Job's Harmatiology

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell, why would not a fair man like you desire to see the rules of this forum enforced fairly? Biblicist has tread all over the rules as if though they are nothing. If more individuals had the least bit of fair play in them they would be taking more than Biblicist to task.

 

[Darrell C]

I would not expect you to understand Darrell.

Bump: Post #51

Mandym has asked three distinct questions to Biblicist which he refuses to answer. In light of the comments of Biblicist, the questions by Mandym need to answered. They start with post #7, #11, #16, and end with #27.

Man up Biblicist. Answer the posts of Mandym directly, so that a wayfaring man, though a fool, might ascertain your honest intentions via your comments.

Then it is for Mandy M to pursue this, not me, not you. I can understand that it is certainly a cause for indignation when one's salvation is questioned. I have not been back very long and my salvation has already been questioned...twice.

Hey, that is going to happen. Especially when the conversation is directly related to possibly the single greatest controversy in all of doctrinal debate: how man is saved.

Works of the flesh? Or the work of Christ...alone.

If you read my posts, HP, you will see that it is not just those I disagree with concerning doctrine that I come into dispute with, it happens even with those that I share, for the most part, a similar theology. But...I try very hard to be led of God in my postings, and when it is time to post, and when it is time to call something into question, I will try to so with His leading.

If I tried to dispute everything I disagree with, time would not permit for me to eat, sleep, bathe...you get the drift, lol.

I have found that generally behavior, though representing sound doctrine, which can be called into question, can be addressed in a number of ways. First and foremost it shall be by the word of God, and specifically...in the life of the one seeking to remove motes from another's eye.

When it comes to bad behavior, I am the last one that really should be saying anything, because if all of the posts I ever did were examined...I would be measured and found wanting.

But I work on that, always. There is a thin line between "defending the faith" and being obnoxious.

I try to season the old man and the new by, at this stage in my development, trying not to go beyond facetious...lol.

Darrell, why would not a fair man like you desire to see the rules of this forum enforced fairly? Biblicist has tread all over the rules as if though they are nothing. If more individuals had the least bit of fair play in them they would be taking more than Biblicist to task.

I have to ask you a tough question as well, HP: how exactly could you change the atmoshere of the conversations?

We have a responsibility before God not to sew discord, but to bring peace, that we might be blessed of God.

Our interaction and what we say will directly set the stage for how conversations grow. It just takes a little bit of insult, a little bit of offense...and it grows, and grows,

and grows,


and grows!


...lol. James, in speaking in a temporal context (lol), states:




James 3:6

King James Version (KJV)

6And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.


This applies, not just to the guy we try to correct, but to...me. You. All men.

How hard is it for us to bring peace, even when we disagree in doctrine that we feel will lead to the "death" of another.

Shall we disregard what God has directly told us individually?

No, but by His Spirit, we shall obey, and seek to speak with grace, foregoing that inner desire we all have...to be right.

To have the last word.

To...put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

And we should also seek to upset our wives by posting when we should already be ready to leave for the morning service, which is what I am doing now (pray for me).

Let's start this year out right. Let us first look inward, as we know is commanded, and be ready to recognize that possibly, our behavior and speech could use a little improvement.

God bless.

Last word (lol).

 

[mandym]

Then it is for Mandy M to pursue this, not me, not you.

Why? if he has the same concern then what is the issue? I suppose anyone can ask the same question I have. Since when should there be a limit on this?

 

[Darrell C]

Why? if he has the same concern then what is the issue? I suppose anyone can ask the same question I have. Since when should there be a limit on this?

I gave my opinion only. If you feel that you need help in a discussion, okay.

And it is up to the one asked to reply.

No limits have been placed on anyone, not by me at least.

What I will reiterate is that if all of the insults, goadings, accusations, and charges were less, perhaps an intelligent discussion of doctrine could take place.

But when one insult leads to another, it leads to emotional responses which have put biblical doctrine and practice on the shelf to satisfy the natural desire to retaliate and cause hurt.

