Hunt vs White

[JohnDeereFan]

There's the problem, right doctrine is not a matter of popularity. If I believed everything that was popular, I would believe in Original Sin. And if I believed in Original Sin, I would probably end up being a Calvinist like you, because that is the logical end of Original Sin.

Hang on a second. I'll admit I haven't been following this thread all that closely so I may have missed this. Are you saying that you deny the doctrine of original sin?

If you do, then you're not my brother in Christ and what you believe about us makes no difference.

But I just want to give you an opportunity to explain yourself (you know, like you refuse to give us).

 

[Winman]

I see. So then, you believe we're "deceived" and so you believe the remedy to that is to lie about us?

No, the remedy is to present scripture that refutes Calvinism. And if you had been here regular the past few years, you would see that I have presented literally hundreds of scriptures that refutes Calvinism.

What you're describing about yourself and your beliefs is consistent with Pelagianism.

Who knows? I really do not know exactly what Pelagius believed, and I doubt you do either.

So, now that you know, do you plan to repent?

I do not lie about Calvinists, I have no need to resort to that at all.

And...? There are people I don't get along with, but I don't slander them or treat them disrespectfully.

Well, you've got me here, I can be disrespectful, even downright rude and insulting. It comes from watching too much Bugs Bunny as a kid.

The sproblem is that you haven't shown any scripture that refutes Calvinism, only what you claim Calvinism to be, which is incorrect. That's called a strawman and is dishonest.

Oh, give me a break, I can show scripture that refutes Calvinism all day long. I can even show you that many of your proof texts you believe proves Calvinism actually refutes it. Hang around and see for yourself.

So you claim.

The problem is that if I presented all the scripture that refutes Calvinism, my posts would be entirely too long and complex. I believe in KISS (keep it simple stupid).

So could a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness. That doesn't make them right.

It doesn't make you right either.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

No, the remedy is to present scripture that refutes Calvinism.

So how does slander fit in with that?

Who knows? I really do not know exactly what Pelagius believed, and I doubt you do either.

Really? You don't think they teach us those things in seminary?

You don't think I might have studied it before including it in a series I teach about heresies?

I do not lie about Calvinists

Are you sure about that? because your posts are here for everybody to see.

Well, you've got me here, I can be disrespectful, even downright rude and insulting. It comes from watching too much Bugs Bunny as a kid.

No, too many of us watched Bugs Bunny and are not that way for that to be the case. Your problem is the result of bad parenting.

Oh, give me a break, I can show scripture that refutes Calvinism all day long. I can even show you that many of your proof texts you believe proves Calvinism actually refutes it. Hang around and see for yourself.

First, you accuse me of not providing scripture at all, then you accuse me of prooftexting? Which is it?

So, which is it? Where you lying when you said I didn't provide any scripture? Or are you lying now when you say that the verses I provided are "prooftexts"?

Do you know what poisoning the well is?

The problem is that if I presented all the scripture that refutes Calvinism, my posts would be entirely too long and complex. I believe in KISS (keep it simple stupid).

Yeah, that must be it.

It doesn't make you right either.

Except that I'm not the one who said I could do it. You are.

 

[DrJamesAch]

But it is false witness. You guys consistently paint us in the most evil light you can muster, even to the point of declaring us apostates and heretics.

It's just not right and you know that if we did that, you'd scream bloody murder.

There comes a point where lying ceases to be a momentary moral lapse of someone "caught up in the moment" and becomes an ongoing pattern of sinful behavior.

It's to the point now that I'm starting to wonder if I can continue to consider you my brothers in Christ, because it's clear that you don't reciprocate.

Or, at the very least, I should just consider you trolls and put you on ignore with annsi and the other trolls.

You need to repent. Period.

You seriously need to quit being a whining hypocrite and stop acting like the victim. You're quite good at that.

Your VERY FIRST interaction with me-and by First I mean FIRST just in case Calvinists have a different definition for that, too-was calling me a Catholic because I disagreed with Calvinism. I had never written one single word to you before, and it is obvious that you had more than one account, and used a dormant account (one that you'd had since 2010 but only had 10 posts on it until commenting on my thread).

Your very first interaction with me was pejorative, and everyone else on Online Baptist called you out on it. You started in on everyone else, and then played the victim when you got put in your place.

Anyone who wants to see the evidence of this can PM me for the link.

 

[preacher4truth]

You seriously need to quit being a whining hypocrite and stop acting like the victim. You're quite good at that.


