Hunt vs White

[TisMe]

Salvation is either all of God, without humankind interference other than that of responding and reacting to what God has accomplished in the heart, or it is activated by some humankind work.

It cannot be both. If there is ANY human work it is not God salvation.

So, doubles tennis or basketball, or pool or whatever one does as a team, if they win, only ONE person on the team wins? Two people cannot take the credit for winning a game?

Not that I don't believe you, however, your point does not have evidence supporting it.

 

[agedman]

So, doubles tennis or basketball, or pool or whatever one does as a team, if they win, only ONE person on the team wins? Two people cannot take the credit for winning a game?

Not that I don't believe you, however, your point does not have evidence supporting it.

Why do you think salvation is a team sport?

God is not a "team player,"

If you would hold to salvation being a game, God owns the court, the ball, controls the rules, the time, and is the only player, all aspects of and relating to the "game" of salvation.

 

[TisMe]

God is not a "team player,"

God was nailed to the cross to save sinners. I don't think you can TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM, any better then that. Correct?

 

[Benjamin]

Ben...what do you mean by your repeated deterministic reference?

I mean, if the shoe (Determinism) fits…

Round and round with you guys. ...Actually you’ve asked me this before:

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire
Before I do that I need you to define to me what you think a strict deterministic view is?

Thanks

And I answered:
A strict theological determinist view is one which suggests the cause and effect of all things and events (casual determination), including evil and sin, has an uninterrupted origin and attributes that origin to the Creator of the world, thereby logically attributing evil and sin directly to God.

A strict determinist might interpret a verse, such as Isa 45:7 to mean the origin/creation of evil comes from God and uses it as a proof-text to support their view. They attribute evil to God and to support their casual determinist’ position while ignoring the true nature of God revealed in other verses such as Deut 32:4 and James 1:13.

The strict determinist willingly sacrifices the truths that God is Only Good and no evil can come from Him to support his man-made doctrine at the expense of reaching a fatalistic theological view that God creatures do not have volition/abilities to choose apart from that which has been pre-determined for them before creation; thereby they attribute all things, including evil, to a deterministic creator whose character and attributes are not separated from evil and sin.


Here’s another response to your question:
A Determinist – one whose soteriological view must necessarily, logically and systematically hinge on all human actions leading to salvation as being strictly determined, such as needed to support all points of the TULIP, this view is usually expressed by dogmatic rambling phrases that God must be Sovereign to be in control.

Determinist Predestination – a view which consists of a belief that a pre-determined divine act upon a person is the sole cause of that person’s salvific outcome; therefore, it involves an unavoidable conclusion being cast upon a person who has been pre-destined by divine determination and this logically necessitates any and all the results, thereby it negates any true creaturely volition, real responsibility to respond, and logically denies true judgment or any possibility for the outcome to happen any other way. IOW’s a person’s destiny was determined for them before they existed based on absolutely nothing more than a whim of God, such as God went – “Eenie-meenie-miney-moe this one stays but that one’s got to go!” And then it happened.

And finally, a little simple basic logic and a question for you at the end:

(A) According to “Calvinist/Determinist/DOG- with pre-selected G”) – let’s not play fallacious ambiguous semantic games here to avoid coming to a simple conclusion about your doctrinal position, “whatever” you want to CALL your doctrine EWF - for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything, true?

(B)
1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

Does (A) and (B) not go together? If not, why not?

Now you could you tell me why the above doesn't represent your view (of God’s ‘Deterministic’ Sovereignty) or explain in a logical manner how this view is not mutually exclusive with “creaturely volition” – meaning how the view of the Calvinist/Determinist does not logically concluded that man has the free will/volition whatsoever to respond to God?

 

[agedman]

God was nailed to the cross to save sinners. I don't think you can TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM, any better then that. Correct?

But what "team was in place" when Christ was nailed on the Cross other than heathen in whom Christ begged God to forgive because they didn't understand what they were doing?

Isaiah states, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

I don't see much of a team suggested in the Scriptures.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

We have already shown over and over ...God's saves a multitude in Christ.

