Hunt vs White

[DHK]

Take a deep breath ---you are certainly an Arminian.

No, I am not. If you know anything about Arminianism, you know that they believe they can lose their salvation. I don't. In fact there is much that I disagree with. Don't try to put me in a box. You can't. It is obvious that you don't know my beliefs; you only think you do. I call that arrogance. I believe the Bible. I study and allow the Holy Spirit (not Calvin) to guide me. The RCC has their Catechism and Tradition and Papal bulls. You have Calvin and your Reformers. I have my Bible. I find it quite refreshing that way.

You are also a Protestant Christian who has lost some of your moorings.

I was saved out of the RCC; was inter-denominational for a year or so, and then became a Baptist. The Baptist church I became a member did not descend from Roger Smyth, or any other such line. It is totally independent and autonomous, not belonging to any denomination, convention, or association. Like many others of like faith and order it existed outside of the RCC before the RCC ever existed. I belong to a NT Baptist Church such as existed long before the Reformation ever took place, and therefore cannot be called a Protestant.

You Arminians are a hoot. What an oxymoron to say on the one hand that you quote from Spurgeon often and then in the very next breath to say you rarely use Reformed sources.

Making false allegations is against the rules.
I may be non-Cal; but I am not Arminian. If you don't know what an Arminian is you need to do some serious study.
Yes, I have used Reformed sources. There are plenty of them. In fact it is hard to find good Baptist sources that are non-Cal. I admit that. Spurgeon is not a "Reformed source." My statement should have more accurately said "I prefer not to use Reformed sources." But I say that not because of Spurgeon, but because of the number of works that I do have that are written by Calvinists. I suppose non-Cals were out doing evangelism and being martyred for their faith while the Calvinists were safe inside writing books.

 

[agedman]

You like your fallacious smokescreen tactics of meaningless unproductive argument and don't understand why or how the philosophical principles are designed to draw out the truth in an ethical and logical way in an argument. You intend to keep debating (arguing) in such ignorance, whatever it takes to fulfill your agenda. If you can't sway the topic that isn't going your way with one of your other stereotypical fallacious tactics (MO's clearly pointed to in this thread) there is always the ole stand-by of trying to change the topic by turning it into personal slug-fest, eh?

You're right, I have no interest in chasing all those fallacious rabbit trails that keep claims and issues clouded so no conclusion can ever be truthfully drawn out in a specific topic. You boys think you're onto great debate methods with these tactics but you are really just arguing like school girls on the street and revel in these unethical and ignorant goals.

But I waste my time trying to explain the basics of ethical philosophical debate principles to your likes, your motives and agendas here are clear, you have made that plain above and throughout your intentional derailing of this thread topic.

You don't even see the fallacy in claiming that somehow it is appropriate to wonder off topic because that is what you suppose is the history of the board! BTW, I've been here much longer than you and there was time when the moderators used to ask people to stay on topic, I even remember some getting reprimanded for not doing so. The poor example you present of what is "acceptable" debate ethics that you glory in and frivolously and in pride engage in, has merely been a detriment to this board that has gotten worse over time.

You want edification? I hear you speaking like a bratty spoiled child saying you can do what you want and have argument your way...that is all.

Do you feel better, now?

Do you have a sense you have accomplished any edification in this post?

If you don't like the BB, leave.

That is your privilege.

What you throw out as accusation as characteristic of the other posters on the BB lays at your own feet.

You have yet to make a single post on this thread in which you use Scripture, do not demean, belittle, or make snide comments about those who do not hold the same view as you.

You want to prove your view - show by Scriptures the strength of your thinking.

Personally, I really don't think you have the ability, nor the strength of character to hold a civil conversation that can consume multiple posts, and may even end up with disagreement and no final unity of view.

I know of others on the BB that do have that ability.

I admire them and even if there is a level of disagreement with certain view, we have remained gentlemanly and cordial.

Perhaps you do have such ability.

If so, display it.

Show us what we are missing by proving you can truly handle Scripture in a worthy manner.