Your very first interaction with me was pejorative, and everyone else on Online Baptist called you out on it. You started in on everyone else, and then played the victim when you got put in your place.

Bringing other forums to BB is against BB rules.

ach, your LAST post to JDF was pejorative laden.

 

[Winman]

You seriously need to quit being a whining hypocrite and stop acting like the victim. You're quite good at that.

Your VERY FIRST interaction with me-and by First I mean FIRST just in case Calvinists have a different definition for that, too-was calling me a Catholic because I disagreed with Calvinism. I had never written one single word to you before, and it is obvious that you had more than one account, and used a dormant account (one that you'd had since 2010 but only had 10 posts on it until commenting on my thread).

Your very first interaction with me was pejorative, and everyone else on Online Baptist called you out on it. You started in on everyone else, and then played the victim when you got put in your place.

Anyone who wants to see the evidence of this can PM me for the link.

Send me that link.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Bringing other forums to BB is against BB rules.

ach, your LAST post to JDF was pejorative laden.

Funny you reserve your judgments for ONLY those of your ilk, and didn't say a word to "John Deere" when he referenced OB on THIS forum about me:

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.

POST #131

So you can quit being a hypocrite, too. But you know what they say about birds of a feather....

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Sorry. I'm not going to feed the trolls anymore. It looks like everybody else can see this ravening wolf for what he is, so there's no need to defend myself.

 

[preacher4truth]

Funny you reserve your judgments for ONLY those of your ilk, and didn't say a word to "John Deere" when he referenced OB on THIS forum about me:

POST #131

So you can quit being a hypocrite, too. But you know what they say about birds of a feather....

Never saw that, BB rules apply, and you continue your slander of others. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Sorry. I'm not going to feed the trolls. It looks like everybody else can see this ravening wolf for what he is, so there's no need to defend myself.

I went there. DrAch has a point, you have no room to criticize when you disparaged him FIRST.

Sometimes things just don't work out like you planned.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I went there. DrAch has a point, you have no room to criticize when you disparaged him FIRST.

You went there, huh?

If you went there, would you mind quoting what I said that you took exception with?

From post #29 of that thread:

"Funny, except for a few key words here and there, the OP sounds just like the Catholics who keep telling me how awful Protestantism is."

Those were my exact words. Mind telling how that's "disparaging" him? Mind telling me how that rates the false accusations he's made?

By the way, I take it you missed post # 46 in that same thread, where I tried to reach out to him:

"As much as I disagree, I would still embrace you as a brother in Christ."

Not to mention post #117, where I said this:

"We don't see you as "ignoring the truths that come forth from the Bible". We assume that you're sincere, and that you merely came away from your study of the Bible with a different conclusion than we did and we'd like to discuss it with you."

Yeah, that's pretty bad, isn't it?

Here's the thread, if anybody wants to see who said what:

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/18027-new-argument-against-calvinism/page-3

 

[Winman]

Hang on a second. I'll admit I haven't been following this thread all that closely so I may have missed this. Are you saying that you deny the doctrine of original sin?

If you do, then you're not my brother in Christ and what you believe about us makes no difference.

But I just want to give you an opportunity to explain yourself (you know, like you refuse to give us).

Well, do I believe Adam and Eve committed the original sin? Of course.

Do I believe that God imputes Adam's sin to every person so that the moment they are conceived they are dead in sin, separated from God? NO.

And here are a few scriptures that refute that idea.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul is speaking of Esau and Jacob here, when they were very much alive in their mother Rebecca's womb, and Paul says they had done no evil.

Now, Original Sin says that when Adam sinned, all persons sinned with him, just as though you were personally there and ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil yourself. If this was so, then Paul could not say that Jacob and Esau had done no evil, but that is exactly what Paul said.

There is much more, but here is just one more verse for now (KISS).

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Original Sin teaches that every man is conceived estranged and separated from God because they inherited a sinful nature from Adam. But Peter says that we Christians are now RETURNED to God.

You cannot return someplace you have never been. I cannot return to Utah, because I have never been there. I can return to California, because I was there many years ago.

1 Peter 2:25 shows that all men were not born dead, separated from God in sin.

Now, you start paying attention and I'll show you a whole lot more. :thumbs:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Well, do I believe Adam and Eve committed the original sin? Of course.

Do I believe that God imputes Adam's sin to every person so that the moment they are conceived they are dead in sin, separated from God? NO.

And here are a few scriptures that refute that idea.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul is speaking of Esau and Jacob here, when they were very much alive in their mother Rebecca's womb, and Paul says they had done no evil.