You've shown me alright...

“A multitude” = Hyper-Determinist method of semantic ambiguity to disguise the dark gospel of:

Originally posted by Iconoclast:
If he tries to mock and scoff like those in 2 pet3...I do mention that God has not planned to save everyone, and unless God allows a sinner to repent and believe,,,they will die in their sins.......

Given in Response to Benjamin:
Do you explain to a lost and searching person that the promise of grace isn't "real" to them unless they are elect and they may not have any hope because they may not have been pre-selected?* I would like to see how you handle a situation where a person is struggling with faith…

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

This is an appeal to a creed, not to Scripture. The poster is saying that the Creed is Scriptural, but the appeal is to the Creed itself, not the Scripture. Read carefully:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1992551&postcount=38

This type of appeal is made many times over in many different threads.
They are easy to find.

Those who know how to use the catechism as a tool get great benefit from it.
That means looking up the verses offered, not ignoring them as if the Pastors who offered them did not have a solid reason for it.

The Term “Catechize”
The English word “catechism” is derived from the Gk. verb katēchēo, “to
resound, teach orally, instruct by mouth.” This term originally had the idea of
“speaking down or from above” i.e., from actors on an elevated stage. It is a
compound of the preposition kata, “down, throughout, thoroughly” and the
verb ēchēo, “to sound,” the source of our English word, “echo.” There seems
to be in this etymology the idea of a responsive answer. Catechizing has the
connotation of thorough or repeated oral instruction, and is only one of
several related terms for instruction or teaching found in Scripture. The term
itself occurs eight times in the New Testament (twice as “informed” in Acts
21:21, 24, referring to word–of–mouth information):
“That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou
hast been catechized.” Luke 1:4.
18
“This man had been constantly catechized in the way of the Lord;
and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the
things of the Lord...” Acts 18:25.
“And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more
excellent, being constantly catechized out of the law...” Romans
2:18.
“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that by my voice I might catechize others also, than
ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” 1 Cor. 14:19.
“Let him who is being catechized in the word communicate unto him
who catechizes in all good things.” Gal. 6:6.

From a Baptist Confession with Commentary...by W.R.Downing

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

I really thought I read that you made much of disagreeing over "proof-text" methods that would attempt to support a view.

But, did you not do that in this post?

Example: You stated a portion of John 1, but you applied it inaccurately to include all humankind having some ability.

Such is NOT given in this passage, in fact John is VERY sensitive to express EXACTLY the point that God is totally in charge and NO humankind has ANY involvement in the process of selection or salvation.


Here is the whole section with bold that DISCREDITS your proof-text post.

6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
​

I won't take the time to explain that the light (vs 7,9) that lightens EVERY man is the ten commandments (see the use of past tense - was), nor do I need to explain the word "might" in "all might be saved" (vs 7)is referring to the hope of John and not to be applied to the hope or desire of Christ.


Benjamin, I don't really understand how someone can miss understand that opening of John.

May I suggest that often a view is made askew which results in bias that further distorts the view. As is in cases such as this, the view clings to a portion to the point of dismissing what may be a clarification of that portion.

What John states (last bold part) clarifies ALL the "ALL" words before and just how receives and who is saved.

If John had not included that portion, then you might have some slim ledge in which to build upon, but there is no such support - so your argument fails.

But at least you did post a few verses in attempts of supporting your post.

That in itself is an improvement. I really hope you will continue in this mode of supporting by Scriptures the principles you view as essential.

Yeah, I did digress a little bit – and here you are right back to wanting to jump into your favorite school girl methods of debate – like posting a few scriptures was an open invitation to you or something to go full circle.

First, you need to take off those Determinist glasses because I see NOTHING in the verses following John 1:9 that supports your Determinist’s doctrines…but that’s beside the point.