 

[agedman]

No, I am not. If you know anything about Arminianism, you know that they believe they can lose their salvation. I don't. In fact there is much that I disagree with. Don't try to put me in a box. You can't. It is obvious that you don't know my beliefs; you only think you do. I call that arrogance. I believe the Bible. I study and allow the Holy Spirit (not Calvin) to guide me. The RCC has their Catechism and Tradition and Papal bulls. You have Calvin and your Reformers. I have my Bible. I find it quite refreshing that way.

But DHK, don't you like to be "pigeon holed" into some box?

I hold various Calvinistic thinking, but as some on the board have discovered, I am not a true Calvinist, nor a true Reformed thinker, either.

I was saved out of the RCC; was inter-denominational for a year or so, and then became a Baptist. The Baptist church I became a member did not descend from Roger Smyth, or any other such line. It is totally independent and autonomous, not belonging to any denomination, convention, or association. Like many others of like faith and order it existed outside of the RCC before the RCC ever existed. I belong to a NT Baptist Church such as existed long before the Reformation ever took place, and therefore cannot be called a Protestant.

What a glorious testimony of Salvation. There are few saved from the clutches of the RCC, and I am blessed that you are such a person!

Making false allegations is against the rules.
I may be non-Cal; but I am not Arminian. If you don't know what an Arminian is you need to do some serious study.
Yes, I have used Reformed sources. There are plenty of them. In fact it is hard to find good Baptist sources that are non-Cal. I admit that. Spurgeon is not a "Reformed source." My statement should have more accurately said "I prefer not to use Reformed sources." But I say that not because of Spurgeon, but because of the number of works that I do have that are written by Calvinists. I suppose non-Cals were out doing evangelism and being martyred for their faith while the Calvinists were safe inside writing books.

Don't we all make misstatements at times. I know I certainly have.

That is why when I am doing translation work, I try to call on the scholars of the BB to validate that the words I have used are accurate.

One of my favorite songs that goes along with your testimony:

My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device nor creed;
I trust the Ever-living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.

I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.

Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He'll never cast me out.

My heart is leaning on the Word,
The written Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior's name,
Salvation through His blood.

My great Physician heals the sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed,
For me His life He gave.
​

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/misce...yrics/myfaithhasfoundarestingplacelyrics.html

 

[Winman]

Winman, do not use "marvel" as if it is something unknown that causes astonishment.

Rather, insert the word "admire" in the case of the centurion. Christ was being very complimentary.

In the later place "ponder, or wonder" used in the same sense that Mary would ponder these things in her heart.

Jesus no doubt would ponder and wonder as any human, yet possessing full understanding as God.

In a true sense, Our Lord would turn various scenarios and folks reactions over in His thinking and often would use teaching moments latter with the disciples extracting from their own observations some truth that He desired to teach.

Do you think that changes anything? Why would Jesus admire the centurion's great faith if God himself gave that great faith to him?

So, this explanation of yours doesn't cut it.

And why would Jesus "admire" his fellow countrymen's unbelief? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Fact is, this scripture shows Jesus fully EXPECTED his countrymen to believe, so this absolutely refutes Total Inability.

But, you can ignore the obvious to keep your man-made doctrine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I suppose non-Cals were out doing evangelism and being martyred for their faith while the Calvinists were safe inside writing books.

DHK my friend. Please do not make statements like that....I count two already suggesting Calvinists do not evangelize & that is not true. I recall a great grandfather (Welsh Calvinistic Methodist) walking 20 miles on Sundays to evangelize. He also did it in his place of employment (a coal mine amidst many rough men). I also know Calvinist missionaries.....Greek Tim is in Honduras & Paul Washer I believe works in Chile. Then there is the great George Whitefield!!!

I know your also a missionary & your better than to make statements you know are untrue just because some question your identity.

 

[preacher4truth]

Allow me to simplify your errors DHK.