Now, Original Sin says that when Adam sinned, all persons sinned with him, just as though you were personally there and ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil yourself. If this was so, then Paul could not say that Jacob and Esau had done no evil, but that is exactly what Paul said.

There is much more, but here is just one more verse for now (KISS).

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Original Sin teaches that every man is conceived estranged and separated from God because they inherited a sinful nature from Adam. But Peter says that we Christians are now RETURNED to God.

You cannot return someplace you have never been. I cannot return to Utah, because I have never been there. I can return to California, because I was there many years ago.

1 Peter 2:25 shows that all men were not born dead, separated from God in sin.

OK. In that case, I case, I cannot consider you a brother in Christ.

Now, you start paying attention and I'll show you a whole lot more. :thumbs:

So, even after I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you an opportunity to explain yourself (something you would never consider doing for us), you're still childish.

I'm just going to go ahead and put you on ignore now. It's pretty clear that nothing edifying or Christ honoring is going to come from my trying to talk to you.

 

[Winman]

OK. In that case, I case, I cannot consider you a brother in Christ.



So, even after I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you an opportunity to explain yourself (something you would never consider doing for us), you're still childish.

I'm just going to go ahead and put you on ignore now. It's pretty clear that nothing edifying or Christ honoring is going to come from my trying to talk to you.

You are really going to miss out if you ignore me. I was going to prove your doctrine is completely false, it would have been a real eye-opener for you.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You are really going to miss out if you ignore me. I was going to prove your doctrine is completely false, it would have been a real eye-opener for you.

Honestly, now that you've revealed yourself as a non-Christian, I'm not really interested in what you have to say about our religion.

I'm much more interested in seeing you back up your claims about what I allegedly said on OB.

But, since you're clearly not man enough to do that, I don't see any point in keeping you around.

 

[Winman]

Honestly, now that you've revealed yourself as a non-Christian, I'm not really interested in what you have to say about our religion.

I'm much more interested in seeing you back up your claims about what I allegedly said on OB.

But, since you're clearly not man enough to do that, I don't see any point in keeping you around.

I thought you were going to ignore me? A glutton for punishment I see.

Ok, have it your way...

Here is your first statement to DrAch (according to him)

Funny, except for a few key words here and there, the OP sounds just like the Catholics who keep telling me how awful Protestantism is.

Now, I admit, this is not the greatest insult I have ever read, but it is a little jab.

So, you really should not complain when folks insult you back. I don't care how much you insult me, I get a good laugh out of it really. Trust me, when it comes to insults, I can go toe to toe with you any day of the week and MORE.

And for the record, there have been many Christians who did not believe in Original Sin. None of the early church fathers in the first three centuries believed in Original Sin, it was first suggested about the fourth century, and only became doctrine with Augustine. The Eastern Orthodox Church disagreed with Augustine and continue to do so to this day, although they do believe in a physical corruption that passed on man.

Even John Smyth, who is credited with starting the first true Baptist church did not believe in Original Sin. The Anabaptists did not believe in OS, nor do the Mennonites.

But I understand that as a Calvinist you are completely dependent on OS. Without OS, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Herald]

2 Peter 1:20
If the Calvinist must stick to a handful of "authoritative books" (catechism or creed, Calvin's Institutes, Canons and Dorts, and ECF), then they have done the same as the RCC and many cults. They sift everything through a set authority by which all must be interpreted and the Bible is not their final authority as they claim.

I am glad you used the word "if". When I prepare a sermon I exegete the text. I consult the writings of others only after I have finished my sermon. I do so in order to make sure I am not coming up with some novel interpretation.

I use as few commentaries and sources as possible, using them only when absolutely necessary. Let me give you an example in a recent sermon.

That is good, but why not remain consistent and swear off all works of men? It would be in keeping with your conviction.

For the most part I spend my time in the Word and in prayer. I have a library of over 2,000 books and another 1,000 on my computer. But my personal study comes more from my Bible than from any other book.

If your personal study comes from the Bible than from any other book, why have those books? All you should need is a Bible and nothing else. Once again, be consistent with your conviction.

He had declared unto them the whole counsel of God (not the Institutes of Calvin).
If we have neglected our personal study in the Word, we have failed in our obedience to our Master.
If we must run our sermons through Calvin we are nothing more than a slave to a man, rather than a servant of God.

I am as Reformed a minister of the gospel as you are going to find on this board and I do not declare the whole counsel of Calvin. I proclaim the Word of God.