We all have a choice to be in obedience to the Spirit of God, and we know that when we do behave like this (and I onclude myself), it cannot be pleasing to God, for His word does not teach us to speak to the lost as we do sometimes on the forums, with mocking and ridicule...much less to those that profess to have a relationship with Christ.

All of us fail to have self-control at times, and I think that will just happen sometimes. But, if we play the game, and stir the pot...what is the result going to be?

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell, what stirs the pot is when rules are made and ignored depending on who is breaking the rules. If it was you that is being called a heretic if your ideas were being called 'demonic', and if it was your salvation being called into question, you might see things differently. If nothing was done wrong by Biblicist in his remarks, why would you not be one to desire him to address the posts by Mandyn directly? Your comments certainly reveal your bias Darrell.

A board dedicated to discuss and debate doctrinal issues inviting others of differing beliefs to join, must have some simply rules of fair play and consideration for others of differing beliefs and must be enforced with blind justice. No one needs or should be allowed to post on this forum that does not have it within them to refrain from direct personal attacks and calling into question ones salvation, especially on the level that Biblicist has lowered himself to.

Yes, Mandyn has every right and even an obligation in fairness to ask Biblicist the simple questions he/she asked, and I have every right, being a primary target of so many of the attacks by Biblicist, to ask Biblicist to answer the questions as well. I have every right to ask the questions myself, but it is nice to know at least someone besides myself wants some straight answers.

If the moderators would simply have Biblicist abide by the rules of this forum and retract his insulting personal attacks, and hold his feet to the same fire we all should be held to, we could continue reasonable debate without these distractions. Now that would be a reaonable and fair idea!

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, what stirs the pot is when rules are made and ignored depending on who is breaking the rules. If it was you that is being called a heretic if your ideas were being called 'demonic', and if it was your salvation being called into question, you might see things differently. If nothing was done wrong by Biblicist in his remarks, why would you not be one to desire him to address the posts by Mandyn directly? Your comments certainly reveal your bias Darrell.

A board dedicated to discuss and debate doctrinal issues inviting others of differing beliefs to join, must have some simply rules of fair play and consideration for others of differing beliefs and must be enforced with blind justice. No one needs or should be allowed to post on this forum that does not have it within them to refrain from direct personal attacks and calling into question ones salvation, especially on the level that Biblicist has lowered himself to.

Yes, Mandyn has every right and even an obligation in fairness to ask Biblicist the simple questions he/she asked, and I have every right, being a primary target of so many of the attacks by Biblicist, to ask Biblicist to answer the questions as well. I have every right to ask the questions myself, but it is nice to know at least someone besides myself wants some straight answers.

If the moderators would simply have Biblicist abide by the rules of this forum and retract his insulting personal attacks, and hold his feet to the same fire we all should be held to, we could continue reasonable debate without these distractions. Now that would be a reaonable and fair idea!

I am called a heretic all the time. My doctrine called demonic.

Sticks and stones, and all that.

My bias is in this: what is important here is the doctrine that is at hand. All here have said things that ought not have been said, including myself.

I am concerned with the doctrine, and can overlook for the most part much of the ugliness that occurs, even when it is directed at me. It is not my concern to "straighten people out" because that is not my role...that is the role the Holy Spirit fulfills in our lives.

If I were to address all that I disagree with, concerning behavior, not only would, as it usually does, leave doctrine left to the wayside, I would be hypocritical, because of my own faults and failures.

I will, as I have done with you, at times point things out, especially when it coincides with the discussion and doctrine at hand, such as how egging people on, butting into other's conversations, et cetera, are unsavory, but I am not the morality police.

If I am attacked directly, I deal with it, and try to move back to the discussion at hand. I try not to let that, because it is going to happen, derail the discussion.

As far as the rules go, that is up to the ownership and management that has been set in place. I can go to an atheist forum, where I receive insult after insult, and still carry on a conversation, address basis of belief, and still feel like I have been useful to the Lord.

Do their moderators agree with me? No. Do they like me? Sometimes. Does any of that matter?

No.

What matters is that all of us seek to present theology from a biblical basis.