DHK; 'Whitefield wasn't a Calvinist!' Whitefield: 'We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists.' -George Whitefield. There is so much more to prove his Calvinism. Obviously you don't know anything about Whitefield. This reminds me of Dave Hunt attacking Calvinism, and he knew nothing of it either. :wavey:

DHK; 'Calvinists use other sources as their final appeal of authority other than Scripture!'. Witch hunt much DHK? Nothing is further from the truth. Yours is a broad brush and false generalization. Calvinists of the past and present use Scripture as their final authority. You are incorrect again.

DHK; 'Calvinists today preach a different Gospel than Calvinists in the past, they're neo-Calvinists!' :laugh: Not even close. We still further the ONLY Gospel. But I take it you have a soft spot for the 'first' Calvinists and harbor derision towards 'neo-Calvinists'. I take it you're a closet Calvinist of the first order then. Congrats, you're on the right path! :applause:

 

[agedman]

Do you think that changes anything? Why would Jesus admire the centurion's great faith if God himself gave that great faith to him?

So, this explanation of yours doesn't cut it.

And why would Jesus "admire" his fellow countrymen's unbelief? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Fact is, this scripture shows Jesus fully EXPECTED his countrymen to believe, so this absolutely refutes Total Inability.

But, you can ignore the obvious to keep your man-made doctrine.

Winman,

In the first use of the word, Jesus, just as most humankind, can share (speak) admiration without being impressed by that admiration. A parent often compliments (shows admiration for) a child on the work done by the child even though it is imperfect and lacking maturity.

So, when Jesus expressed admiration about the centurion, it was a rebuke by comparison to those around him.

The admiration therefore is that of a compliment.

That in no way refutes total inability.

To the matter of Jesus "fully expected His countrymen to believe..." I realize that some teach this, but I do find it rather inaccurate in the following ways.

First, it limits Jesus as having full knowledge and understanding of the hearts of humankind, and especially of His purpose - He came to die, not to be crowned king.

Second, it places human ability above what Jesus spoke is the responsibility of the Father. "All the Father gives..." was not some off handed remark made in desperation by Christ.

Third, the prophets clearly spoke of the rejection of Christ (example Isaiah 53) and then the ultimate redemption by the Jews. Because Jesus is the Word, then He fully understood the role of the prophets in his earthly ministry.

Anyway, I think you did good pointing out these two verses, and it gives time for those who read the BB to consider a topic in which the casual reading would not even have noticed.

 

[Benjamin]

Show us what we are missing by proving you can truly handle Scripture in a worthy manner.

Try to pound the thought that this very specific childish stereotypical trolling tactic you present has been addressed, that I’m not interested in your attempts to inject ridiculous never-ending circular proof-texting scriptural food-fights with the goal to fallaciously evade and deter the topic at hand into your skull:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79718

And thanks for yet another "great" unconscionable example of how the Calvinists commonly use unethical fallacious debate methods, which they obviously ignorantly believe helps them to escape the conclusion to their arguments, while they go about their agenda of trying to support their false and logically unsupportable determinists doctrines if they were to engage in reasonable philosophical debate principles. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

No, I am not. If you know anything about Arminianism, you know that they believe they can lose their salvation. I don't.

As I have said over and over :Many Arminians believe in OSAS;neverthless they are still Arminians

Don't try to put me in a box. You can't.

What? Did you gain some weight? :laugh:

I believe the Bible. I study and allow the Holy Spirit (not Calvin) to guide me. The RCC has their Catechism and Tradition and Papal bulls. You have Calvin and your Reformers. I have my Bible. I find it quite refreshing that way.

I find it quite repulsive for you to say those things. And you are supposed to be a moderator at that!

I belong to a NT Baptist Church such as existed long before the Reformation ever took place, and therefore cannot be called a Protestant.

Are bringing up the Universal Church (which you are against) or speaking of your particular assembly in which members must be a couple thousand years old?

Making false allegations is against the rules.

And you have made countless ones against me on the BB through the years.

Spurgeon is not a "Reformed source."

You deny the obvious.

I suppose non-Cals were out doing evangelism and being martyred for their faith while the Calvinists were safe inside writing books.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but some folks cannot blush even for their sins.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Allow me to simplify your errors DHK.