Second, we’ve been all through you preaching your shameful “gospel of darkness” in the past, to include these passages in John 1; I dealt handily with your misguided dogma then, = how convenient of you to forget, - and I don’t feel like repeating that circular adventure with you again. Which brings us to:

Third, “there you go again” desperately trying to begin with an off topic circular scriptural food-fight and wanting to support your WHOLE system on the way and thinking I might be interested in pursuing “your style of childish debate” (no less – over a topic I’ve already addressed with you personally – see the circular debate pattern here you want to engage in?) and by your response above I figure it also must have flew right over your head that I brought the conversation right back to the subject of White’s fallacious tactics of trying to “create a smokescreen” by “appealing to authority” regarding the declarations made in this thread that those creeds contain “irrefutable truths” which apply to White’s fallacious tactic.
Yes, I wondered into addressing the Determinists’ definition of Divine Sovereignty, I decided to pull one rabbit (Determinism) out of the hole, so shoot me! :laugh: NO, :tonofbricks: I’m not interested in getting on the merry-go-round with you concerning you force fitting Determinism into scripture and you trying to go about proof-texting your entire Determinist’ system. You’ve shown no willingness to engage in an ethically logical debate and I’m not interested in your types of arguing as previously explained, got it?!

Explain to me how White’s “appeal to authority” to set up a forthcoming attack on Hunt’s credibility in regards to understanding “Calvinism/Determinism” was not a fallacious and disingenuous debate method and I’ll be listening…

 

[Iconoclast]

You've shown me alright...

“A multitude” = Hyper-Determinist method of semantic ambiguity to disguise the dark gospel of:

Post the whole quote in context ....I stand by it...It did show you!

meanwhile post 188 is you making an excuse because you cannot answer scripturally once again....only aic buys your jn1:9 explanation.

 

[DHK]

I see it this way...each and every group is going to teach something.

That is right, and on our pulpit there is no other book but the Bible. No Calvin's Institutes allowed!

DHK....you yourself teach something.What you believe is your "creed".

That is not true. I don't have a creed. The closest one could come to a creed is the statement of faith of the church, and I don't preach through that. I preach the Word of God, book by book. Not a catechism or creed--point by point.
Look at a definition:

Definition of CREED

1
: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2
: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

I preach through the Bible; not a formula of religious belief; not a set of fundamental beliefs.
When I finished preaching through the First Epistle of Corinthians I ended up with over 600 pages of sermons--a worthy commentary. That hardly fits the definition of a creed, but it is what I believe on the Book of First Corinthians or the truths contained within.

Everyone can say.....The bible is my creed.In fact most do say something like this,however....the real question is...what do you believe the bible teaches?

It teaches the truth--all that God wants us to know about him and his revelation to us. And much more. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Cults say they believe the bible also.....the real question is what do they say it teaches.

No, they have another authority. The J.W.'s, for example, interpret the Bible only through the writings of Charles Taze Russell. He is their authority. I don't have any other authority but the Bible itself. This is where I see you sitting on dangerous ground. You have a secondary authority--a catechism, creed or confession.

Search the Scriptures, Jesus said, for they speak of me.
Study to show yourselves approved unto God, workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth.
To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, there is no truth in them.
--Over and over again we are told to study the Word, and make our appeal to it as our authority.
In General, Baptists historically are not a creedal people. Our government is congregational, and we agree together through a common statement of faith. Since each church is autonomous that statement of faith will vary from church to church. Thus it is not a creed.
(I used to have "The Apostles' Creed" memorized).

The confession of faith lets people know that as a group, those who subscribe to the confession agree on most things contained in it,
I use the 1689 however I let the eldership know I do not believe the roman pope is the anti-christ....
The function of the confession is a study tool to give guidance to those who come to the church.They do not have to be concerned that the church will have WOF heretics in the pulpit as we agree on the main doctrines.

Most churches have a simple statement of faith for that purpose.
The rest they hear from the preaching of the Word of God.

The one i recommend should be on every bible baptists bookshelf.It is a great basis ,or starting point to learn more of the scriptures....

That is your opinion. I believe there are far better tools available for "starting points" whether they be for new believers or for other purposes. The only reason I would have one is for reference only. And that reference would be less than once in a blue moon.

Because catholics took a biblical concept and perverted it....We can and have taken it back and sanctified it for Kingdom purposes.