It will seldom agree, and so far, I have seen only one person that I think, based upon a significant doctrine, the New Covenant, that I think I might even come close to concerning doctrine. And I have not even talked to him!

As far as this matter goes...it is not my business. If you have been offended by the words of this member...you talk to him.

If you have been offended by the moderator...you talk to him.

If you have been offended by me...talk to me.

See how that works.

But listen, you constantly make interjections that from my view, sew discord which does not allow discussion any chance of reasonable outcome. I have said something to you about it. I did not do a post speaking in third person, but directed this observation to you. Likewise, concerning your "false witness" against me, I did not make that point so that I could score a point, but a sincere desire to illustrate that we can sin without realizing it, and that God and His word will reveal this to us.

Great illustration, I think. Not trying to point fingers, I sin, I offend, but what I will not do is intentionally do this. And if you are offended...tell me. I am not above recognizing my error, nor apologizing.

As far as anybody questioning the salvation of anybody, here is my clear statement to all: we have not been given that right. It is presumptuous to think one can know the spiritual condition of another. We can have our thoughts about others, but if we believe one is lost, how is it that we are going to be useful and a part of the solution...by offending them?

But in defense of members that do say rude and offensive things, I would suggest we go back to where we began speaking to them, and see what part WE played in the emotional responses that have been generated and which culminate in a complete disavowing of the work of Christ in our lives, and the eruption of works that can be seen to be the works of the flesh.

Sometimes, we too, can create monsters. And we will not be held unaccountable when we stand before the Lord, we will answer for every word which we have thought, spoken...and typed.

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell: I am called a heretic all the time. My doctrine called demonic.

HP: Fine Darrell. Point us to one single time on this forum that has happened in like manner as to the continuing insult and level that Biblicist has done. I would like to see it. I might be called such things in a lot of arenas and expect such as the norm, but NOT on a Christian discussion forum with rules in place to prevent the abuse of such attacks.

It is a mockery of any semblance of reason to get on here and insinuate that we are guilty of the same things Biblicist has done. It is absolute nonsense for you to suggest that anything Mandyn or myself has asked or stated is in any way just trading personal insults. I have not, neither has Mandyn or any other that I have read, attacked Biblicist personally or in like manner as he has certainly done to others. If you want to say something to help, try asking the moderators to enforce their rules fairly.


I still want to see where you were attacked on this list in the manner you indicate you have been.

 

[Darrell C]

HP: Fine Darrell. Point us to one single time on this forum that has happened in like manner as to the continuing insult and level that Biblicist has done. I would like to see it. I might be called such things in a lot of arenas and expect such as the norm, but NOT on a Christian discussion forum with rules in place to prevent the abuse of such attacks.

It is a mockery of any semblance of reason to get on here and insinuate that we are guilty of the same things Biblicist has done. It is absolute nonsense for you to suggest that anything Mandyn or myself has asked or stated is in any way just trading personal insults. I have not, neither has Mandyn or any other that I have read, attacked Biblicist personally or in like manner as he has certainly done to others. If you want to say something to help, try asking the moderators to enforce their rules fairly.


I still want to see where you were attacked on this list in the manner you indicate you have been.

And thus doctrinal discussion not only breaks down to insulting behavior, but demands that names be named to deny that any have been "as bad as this fellow."

I will not name names, but I will give a few examples:

So far, you have tried (unsuccessfully) to modify the Scriptures to fit your personal doctrine. That is not the way to get your point across, and your strong fanaticism is not that endearing either.

If my doctrine is based upon modifying the word of God, then what exactly is my doctrine to be considered? Here we have a personal attack upon both my doctrine as well as my character...no big deal.

Also said is:

You assume that everyone here on the board is heterodox in their doctrine just because you think you have a point to make. You could be right or you could be wrong, but it would take a lot more "Berean" type of sorting out the issues in comparison to Scripture before we can make any assumptions.

Have I stated I believe all to be involved in heterodoxy? Not to my knowledge. I guess it is okay for some to disagree, and others not to.