DHK; 'Whitefield wasn't a Calvinist!' Whitefield: 'We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists.' -George Whitefield. There is so much more to prove his Calvinism. Obviously you don't know anything about Whitefield. This reminds me of Dave Hunt attacking Calvinism, and he knew nothing of it either. :wavey:

/QUOTE]

Correct, Whitefield along with Daniel Rowland, Howel Harris, Toplady, Berridge, the countess of Huntingdon and others developed Calvinistic Methodism.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You must hate White.

I'm not sure which conversation you're quoting here, but if you're quoting James Ach, then he does, indeed, hate James White and all who adhere to Reformed theology.

Incidentally, I just listened to an interview with James White were he expressed an amazing amount of compassion for Muslims (more than I could muster) and yet, he, himself, faces all manner of evil attacks by somebody claiming to be on his own side. I think it says a lot about the disparity between the character of White and Ach that White shows more compassion to people who want to kill him than Ach shows to a brother in Christ.

Actually Hunt admitted he knows nothing about what Calvinits believe and demonstrates it in his responses. If Dave Hunt was the leading non-Calvinist expert then White's statement stands.

Having tried to talk to Ach over on OnlineBaptist, I don't believe he cares what we actually believe, as long as he can attribute his own straw man beliefs to us to slander and demonize us.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

In the first use of the word, Jesus, just as most humankind, can share (speak) admiration without being impressed by that admiration. A parent often compliments (shows admiration for) a child on the work done by the child even though it is imperfect and lacking maturity.

Who are you trying to convince here? This explanation makes no sense. If God gave the centurion great faith, then there would be no reason to admire the man at all.

So, when Jesus expressed admiration about the centurion, it was a rebuke by comparison to those around him.

And this would make no sense either. If God gave this centurion the greatest faith in all Israel, how is that a rebuke to those he did not give great faith? Again, this view is utterly nonsensical. You are grasping straws here.

The admiration therefore is that of a compliment.

Why would Jesus compliment the man for his Father's work?

That in no way refutes total inability.

Of course it does, Jesus would not have marvelled at his countrymen's unbelief unless he expected them to believe. Why would he marvel if natural men cannot believe? Again, nonsensical.

To the matter of Jesus "fully expected His countrymen to believe..." I realize that some teach this, but I do find it rather inaccurate in the following ways.

Some teach that because it is perfectly logical and what the scripture is really saying. You are boxed in by your doctrine. I believe what the Bible says, not some theologian.

First, it limits Jesus as having full knowledge and understanding of the hearts of humankind, and especially of His purpose - He came to die, not to be crowned king.

Jesus was limited as a man while on earth, he did not know the exact day and hour he would return, he had to eat, sleep, etc...

Second, it places human ability above what Jesus spoke is the responsibility of the Father. "All the Father gives..." was not some off handed remark made in desperation by Christ.

God ALWAYS gets credit for faith. Nobody could possibly believe in Jesus unless God had revealed him to us. God gave every man the ability to believe, but no man can believe what he does not know and has not heard. This is exactly what Paul taught in Romans 10.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

There is no other verse in all of scripture that so directly addresses the question of HOW a man can come to believe. Does Paul ask HOW any man can believe in Jesus unless he has been supernaturally regenerated? NO, and this would have been the PERFECT place to say so. Paul does not say that here, or anywhere else in all of scripture.

No, Paul simply asks HOW can they believe in Jesus unless they have HEARD of him. That's it. That is all that is necessary for the natural man to believe in Jesus, he must HEAR of Jesus. And then Paul asks how can they hear without a preacher? Is that magic? NO, men merely need to have a preacher come and preach the word of God to them, and this enables them to believe what they did not know and therefore could not believe before.

It is your doctrine that adds all this nonsense to what the scriptures clearly and simply say.

Third, the prophets clearly spoke of the rejection of Christ (example Isaiah 53) and then the ultimate redemption by the Jews. Because Jesus is the Word, then He fully understood the role of the prophets in his earthly ministry.

YES, because Irresistible Grace is not true! Men can hear the word of God and CHOOSE to believe or not. Unfortunately, many men choose not to believe and perish.