Show me from the Bible where a catechism is a Biblical concept.
A RCC concept remains an RCC concept.
It is a secondary authority to the Word.

 

[Benjamin]

Post the whole quote in context ....I stand by it...

Context: If he tries to mock and scoff like those in 2 pet3... Your resolution: I do mention that God has not planned to save everyone...

All the "context" I need to know about "your" gospel message of God wanting to save a "multitude" and the bad news you would deliver within that message...:thumbs:

 

[Herald]

Once a pastor offers his interpretation of the Word of God he has become a secondary source. If "Pastor Joe" is teaching on 1 Corinthians 1:10, he is only authoritative up to the point where he offers an interpretation of the verse. The only thing he should do is read the passage and then dismiss the congregation in prayer. But that prayer had better be verbatim from scripture or it will also be secondary. After all, we need to avoid teachings of men.

 

[agedman]

A strict theological determinist view is one which suggests the cause and effect of all things and events (casual determination), including evil and sin, has an uninterrupted origin and attributes that origin to the Creator of the world, thereby logically attributing evil and sin directly to God.

ONLY in YOUR mind.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to show who of "strick theological determinist view" actually states that God caused evil and sin?

You have made the accusation, it does seem that one must provide documentation that would support who it is that we all can mark that person as a heretic.

A strict determinist might interpret a verse, such as Isa 45:7 to mean the origin/creation of evil comes from God and uses it as a proof-text to support their view. They attribute evil to God and to support their casual determinist’ position while ignoring the true nature of God revealed in other verses such as Deut 32:4 and James 1:13.

OH MY!!!!!

I did not realize how very weak you really are in the Scriptures!!!!!!

This is Isaiah 45:7:

I am the Lord, and there is no other,
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the Lord who does all these.

It is part of a longer passage addressed to the King of Cyrus.

There is NO attributing evil to God in Isaiah!!!!

The strict determinist willingly sacrifices the truths that God is Only Good and no evil can come from Him to support his man-made doctrine at the expense of reaching a fatalistic theological view that God creatures do not have volition/abilities to choose apart from that which has been pre-determined for them before creation; thereby they attribute all things, including evil, to a deterministic creator whose character and attributes are not separated from evil and sin.

Unless you can show proper documentation of actual teaching by "the strict determinist" that corresponds to your accusation above, it remains TOTALLY unfounded and to be taken as merely an attempt to demean and degrade what you obviously have no understanding.

A Determinist – one whose soteriological view must necessarily, logically and systematically hinge on all human actions leading to salvation as being strictly determined, such as needed to support all points of the TULIP, this view is usually expressed by dogmatic rambling phrases that God must be Sovereign to be in control.

So then it must be that in contrast you produce "dogmatic rambling phrases that God" is not sovereign and in control.

Your own words work against you.

Determinist Predestination – a view which consists of a belief that a pre-determined divine act upon a person is the sole cause of that person’s salvific outcome; therefore, it involves an unavoidable conclusion being cast upon a person who has been pre-destined by divine determination and this logically necessitates any and all the results, thereby it negates any true creaturely volition, real responsibility to respond, and logically denies true judgment or any possibility for the outcome to happen any other way. IOW’s a person’s destiny was determined for them before they existed based on absolutely nothing more than a whim of God, such as God went – “Eenie-meenie-miney-moe this one stays but that one’s got to go!” And then it happened.

You actually have such audacity as to question God?

Who made you master of the universe to actually question God's ways?

God is never presented in Scripture as someone less than totally in control and active in the ways of humankind, choosing who He will place in leadership, turning the hearts however He chooses, and clearly stating that His ways and His thoughts are so far above that of humankind that such a comparison is utterly foolish.

But YOU would call God into account? Unbelievable!!!!!!

(A) According to “Calvinist/Determinist/DOG- with pre-selected G”) – let’s not play fallacious ambiguous semantic games here to avoid coming to a simple conclusion about your doctrinal position, “whatever” you want to CALL your doctrine EWF - for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything, true?