Here are a few quotes that speak of an individual that in all likelihood has a mental condition, and is in need of the gospel, and, I might add...compassion, which is befitting of those that have themselves in times past been in desperate need of the Lord's own compassion:

Don't waste your time on this guy. He's just one of many who think they are cute by coming on the BB and bashing Christians. The Lord will take care of him.

He will soon be (and here was a "banned smiley)

This is responded to by another member who says:

Hi Amy! You speak wisdom!

Our troubled member asks a question of his own:

Is this wisdom you say she speaks come from above or is it earthly?

That...is a valid question.

This is also said to him:

Apparently you don't know what the truth is. Your posts are convoluted and confusing and We all know who the author of confusion is. You don't have anyone here fooled.

Starting to see a pattern here, HP? Would this be considered as questioning one's salvation? Calling their doctrine demonic? At the very least...stating it is not from God or God's word? How true the charges are (and sometimes, they may be, God knoweth!) are irrelevant to the context of this discussion we are having. While you may be careful to avoid directly making statements that directly question another's salvation or relationship with the Lord, but as I have said before, what role we play in egging on those that respond emotionally is perhaps worse than direct statements.

Quickly, here are a few more statements directed toward this unfortunate soul. Unfortunate because of his belief, and unfortunate that he received, not a compassionate reply that sought to correct, or at least give him something to think about:

Your God is not the God of Thomas -

Actually his posts remind me of someone who's been on the BB before. Creepy guy.

Children, let this be a lesson to you why you should never take drugs, especially hallucinogenic ones.

There were lots of guys like this in the late 60's.

Does your mother not monitor what you do on the internet?

I'm picturing more of a fellow in his early sixties, with what's remaining of his grey hair pulled back in a ponytail. He is sitting in a lotus position on a pillow. Sitar music plays in the background and incense burns.

What is that smell of burning rope I detect?

I could be wrong... Not!

You sure it's not the spirit of Bong?

This man then asks:

Where is Pastor Bob? Pastor Bob, come talk to me.

I myself am not guiltless, though, and as I said I myself, when trying to point out the faults of another or others will be found a hypocrite. Though in my defense I was being facetious, I emphasized and enlarged my words in a post, the irony lost on this man...who emboldened everything he said.


Now, things you have said that, while not direct accusations or charges, have implications that cannot be missed:

Biblicist is clearly long on straining gnats and short on close attention to reasonable context in the passages he tries to support the false notion of original sin.

He is accused of supporting false doctrine.

HP: And then to think that Biblicist has the gall to label the ones he calls heretics and outside of the faith, as 'name callers." Go figure. Biblicist has not only called my salvation into question but stated that arguments I have posted in rebuttal of his positions are 'demonic.'

This is not directed toward Biblicist, but in keeping with many of your posts, is a general satement made for only one reason: to maintain an environment which you have helped to create.

The question is asked three times before being answered:

By the use of the word "heretics" are you saying they are lost ( as in not born again) or just wrong on this particular doctrine?

From my observation they preach "another gospel" as they reject justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works. What does Paul say about those who preach "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9)?

While it does not excuse one from questioning another's salvation, this is a good answer, for scripture does not tell us that we accomodate or join ourselves to doctrine that is in direct opposition to the Gospel.

At the heart of the debate that is raging in many threads, is this: What must a man do to be saved?

To teach that man can be saved by the law because he is born "good," or in relationship with God, then falls from a righteous position is something that many, including myself, find in direct contradiction to the very reason for which Christ had to come.

The bottom line is this, man can do nothing by his own efforts to come into relationship with God. If no man can come to the Father except through Jesus Christ, how can it be thought that there is another way, in effect, another Gospel?

How can it even be presented in a "theoretical" manner that man can attain to the righteousness of God and therefore, when he dies, stand before God and pat himself on the back?


In this post it is said:

The Biblicist not only insults those who do not agree with his ideas but he also questions their honesty, as witnessed what he wrote to you on another thread earlier:

Ruize was being tactful and kind. I won't be so tactful and kind.

