Keep Calvinist leanings secret?

I think it is arrogant for you to pretend you know a lot of stuff too. But that is not stopping you or changing your tactics, is it??

Then you are ignoring the obvious.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I am acting on good principle, as I showed you. Notice Ignzaio's quote below where he is incensed that I haven't read Calvin. You see, people don't read everything they quote. I am sure you do it as well. Virtually every academic work has secondary citations where someone quotes something from a non-original source. Therefore, they have not read what they are quoted. You are so determined to try to be right you can't see the obvious.

Vain??? He admitted it. Duh ... Turns out ole' Larry was right all along and the pappa just failed because he didn't know what he was talking about.

No, but I recognize sarcasm. It's fine. I don't really care. I like sarcasm. There was nothing to respond to. You would have called it a personal attack anyway. I guess I just took away some ammo from you by not responding.

YOu misunderstand the thread. I was not arguing for Calvinism. I was arguing against his omitting clear statements from the article. This trhead was not about Calvinism pro or con but about how it should be taught and whether an article should be taken in its entirety or with certain paragraphs being ignored because they contradict the view.

Did you forget that I was responding to you who brought it up?? I can't believe you are saying some of this stuff here. YOu started the conversation about whether or not I was right to call him a Calvinist. I respond to your comments and you accuse me of bringing it up. I certainly don't understand your logic at all.

Then you should disabuse yourself of the notion that the article is an encouragement to hide what one actually believes. That cannot in any way be sustained from this article.

You are completely wrong. I know very well what the issues are. I have repeatedly tried to get you to focus on them.

I quoted it numerous times. I have read it numerous times. That is why I know that you are overlooking those parts that contradict you.

If you notice the thread at the top of this forum you know that theology plays no part in the moderating role. It is, in your words, irrelevant. I am very balanced in moderating.

Whatever ...

Notice the thread that Lorelei started where her contentions are based solely on logic based on her definitions. She cannot conceive of a God who doesn't act like she thinks God should. (I am not tearing her down here.) The arminian says that God can't truly offer salvation to someone who can't accept. That is a logical argument, not a biblical one. The Calvinists are the biblical ones on that issue.

I agree, as did this author, which you would know if you read the article fairly.

Most people would consider them Calvinists or Bible-believers. They got there because they have been shown it from the text. I am trying to turn out students of Scripture.

They may not, and they are welcome to vote this man out. When someone talks about the five points of Calvinism, you know what he is talking about if you are listening. This church had no reason to be deceived. The man advocates preaching it clearly.

Do you not believe that Catholics believe their doctrine is right?? Should we try to convert them??

This author recommended being upfront about what you believe. He said to teach and preach it. So this author agrees with this point (except for the oxymoronic "heretical Calvinist beliefs").

The means are teaching/preachign the doctrines of grace, as this author said. So yes, I believe the ends justifies the means. Those are biblical means.

We were talking about the usefulness of labels.

Not if you are in current theology. Those labels are used very much.

I did and you got the point.

YOu prove my point. You are not interested in the labels. You are interested in the substance. A bottle with "Vitamin C" may be labelled wrong. But knowing the substance is what is important. Which is what I said from the beginning. It is why labels are not always helpful.

Which shows that your understanding of this article is wrong. He is not saying to hide your calvinism. He is saying to preach these doctrine from the pulpit.

"Many that do will become inflamed against you" ... Sounds a lot like the article says they would be inflamed. May I can't read this line though.

The same case can be made about arminians. Just look at your arrogance towards me. Why do you think you know everything and I konw nothing??? Isn't that arrogance on your part?? Of course it is.

Nope, and nothing I said would lead you to that conclusion.

Then you need to actually study because I have studied CAlvinism from the Scriptures and know that this is not the method used to support it. I would love to indulge in actual exegesis with you. The last attempt ended very poorly when you failed to "exegete."

Let me remind you again that theology plays no role in moderating at all. I am impartial as a moderator, not as a theologian. Trust me, this was tried before and every single attempt to show bias came up empty. It won't work this time because I moderate less now that I used to.

 

Did I ask this?? I don't remember that. I think I simply said that you were no longer posting here and I didn't know why. So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you are wrong. I do not remember asking you why you weren't posting here.

Didn't know I had enough power to keep you in bondage. I underestimated my own abilities

But while you are here, would you mind showing us a place where I said something about private messages???