(B)
1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

Does (A) and (B) not go together? If not, why not?

Now you could you tell me why the above doesn't represent your view (of God’s ‘Deterministic’ Sovereignty) or explain in a logical manner how this view is not mutually exclusive with “creaturely volition” – meaning how the view of the Calvinist/Determinist does not logically concluded that man has the free will/volition whatsoever to respond to God?

Why should a person "explain" when you have taken Scriptures askew, attempted to demean and assign heresy without proof, and actually question God's total sovereignty in all matters.

You are the creature.

You are not the Creator.

You have NO right to question the Creator nor argue that His way of doing is not equal.

I am really shocked by the post you made!!!

 

[agedman]

Yeah, I did digress a little bit – and here you are right back to wanting to jump into your favorite school girl methods of debate – like posting a few scriptures was an open invitation to you or something to go full circle.

First, you need to take off those Determinist glasses because I see NOTHING in the verses following John 1:9 that supports your Determinist’s doctrines…but that’s beside the point.

Second, we’ve been all through you preaching your shameful “gospel of darkness” in the past, to include these passages in John 1; I dealt handily with your misguided dogma then, = how convenient of you to forget, - and I don’t feel like repeating that circular adventure with you again. Which brings us to:

Third, “there you go again” desperately trying to begin with an off topic circular scriptural food-fight and wanting to support your WHOLE system on the way and thinking I might be interested in pursuing “your style of childish debate” (no less – over a topic I’ve already addressed with you personally – see the circular debate pattern here you want to engage in?) and by your response above I figure it also must have flew right over your head that I brought the conversation right back to the subject of White’s fallacious tactics of trying to “create a smokescreen” by “appealing to authority” regarding the declarations made in this thread that those creeds contain “irrefutable truths” which apply to White’s fallacious tactic.
Yes, I wondered into addressing the Determinists’ definition of Divine Sovereignty, I decided to pull one rabbit (Determinism) out of the hole, so shoot me! :laugh: NO, :tonofbricks: I’m not interested in getting on the merry-go-round with you concerning you force fitting Determinism into scripture and you trying to go about proof-texting your entire Determinist’ system. You’ve shown no willingness to engage in an ethically logical debate and I’m not interested in your types of arguing as previously explained, got it?!

Explain to me how White’s “appeal to authority” to set up a forthcoming attack on Hunt’s credibility in regards to understanding “Calvinism/Determinism” was not a fallacious and disingenuous debate method and I’ll be listening…

I went back and read the thread that you linked back a number of posts ago about your problem with "debate" on the BB.

I saw a person who wanted to control the flow of information to only his advantage and when that wasn't working he repeatedly posted:

STOP!!!!!!

And continue to berate the other posters for not following HIS agenda and HIS rules.

So far on this thread, you have so very little to offer of true substance, and cannot stand when someone shows that your knowledge of Scriptures and understanding is weak.

You lay demeaning claims of superiority that are nothing but froth.

Winman, Van, DHK, and many others and I have had long discussions without the vitriol that is continually spewed by you.

Perhaps your bully tactics work on other forums, but there are a number of folks from all views that discuss topics, even heatedly, that do so with the clear desire that edification take place.

Frankly, I don't care about White or Hunt. They both had/have their own life of account for before God. It is disingenuous that YOU want to degrade a view and then turn around and proclaim that we are not "on topic."

And your thinking that we of the BB have to follow some rules that YOU consider important is no warrant for the compliance by those of us who enjoy the typical banter of this board.

Again, as I have stated before, if you don't like it, leave.

But, if you stay, it would be nice to see that you at least can put Scriptures in context and actually build a case for your view.

And do so without thinking that you have to demean and rail against other views.

If one can't convince by Scriptures, why would one think that petty repeatedly frothy emotional rants build and strengthen support of view.

That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Benjamin]

So then it must be that in contrast you produce "dogmatic rambling phrases that God" is not sovereign and in control.

See my post in regards to defining Divine Sovereignty and where your Determinist doctrines lead already posted in this thread ...no reason to repeat myself.