Anyway, I think you did good pointing out these two verses, and it gives time for those who read the BB to consider a topic in which the casual reading would not even have noticed.

Don't tell me you have never read these verses before?

That is the problem, some churches only teach scripture that seems to support their doctrine, and ignores scripture that refutes it.

You have to read ALL the scriptures, not proof-texts pulled out of context.

 

[DrJamesAch]

A 'Welsh Calvinist Methodist" (I presume, John Wesley NON CALVINIST who vehemently opposed Whitefield on this issue not withstanding).

Many of the "old school" Calvinist were evangelical BEFORE they became Calvinists, and thus they still practiced soul winning even though they LATER adopted the views of Calvinism.

Calvinists always refer to the old school Calvinists, but never to the neo Calvinists as examples of those who are evangelical because when Calvinism is applied consistently, it ALWAYS leads to "hyper-Calvinism".

Calvinists point to men like William Carey who was labeled Calvinist because it was the label of his sending missionary society. But Carey was criticized for his inconsistent Calvinism when he wrote, "Inquiry Into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means For the Conversion of the Heathen". John Ryland said to Carey, "Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid or mine."

In this day, the only time a Calvinist Baptist can point to an evangelical Calvinist is by going to a Presbyterian, D. James Kennedy. Kennedy's book, "Evangelism Explosion" was used by mostly non Calvinists. Kennedy's ministry itself became more philosophical in focusing more on the occults, pseudo-Christian cults and secular world views, and less on personal soul winning. Coral Ridge is now falling apart after putting Billy Graham's grandson in Kennedy's place.

How many other Presbyterians are soul winners though? NONE. While there is much of Kennedy's theology I disagree with, when it came to evangelical practice, Kennedy was the exception to Calvinists, certainly not the norm.

And other institutions that WERE Non Calvinist, like BJU were soul winning ministries PRIOR TO becoming Calvinist, and now BJU is emphasizing soul winning much less and many of their professors are even against it because of their Calvinism (spend a few weeks on Sharper Iron and you'll figure this out pretty quick).

And then there's CJ Mahoney's Calvinistic institution. Not very evangelistic when they've spent more time covering up sex crimes then winning anybody to Christ.

Most if not ALL of any soul winning Calvinist churches were evangelistic BEFORE they were Calvinist, are not consistent Calvinists, and those who carry out Calvinism to it's logical conclusion CEASE becoming soul winning churches. Calvinism DESTROYS evangelism.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

I'm not sure which conversation you're quoting here, but if you're quoting James Ach, then he does, indeed, hate James White and all who adhere to Reformed theology.

Incidentally, I just listened to an interview with James White were he expressed an amazing amount of compassion for Muslims (more than I could muster) and yet, he, himself, faces all manner of evil attacks by somebody claiming to be on his own side. I think it says a lot about the disparity between the character of White and Ach that White shows more compassion to people who want to kill him than Ach shows to a brother in Christ.



Having tried to talk to Ach over on OnlineBaptist, I don't believe he cares what we actually believe, as long as he can attribute his own straw man beliefs to us to slander and demonize us

Online Baptist is a completely different atmosphere. You brought your vitriol there and got stuffed by the rest of the NON Calvinists there because you began with the exact same personal venom that you (and most here) did here.

You don't know me, you don't know what I hate and do not hate. I can vehemently disagree with someone's DOCTRINE and still love the person. I guarantee you that I face more threats than James White from Muslims EVERY DAY, then James White will ever see in his lifetime. I don't just talk about Muslims over a radio show and witness to them through books, I AM SURROUNDED BY MUSLIMS. I am surrounded by Hezbollah and Hamas that have attempted to kill me more than once, and DID kill my brother in law, Elisha's, wife and child while they were delivering food to homeless "Palestinians" in Gaza (because we "hate" them so much we feed them even when they hate our guts).

I have forgotten more about Islamic persecution than White will ever learn or experience in his life. Yet I don't hate White. I have even used some of his material in witnessing to Muslims, but White is a debating expert, not a Bible expert.