This indicates that it is held by this person that kindness was responded to in a manner which offended him.

Also said:

Too bad that he continues to argue with us because I thought he really meant what he said here:

I have got better things to do then continue on this merry go round of repetitious nonsense.

Then...

"For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes" (Lk.6:44).

Unless one is completely ignorant of scripture and not familiar with the thought of this verse in context, it is no different than a clear statement of not only questioning another's salvation, but a clear judgment that one is lost.


But, it's okay when certain do it, but not others? Right?

As I have said before...we are all guilty of it, though an attempt to veil it is made.



I will have to post this in two parts, which is sad, I have wasted all this time and effort to address this.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

In a direct statement to him, you say:

HP: You live in a fairytale world to think for a minute that you have proved your position. Proving something to your own mind does not necessitate it as being the truth nor does it prove you have made your Augustinian case with anyone else other than yourself. Oh well. Upward and onward.

Nice...

Another says:

The only thing you have proved is that you will wrest scripture to fit your presuppositions.

And who is wresting of scripture ascribed to? And what is their fate?


This person, intent on pointing the finger, insists with the line of questioning which has led to your response to me:

So just for clarification you are asserting they are lost. Is that correct?

You join in:

Mandym has asked three distinct questions to Biblicist which he refuses to answer. In light of the comments of Biblicist, the questions by Mandym need to answered. They start with post #7, #11, #16, and end with #27.

Man up Biblicist. Answer the posts of Mandym directly, so that a wayfaring man, though a fool, might ascertain your honest intentions via your comments.

Just off the top of my head, I remember two questions, the first asked 3 times, the second asked twice. I guess you think your post is seasoned with grace, right?


Before getting an answer, this is said to me:

You are doing your best to prove what is said is in error.

What is being said is that I am trying to prove that which is said in scripture says something other than what is said, the implication again is the wresting of scripture. Again...who does that? What is their fate?


You then resond to a question addressed to another member by me:

Darrell: Then you believe that Christ had an earthly father?

You would have to to believe that Christ is "just like us," right?

Your response:

HP: Winman, I will address my post to you. We know that nothing Scripture says or anything anyone else may say will shake such an imbedded notion as OS in the minds of so many. OS drives the false notions of the physical lineage of Christ.



There are several indications that indeed Christ did have connections physically to a human father. He was simply not conceived by human means. As I have mentioned before, both genealogies state Christ was indeed in the physical lineage of his earthly father Joseph. Again, NOT by natural means via Joseph, but rather supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.

Not only do the genealogies place Joseph's seed as the father of the flesh of Christ, but there is yet another passage that points to Joseph's seed as his father in the flesh, but again we know NOT by natural means. Mary was indeed a virgin.

Jesus, in order to fulfill prophesy, had to be of the lineage of David. Joseph was the one that Scripture affirms clearly and without question to be of the lineage of David. No where that I have found states that Mary was of the house and lineage of David. Besides, the bloodline is always recorded via the father in the household, not the mother.
Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he (Joseph) was of the house and lineage of David

This is, in my view, statements of contradiction...leaving the reader to wonder exactly what the author actually believes.

At the very least, this questions the doctrine of those who hold to OS.


You then say:

I would not expect you to understand Darrell.

And why is it I would not understand, HP?


And you say to me:

Fine Darrell. Point us to one single time on this forum that has happened in like manner as to the continuing insult and level that Biblicist has done.

I am not sure if the examples given will illustrate that we all at times call into question the salvation of others, but I will reiterate that the emotions which lead to hurtful statements are often created through the statements of others.

I will also reiterate that if we egg someone on, do not cry too loud when the result is an insulting response.

What part do we play in this, and should we become indignant because someone else is more direct than others.

If we spend our time, as I have done in responding in this post, pointing out what others have said and why they should be held accountable, we might just miss the fact that we ourselves may be seen guilty of the same thing by not only others, but by the word of God itself.