You actually have such audacity as to question God?

Who made you master of the universe to actually question God's ways?

God is never presented in Scripture as someone less than totally in control and active in the ways of humankind, choosing who He will place in leadership, turning the hearts however He chooses, and clearly stating that His ways and His thoughts are so far above that of humankind that such a comparison is utterly foolish.

But YOU would call God into account? Unbelievable!!!!!!

Hunt isn’t questioning these things, he is questioning the sad interpretations which inevitably lead to the conclusions of the Determinist’s false doctrines. Therefore, I suggest you take your own advice, Icon, and cautiously take note of the unavoidable logical “bottom line” which the Calvinist’s assigns to God’s Holy Nature through their warped definitions of His Love through their followings of false teachers as they twist the Word to maintain their manmade systematic ...“phikosophies”.

Same repeat tactic, eh? Same response to the stereotypical Calvinist disingenuous debate tactic.

I am really shocked by the post you made!!!

Good,...now, go sit in a ice bucket or something. Not interested in addressing your common hyper-Determinist dogmatic methods of debate further.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Calvinism ALWAYS resorts to the writings and traditions of men as the FINAL authority. Some here apparently do not understand what FINAL means. We are not saying that Calvinists don't USE Scripture, but it is NEVER the FINAL authority, it is ALWAYS the Canons of Dort, Creeds, Calvin's Institutes, Augustine's writings, the confessions, and add "catechism" to the list since Icon wants to play semantics.

Calvinists insert "eternal decrees" in the Bible that were neither made in eternity nor last for eternity. For example, Calvinists cites Proverbs 8:29 with Psalm 148:6 as an example of an "eternal decree", yet the waters and heavens in both verses were created in time, and will be destroyed before the new heavens and new earth arrive.

When faced with how Calvinism improperly interprets "decree", what then is their FINAL authority? CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CALVIN AND CATECHISMS.

Calvinists take the 2 mentions of predistination in the Bible, Eph 1 and Rom 8, and apply predestination to lost sinners which neither verse mentions anything about being predistined to be reprobate. So what is the Calvinist FINAL authority on the "predestination" of the reprobate? CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CALVIN AND CATECHISMS.

Calvinists assert that death in Ephesians 2:1-5 is comparable to physical death, and therefore a man dead in sin can not understand or respond to the gospel. When faced with the fact that Adam responded to God WHILE DEAD IN SIN, or the Rich Man in HELL responded to God (dead as dead can get), do the Calvinists make attempts to reconcile the dilemma that Scripture gives them NO, they go right back to CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CALVIN AND CATECHISMS to interpret the proof texts as their final authority.

Calvinists assert that grace is irresistible, but when faced with Acts 7:51 where the Bible says plain as day that "ye do ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY GHOST" what do Calvinists do? Engage in circular reasoning by going to some other tenet of TULIP and dodge the issue and go right back to CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CALVIN AND CATECHISMS.

Can Calvinism be found in ANY of the early church leaders writings before Augustine? NONE. So Polycarp and any other convert from Paul, John or Peter never REALLY preached the gospel because there's not one hint of "Calvinism" or "Augustinianism" in ANY of the early church writings. SO the church was basically without the gospel until Calvin showed up. So much for the gates of hell not prevailing against the church because nobody was saved from the birth of the church to either Augustine or Calvin.

Calvinists claim that Jesus and Paul were "Calvinists" and what is the FINAL authority for that? CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CALVIN AND CATECHISMS. Even though Paul and Christ were both against infant baptism and were premillennial, and Paul never killed anyone after he was saved. You would think that as perfect as Christ is, and since He specifically chose Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, that Paul and Jesus would be much more consistent "Calvinists".

Every disagreement that a Calvinist has over Calvinism with a Non Calvinist ALWAYS resorts to the Calvinst going to back to the INTERPRETATION OF CALVINIST AUTHORS OF TULIP, CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CALVIN AND CATECHISMS.

ALWAYS

 

[Benjamin]

I went back and read the thread that you linked back a number of posts ago about your problem with "debate" on the BB.