SO you have a lot of nerve spitting your personal bias on matters you know nothing about. You act just the homosexuals that accuse Christians of "HATE SPEECH" just because a Christian offers a view on traditional marriage. Calvinists like you and most on here, resort to labeling Non Calvinists as "HATE" mongers because we MUST agree with Calvinists to prove that we are loving Christians.

On the same token, you must "hate" me since you began your diatribe against me based on something you know nothing about ("he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him"). Not to mention the fact that you have an obvious obsession with following me around to different forums. I am happily married, thank you.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Duplicate post.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Online Baptist is a completely different atmosphere. You brought your vitriol there and got stuffed by the rest of the NON Calvinists there because you began with the exact same personal venom that you (and most here) did here.

You don't know me, you don't know what I hate and do not hate. I can vehemently disagree with someone's DOCTRINE and still love the person. I guarantee you that I face more threats than James White from Muslims EVERY DAY, then James White will ever see in his lifetime. I don't just talk about Muslims over a radio show and witness to them through books, I AM SURROUNDED BY MUSLIMS. I am surrounded by Hezbollah and Hamas that have attempted to kill me more than once, and DID kill my brother in law, Elisha's, wife and child while they were delivering food to homeless "Palestinians" in Gaza (because we "hate" them so much we feed them even when they hate our guts).

I have forgotten more about Islamic persecution than White will ever learn or experience in his life. Yet I don't hate White. I have even used some of his material in witnessing to Muslims, but White is a debating expert, not a Bible expert.

SO you have a lot of nerve spitting your personal bias on matters you know nothing about. You act just the homosexuals that accuse Christians of "HATE SPEECH" just because a Christian offers a view on traditional marriage. Calvinists like you and most on here, resort to labeling Non Calvinists as "HATE" mongers because we MUST agree with Calvinists to prove that we are loving Christians.

On the same token, you must "hate" me since you began your diatribe against me based on something you know nothing about ("he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Thus, demonstrating everything I just said about you and your hateful heart to be true.

Not to mention the fact that you have an obvious obsession with following me around to different forums.

Actually, I was a member of both boards before you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A 'Welsh Calvinist Methodist" (I presume, John Wesley NON CALVINIST who vehemently opposed Whitefield on this issue not withstanding).

What, have you never heard of a Calvinistic Methodist? Try researching it & information on Whitfield & Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Many of the "old school" Calvinist were evangelical BEFORE they became Calvinists, and thus they still practiced soul winning even though they LATER adopted the views of Calvinism.

Well now, I can tell you from experience that my entire fathers side were Calvinistic & all equally evangilistic....oh, by the way..... they were all Calvinistic, born & raised

Calvinists always refer to the old school Calvinists, but never to the neo Calvinists as examples of those who are evangelical because when Calvinism is applied consistently, it ALWAYS leads to "hyper-Calvinism".

Oh really....:laugh: Please define for me your understanding of Hyper Calvinism?

Calvinists point to men like William Carey who was labeled Calvinist because it was the label of his sending missionary society. But Carey was criticized for his inconsistent Calvinism when he wrote, "Inquiry Into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means For the Conversion of the Heathen". John Ryland said to Carey, "Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid or mine."

Yes & Samuel Rutherford (who was at one time in charge of the presbyterian church in Scotland stated, " The reprobate has exactly the same warrant to believe in Jesus Christ as do the elect."

In this day, the only time a Calvinist Baptist can point to an evangelical Calvinist is by going to a Presbyterian, D. James Kennedy. Kennedy's book, "Evangelism Explosion" was used by mostly non Calvinists. Kennedy's ministry itself became more philosophical in focusing more on the occults, pseudo-Christian cults and secular world views, and less on personal soul winning. Coral Ridge is now falling apart after putting Billy Graham's grandson in Kennedy's place.

You need to open your eyes & quit being so biased. I have already mentioned men on this board who are staunch Calvinists who are both evangelical & ministerial...and also Paul Washer. I can continue on but apparently you are cloaked in your bias & so you close your eyes to reality. Thats not very becoming of you.

