5:19-
21;

John Owen...
Quote:
But it simply says NOTHING about those who aren't (mainly because he indeed hasn't perfected them).
Exactly...so where does it leave anyone else who could be described as not having an;
Eternal High Priest
An Once for all sacrifice
A Surety guaranteeing the terms of the Covenant
The One mediator

Where does it leave the unsanctified, those who draw back, those with no surety? they are spoken of in contrast to those in Covenant who benefit from Our Lord's Work which we are told...he already accomplished it?

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Those that are called are the sanctified,and those being sanctified;;;


1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:


2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

10. By—Greek, "In." So "in," and "through," occur in the same sentence, 1Pe 1:22, "Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit." Also, 1Pe 1:5, in the Greek. The "in (fulfilment of) which will" (compare the use of in, Eph 1:6, "wherein [in which grace] He hath made us accepted, in the Beloved"), expresses the originating cause; "THROUGH the offering … of Christ," the instrumental or mediatory cause. The whole work of redemption flows from "the will" of God the Father, as the First Cause, who decreed redemption from before the foundation of the world. The "will" here (boulema) is His absolute sovereign will. His "good will" (eudokia) is a particular aspect of it.

are sanctified—once for all, and as our permanent state (so the Greek). It is the finished work of Christ in having sanctified us (that is, having translated us from a state of unholy alienation into a state of consecration to God, having "no more conscience of sin," Heb 10:2) once for all and permanently, not the process of gradual sanctification, which is here referred to.

This shows the contrast from 9:8-9...

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

In other words God In Christ has made us perfect in Saving Union with Him.
Having a clear conscience we can now draw near as fits subjects to offer worship.
__________________


in the closed thread I asked you.....how is Jesus an ACTUAL...Surety,Mediator and Eternal High priest to the unsaved in hell???

 

Post any...on any topic ...and i will respond scripturally:thumbsup:

 

Uh no, this does not address what I asked you to respond to, the specific claim I want you to back up:

Now, I await your well reasoned and substantiated response

 

Oh,,,do not worry my friend...i will post them for you...in the mean time if you could respond here or on the other thread would work just fine....

 

Posting or not posting any further to any post or threads is irrelevant. I walk away from threads all the time because there is nothing more to say. You will just have to get over that. We can always tell when a Calvinist thinks he is losing a debate. They find petty stuff to make a mountain out of.

 

That is the most simple analysis with the most truth. This is just another fallacy that the Reformers adopted from the Catholic church: unless our priests read the Bible to you, you can't understand the Bible, for the church is the sole arbiter of truth. Ditto JWs. Ditto Mormons. The Calvinists use the same CULT tactics as the Catholic church did, that nobody outside of fully accepting the doctrines of Calvinism first, can ever read any Reformed publication and understand it.

Modern day Calvinism is nothing more than an extension of Roman Catholic tactics and is a Satanic conspiracy to try and pull Baptists into the Roman Catholic/Protestant ecumenical clap-trap of today.

 

I have found that in debating the Catholics in the Other Christian Religions Forum, that they hate the doctrine of sola scriptura or that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. When it comes down to the nitty gritty their appeal inevitably ends up to their Tradition or to the ECF.

In my debates with Calvinists, I find it ironic that they also, in the final analysis, disregard the Reformer's belief in sola scriptura. Their final appeal is to the Reformers themselves, or those that are like-minded (Calvin, Spurgeon, etc.), or invariably the old standby--the ECF. They also have strayed from sola scriptura.

If our standard was the Bible alone, then I don't believe the Calvinist could successfully win a debate here. The appeal to creeds, catechisms, the ECF, is quite amazing.

There was not TULIP at the time of Calvin, and it is doubtful that he himself believed in it.
Calvin probably wrote in French. He, after all, was an influential French theologian.

The English of that day probably looked more like this:

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe%27s_Bible#Versions[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]It usually was written with a fancy flair to it, making it even more difficult to read.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But, again, Calvin wrote in French. That makes Tulip a non-entity.
[/FONT]

 

This is the hugest straw man I've seen to date on the BB. The final appeal of Cals/Reformed/DoG is sola scriptura, and such is historically the position of all Calvinists. What a caricature you've drawn.

Calvinists here on BB allude to Scripture continuously and solely as their foundation of doctrine. What you are errantly stating is that instead of this they are appealing to Reformers, ECF &c to prove their theology and have made these, not Scripture their foundation. That is total nonsense. Nothing is further from the truth and your accusations are far removed from what is seen here on BB.

That said, do you care to give proof to your straw man accusations that Calvinists use the things you mention as their 'final appeal'?

 

Waist high, just above the knees, right over the plate.

Isn't it ironic that everyone else can see this and they can't! They do it so often they are oblivious to it. There are several others here that are non Calvinists that do not agree with each other on the KJV, and many other doctrines, but when it comes to the appeal of the Calvinist to their traditions and creeds over the Bible, we all notice the same thing.

 

No surprise there, logical questions geared to draw out the truth in a debate argument are stereotypically considered “off target” and "disturbing" by the question begging Calvinists who are desperately trying to rely on drawing the argument back on their appeals to authority fallacies. It’s okay Icon, we understand why to stray from these tactics would be “baffling” to your line of "philosophical" thinking.

Too bad Hunt didn’t immediately recognize and then specifically note White’s attempt at the fallacious tactics of “appeal to authority” right from the start and call him on it point blank; it would have thrown a major monkey wrench in White’s preplanned efforts to steer the argument in that non-productive direction - (unethical development of a smokescreen and fallacious attacks on the opponents credibility based on his knowledge of these “so-called authorities”).

 

Isn't it very interesting that the Non-cals on this thread have spent many posts maligning the calvinistic thinkers, pulling down the character of calvanistic thinkers, and other degradations, and now the claim to fame that they parade into this thread is that the Cal's don't rely upon Scripture - alone as their final authority!

However, I have not seen (though admittedly may have missed) ONE post by the non-cal side that has included Scriptures!

Folks, if you want to support a view, fine. But at least be kind enough to demonstrate you have some authority to back your opinions that rests outside of your own petty hobby horse rants.

For instance: If Hunt is correct than post Scriptures that would support that view. If White is correct post Scriptures that would support that view.

All the name calling and bitter labels have done nothing to enhance either side in this thread.

Not even a moderators post(s) contain anything of real value.

Jesus said that those who do not believe are "condemned already."

Did such a person miss the opportunity to not be condemned?

Or, were they born with a fallen nature as the Scriptures do teach that "ALL have sinned."

Jesus said that "No man comes to me unless the father who sent me draws him."

Does "free will / choice" enter anywhere in that verse?

What if the father doesn't draw a person?

Can they come of their own free will / choice anyway?

The Scriptures don't seem to support that ability or it would conflict with the statement that Jesus made.

So, folks, get away from personal snipping and if you are truly Godly, PROVE your thoughts by Scripture - alone!

The non-cals claim the cals don't rest upon Scripture alone, but the non-cals have fallen from the kettle into the fire on this thread - and so have the cals.