I saw a person who wanted to control the flow of information to only his advantage and when that wasn't working he repeatedly posted:

STOP!!!!!!

And continue to berate the other posters for not following HIS agenda and HIS rules.

So far on this thread, you have so very little to offer of true substance, and cannot stand when someone shows that your knowledge of Scriptures and understanding is weak.

You lay demeaning claims of superiority that are nothing but froth.

Winman, Van, DHK, and many others and I have had long discussions without the vitriol that is continually spewed by you.

Perhaps your bully tactics work on other forums, but there are a number of folks from all views that discuss topics, even heatedly, that do so with the clear desire that edification take place.

Frankly, (The truth comes out): I don't care about White or Hunt.

They both had/have their own life of account for before God. It is disingenuous that YOU want to degrade a view and then turn around and proclaim that we are not "on topic."

And your thinking that we of the BB have to follow some rules that YOU consider important is no warrant for the compliance by those of us who enjoy the typical banter of this board.

Again, as I have stated before, if you don't like it, leave.

But, if you stay, it would be nice to see that you at least can put Scriptures in context and actually build a case for your view.

And do so without thinking that you have to demean and rail against other views.

If one can't convince by Scriptures, why would one think that petty repeatedly frothy emotional rants build and strengthen support of view.

That just doesn't make sense.

Remember this?:

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.

Pay close attention to the bolded part. Typical!!!

 

[agedman]

Calvinism ALWAYS resorts to the writings and traditions of men as the FINAL authority....

Every disagreement that a Calvinist has over Calvinism with a Non Calvinist ALWAYS resorts to the Calvinst going to back to the INTERPRETATION OF CALVINIST AUTHORS OF TULIP, CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, CALVIN AND CATECHISMS.

ALWAYS

I bet as a child you painted outside the lines.

More to the point, I agree that there are some (on all sides and views) that cling to some extra biblical writings as final authority.

However, Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, Muslims, and the like are not allowed on the BB.

Those that post regularly, may quote from a creed, or from some other work, but doing so isn't peculiarly singular to any one side.

At times we all enjoy knowing that some author, authority, scholar, ... agrees with our view (not that we agree with theirs ).

I suppose I have disagreed with everyone at some point or another on some topic. I rarely quote from some creed or writing.

Does that make me included in the "non-cal" camp though I have been labeled as a Calvinistic thinker?

 

[agedman]

Remember this?:


Pay close attention to the bolded part. Typical!!!

You were the first to demean and disregard appropriate use of Scriptures.

If you don't like to be corrected for your most obvious errors, then find someplace that you enjoy.

I was merely pointing out how very little you accomplish by your methods.

Frankly, at my age, I don't really care if "my debate tactics" fit your petty rules.

I have taken time to post to you about YOUR personal attitude, temperament, maturity in Scriptures and generally trying to get you to see how ineffective you currently present.

At almost every post with you, I have given you encouragement and suggestions on how you could actually present your view in such a way as it would make a difference.

That perhaps really isn't your goal.

And, if that is truly the case, then you are not here to edify and sharpen iron, which is sad.

I have chosen not to regard your motive in such light, but would like to read a presentation by you that has an actual persuasive argument, that incorporates Scriptures in context, and that leaves out all references to the current rants and demeaning that seems to permeate your statements.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I bet as a child you painted outside the lines.

More to the point, I agree that there are some (on all sides and views) that cling to some extra biblical writings as final authority.

However, Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, Muslims, and the like are not allowed on the BB.

Those that post regularly, may quote from a creed, or from some other work, but doing so isn't peculiarly singular to any one side.

At times we all enjoy knowing that some author, authority, scholar, ... agrees with our view (not that we agree with theirs ).

I suppose I have disagreed with everyone at some point or another on some topic. I rarely quote from some creed or writing.

Does that make me included in the "non-cal" camp though I have been labeled as a Calvinistic thinker?

When you throw a rock into a dark alley with a pack of dogs, the one that barks is the one that got hit.

This comment was specifically related to Calvinists. If you are not a Calvinist, then don't bark.