For those that see I have quoted them, I will point out I have only posted what you have said. You can do a similar post from my own statements, but, I have no problem in admitting that in the past I have failed to obey God in my statements to those that are in all likliehood brethren, but, I am always intent in not repeating that offense. It is not likley that I will ever be perfect in this area, so, if you wish to point out where I have offended you, as some here have done, I will be glad to sincerely apologize.

Now, HP, I ask you, do you feel that you have never questioned another's salvation since you have been here?

Answer me that honestly, okay?

And by the way, this post has not been fun, but has detracted from what should be our reason to be here, which is to discuss doctrine.

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell, you are so one sided and conveniently blind to the flat out personal attacks by some on others, there is no need for me to say anything in response to your post. My advice to you is, don't forget your white cane as you move forward from this post. :thumbs:

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, you are so one sided and conveniently blind to the flat out personal attacks by some on others, there is no need for me to say anything in response to your post. My advice to you is, don't forget your white cane as you move forward from this post. :thumbs:

Well, you asked me my opinion. Am I just blind to personal attacks made to some (I have said I do not condone such attacks), or as I have stated, recognize that all do so.

Here is an example from another thread:

That is a statement made in ignorance. No one believes that God 'depends' on the actions of human agents to move His hands. Show me one solitary place that such is stated. Calvinism has not only blinded you to the truth, but allows you to build strawman arguments whenever you so desire.

It is okay to call others ignorant and blinded to the truth?

We are all guilty.

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell if you cannot see a difference between calling someone ignorant or being blinded to the truth, to such remarks as been posted on this forum such as calling one a heretic, calling into question one's salvation, telling them that they are preaching another gospel and suggesting they should be accursed, telling them that their notions are demonic. etc., I'm telling you you're willingly blind and biased.

When one stoops as low as to suggest another on this board is on par with being treated on the same level as some have treated others, as heretical vermin, good for nothing, fit only for use as fuel at one of their heretical barbecues, they have stepped over the line of reason and fair play and are in direct violation of the rules of this form regardless if there are any moderators the will stand up in support of their own rules.

Don't tell me this is not what they're suggesting by calling another a heretic. History proves out clearly and emphatically the precise feelings behind that word. It is no coincidence that the ones using the word heretic are so closely associated with the very thoughts and dogmas developed and taught by Calvin himself. Can anyone but myself sense the smell of burning flesh over a slowly roasting fire? Does Servetus ring a bell with anyone?

No Darrell, you are blind to the truth. Your blind to any sense of fair play. You are blinded to the stated rules of this forum and the reasons why they were put into play.

Tap on.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell if you cannot see a difference between calling someone ignorant or being blinded to the truth, to such remarks as been posted on this forum such as calling one a heretic, calling into question one's salvation, telling them that they are preaching another gospel and suggesting they should be accursed, telling them that their notions are demonic. etc., I'm telling you you're willingly blind and biased.

When one stoops as low as to suggest another on this board is on the same level as heretical vermin, good for nothing, fit only for use as fuel at one of their heretical barbecues, they have stepped over the line of reason and fair play and are in direct violation of the rules of this form regardless if there are any moderators the will stand up in support of their own rules.

Don't tell me this is not what they're suggesting by calling another a heretic. History proves out clearly and emphatically the precise feelings behind that word. It is no coincidence that the ones using the word heretic are so closely associated with the very thoughts and dogmas developed and taught by Calvin himself. Can anyone but myself sense the smell of burning flesh over a slowly roasting fire? Does Servetus ring a bell with anyone?

No Darrell, you are blind to the truth. Your blind to any sense of fair play. You are blinded to the stated rules of this forum or the reasons why they were put into play.

Tap on.

No need. You make the very point I have been making.

Is this post in obedience to the rules of this forum?

Are the words spoken here in obedience to God?

Tough question, isn't it?

There should not be a need for a believer to need to even read the rules of any forum, for if they are familiar even with the commands of scripture, they will not break a single rule of a forum.

Right? Or wrong?

I see the finger pointing and name calling as merely hypocrisy veiled in righteous anger, and an attempt to justify one's own actions and condemn another.

Justify on.