And while you are here, would you mind telling us why you revealed the contents of my private message in the thread you started about James Gruet, both here and in its proper history forum???

Something doesn't make sense here: You complain that I revealed the contents of your PMs to me (which information was not in question; it was already known). But you, prior to that, reveal the contents of my PM to you. You are inconsistent. I think the words you used were "self-righteous hypocrisy." You complain that I did what you had already done. Why be inconsistent?? Why not be straightforward and tell people that you were complaining about something you had done.

I deleted your thread because it was in the wrong forum. You started a thread about history in a theology forum. I encouraged you to start the thread in the appropriate forum, which you did.

I will edit your account of the PMs to reflect what was truly said. Then people will be able to see your lowhanded tactics.

Would you mind showing us where i cried about anything??? If you don't show us that, then retract this and issue an apology for being dishonest.

AS you can see, this is greatly different than what Ignazio-er said when he put: Nanee Nanne Boo Boo! I deleted your topic about James Gruet. Restart it in history if you want! In this forum, soteriology is the only legitimate topic.

Again, as you can see, quite different than Ignazio-ers account of it when he said, Calvin didn't found my religion. In fact I know almost nothing about him, and I am bragging to you of never reading more than a page or two from his commentaries in my whole life. The fact that I never read any of his work thereby proves I am not a blind follower of his.

You shoulnd't have been tweaked. You posted something in the wrong place and I gently reminded you, inviting you to post it in an appropriate place.

As for reading Calvin, you are way behind the times here. I admitted that well over a year ago. And you, like everyone else, has failed to show why it makes a difference. I am not a follower of Calvin. He is no hero of mine. Why should I read him??

What do you want me to say over there? You asked "Anyone actuall read John Calvin" (and had the gall to post my PM without my permission). I am flattered that you said I was prominent. Most people don't accord me that kind of honor.

By my quick count, five different people responded. That means several thousand didn't respond. And you seem to pick on me for not responding to a thread I had nothing to contribute to. What's your point??

People who have been here for a while know I haven't read Calvin and they know why. That is old news.

Bottom line here again, participation in this forum needs to be on theological issues, not your personal issues. Please participate on that note.

 

MajorB said,

Excellent point. Most pulpit committee's seem to be more worried about what you going to do to bring in young people? How much money is it going to cost to pay him? Does he want to be full time or Bi-vocational? and Theology seems to be way down on the priority list of so many. Sadly, the average lay person does not have the same interest in theology that we on this board do.

 

[I didn't reveal the private communications. You are the one who made that public. I wouldn't have quoted it at all. And you used the word "whining" for some strange reason. There was nothing whining about what I said. You tried to enflame the emotions with that word. But you were wrong.

I didn't. You revealed them. You made it very clear in the public posting area that you are not a Calvinist. There was nothing secret about that.

let's look shall we?? Your post was December 29, 6:18 PM (I have a copy on my computer). The very first reference I made to it when I revealed nothing of where it came from was Dec 30, 8:11 pm. So the truth is that you are once again dishonest. You posted it first by more than 24 hours.

You see, when you start this stuff, you forget that I make sure of what I post before I post it. I am not slack in my research or writing for the most part. I do make mistakes from time to time, but if I got out on a limb about something, you may be assured that I can prove it. Which I just did, showing that you are dead wrong.

[/QUOTE]Who is this a quote from?? I didn't say that. Do you want me to prove it or do you want to change it??

I didn't mean it to be a slam on you. I don't even know what you are talking about. And I am not laughing.

If you want to continue posting, post on theology. Do not make stuff up to try to defend what you have done. Keep your posts on theology from here on out.

 

Which shows that you have no real answer to support you. You have been caught in dishonesty and misrepresentation. Your only reply is "go read your own posts." I have numerous times. How do you think I knew you weren't telling the truth. If you cannot be more careful in handling the clear truth, then you need to find somewhere else to post.

We can debate Calvinism vs Arminianism and have a debate about which is the truth. But when you distort my words and make it appear that I said somethign I didn't, and then take your words and attribute them to me, that is dishonest. When you accuse me of starting something, when the time stamps on the post clearly show the opposite to be true, then you are dishonest. You need to have a serious discussion with yourself about your methods.

This discussion is closed.