And then there's CJ Mahoney's Calvinistic institution. Not very evangelistic when they've spent more time covering up sex crimes then winning anybody to Christ.

Sure & I can point you to a pedophile sex scandal cover-up of an IFB Church (all BJU Graduates) in Eastern Pennsylvania should you wish to research it.

Most if not ALL of any soul winning Calvinist churches were evangelistic BEFORE they were Calvinist, are not consistent Calvinists, and those who carry out Calvinism to it's logical conclusion CEASE becoming soul winning churches. Calvinism DESTROYS evangelism.

[/quote]

Thats your opinion....and you know what they say, "Opinions are like ********, everybody's got one!" :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

There is a poster here who refuses to debate me because "I am ignorant, and refuse to be taught."
He comes to that conclusion because I refuse to read the links to his confessions, creeds, etc. IOW, he won't debate with Scripture. His creeds and confessions are his authority seemingly, not the Bible, or so it seems.

That is one good example.
I am not going to debate a creed or a confession.

I would like to thank P4T for stepping in to identify your falsehoods in this regard.The example you cite as evidence in this thread proves just the opposite. I said all the confessions point to scripture alone as the final authority. for those who are not too proud to learn from Godly men who understood the scriptures...it says in the 1689....

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )


Note carefully the very FIRST LINE of the whole confession starts with the scripture alone as the rule of faith and practice. Do not lie my friend.....

There is a poster here who refuses to debate me because "I am ignorant, and refuse to be taught."
He comes to that conclusion because I refuse to read the links to his confessions, creeds, etc. IOW, he won't debate with Scripture.

I will debate you at anytime as you have some areas that are devoid of truth in what you openly post.There are times I can agree with your statements .There are the other times where I pointed out error and offered you good links that you cannot refute....and make no mistake about it...you cannot refute anyone of them it was clearly you who "refused' to look at the truth offered.....you said you would not take the time to look ,or listen........after I promised you the teaching was sound.

So do not think that because a few weeks have past ,I do not recall it was during a discussion of your teaching of the carnal christian heresy that this discussion took place. I did not forget.

That is one good example.
I am not going to debate a creed or a confession.

This is a shallow excuse....You are not going to debate them,because you cannot without looking quite foolish:thumbs: You make it sound as if those links and quotes I provided were devoid of scripture , but that is far from the truth.THEY ARE FULL OF SCRIPTURE.
No one is saying you "must" read or use those tools.But you look and post quite foolishly when you ignore the good verses and teaching offered, and instead speak against them.:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm not sure which conversation you're quoting here, but if you're quoting James Ach, then he does, indeed, hate James White and all who adhere to Reformed theology.

Incidentally, I just listened to an interview with James White were he expressed an amazing amount of compassion for Muslims (more than I could muster) and yet, he, himself, faces all manner of evil attacks by somebody claiming to be on his own side. I think it says a lot about the disparity between the character of White and Ach that White shows more compassion to people who want to kill him than Ach shows to a brother in Christ.



Having tried to talk to Ach over on OnlineBaptist, I don't believe he cares what we actually believe, as long as he can attribute his own straw man beliefs to us to slander and demonize us.

Thank you for this post in that it is an indication of this agenda he came in with. That is the nature on cyber-speak...:type:

 

[Benjamin]

...for those who are not too proud to learn from Godly men who understood the scriptures...it says in the 1689....

...and make no mistake about it...you cannot refute anyone of them..

...I promised you the teaching was sound.

...You are not going to debate them,because you cannot without looking quite foolish...

:wavey:

Icon, my friend, I’d try to “help you” by reminding you, once again, to “beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”; but it’s pretty clear that double-speaking, deterministically motivated, compatibilism pushing, philosophically boxed-in, propagandizing 1689 carnal document you so treasure and declare to be “the irrefutable truth” - being from specially enlightened self-proclaimed inspired holy church fathers who did the interpretation on the scriptures for you and all - has already taken a cult-like irreversible toll on your mind. :thumbs:
:wavey: