Objective consideration of John 12:32

[Winman]

Well there you I stand corrected

Well, thank you, this is about a dozen times I have had to say this.

 

[Reformed]

One of his handles is. Dr. Walter has not been (to my recollection )

On a side note, he does not have a doctorate, but stated he was working towards one. The hypocrisy is someone else with a Dr. moniker was run out of here...yet Mr. Walter (since he has no PhD) has received a free pass from the reformed crowd. Clear set of double standards here.

webdog,

I responded for the first time to Dr. Walter HERE taking exception to one of his views. I have absolutely no problem holding people accountable who share some or all of my views.

 

[kyredneck]

Well, he's banned; you all happy now?

He was posting under two different names, which is obviously not allowed.

AFTER he was banned as The Bib, he hadn't used Doc for a year prior to this.

This is lame, are you now going to go after others (and there are others) on this board that have more than one handle? Or just those that come here on the Cal/Arm forum and confute your dominance here?

Were you gracious enough to forewarn him and give him a chance to choose which moniker he wished to maintain? He DID have a valid reason for creating The Bib.

 

[kyredneck]

Not so. The Biblicist liked to pull specific verses out of scripture and focus on those scriptures alone to the exclusion of other scriptures dealing directly with the same subject.......

ROLLINGONTHEFLOORGUFFAWING...oh the hypocrisy...

 

[preacher4truth]

ROLLINGONTHEFLOORGUFFAWING...oh the hypocrisy...

unreal, and you are correct... :sleep:

He was solid and winmon is describing only himself perfectly...and to continue to malign a guy that cannot respond? Yeah, that's an act of valor.

 

[kyredneck]

The version I quoted was about being 'divisive,' but as stated he was posting under two different names and that is a violation of the posting rules.

'Divisive'. Incredible. On the Cal/Arm forum that was reinstated to separate it from other forums because the topic is so 'divisive', The Bib was 'divisive'. Incredible.

 

[Winman]

unreal, and you are correct... :sleep:

He was solid and winmon is describing only himself perfectly...and to continue to malign a guy that cannot respond? Yeah, that's an act of valor.

If he cannot respond, it is because he ignored warnings and got himself banned. Whose fault is that?

I always answered him directly. And what I said was true, he would pull a verse or verses out of scripture and isolate it. You can make scripture say anything you want with that method. And that WAS his method. He was always in search of any verse he could torture to seem to support Calvinism, such as Isaiah 48:8 in his signature that he claimed taught Original Sin. Absolutely ridiculous, this scripture has nothing to do with teaching that men are born sinners or guilty of Adam's sin.

You guys probably believed everything he wrote because you don't have a clue.

 

[preacher4truth]

If he cannot respond, it is because he ignored warnings and got himself banned. Whose fault is that?

I always answered him directly. And what I said was true, he would pull a verse or verses out of scripture and isolate it. You can make scripture say anything you want with that method. And that WAS his method. He was always in search of any verse he could torture to seem to support Calvinism, such as Isaiah 48:8 in his signature that he claimed taught Original Sin. Absolutely ridiculous, this scripture has nothing to do with teaching that men are born sinners or guilty of Adam's sin.

You guys probably believed everything he wrote because you don't have a clue.

Actually that is YOUR method winman and many persons on here know this as a fact.

And yet there is even more venom coming from you in the above post.

 

[Winman]

Actually that is YOUR method winman and many persons on here know this as a fact.

And yet there is even more venom coming from you in the above post.

That is NOT my method. I present scripture and interpret it very simply. Almost never does anyone actually challenge my interpretation other than to say it is wrong, but they can never say WHY it is wrong.

And I only responded because you guys were talking about me. I had NOTHING to do with The Biblicist being banned. Go back and look for yourself, I did not participate in that thread, or at least I was not participating in it when he got banned. It had absolutely nothing to do with me.

If you are going to blame folks, at least blame someone that was arguing with him when he got banned, it wasn't me.

 

[preacher4truth]

That is NOT my method. I present scripture and interpret it very simply. Almost never does anyone actually challenge my interpretation other than to say it is wrong, but they can never say WHY it is wrong.

This is not factual, not even close, none of it. It is your method and you cannot and will not see it. Winman, I will be frank -- most of what you believe is grave error and you destroy dogma by taking many Scriptures out of context not knowing their meaning. You know what the Bible says but you struggle with its meaning and this is a well known fact. Many have graciously attempted to help you understand but as is typical your responses come back as mocking and polemic. You're unteachable winman and I say that with grace to you, in fact I say all of it with grace to you.

And I only responded because you guys were talking about me. I had NOTHING to do with The Biblicist being banned. Go back and look for yourself, I did not participate in that thread, or at least I was not participating in it when he got banned. It had absolutely nothing to do with me.

I don't know how you've come up with this idea that any of us blamed you for his banning. Interesting because we haven't. You're reading things into this that are simply not there, and again, frankly, that is a huge problem you have as you do it in other areas.

If you are going to blame folks, at least blame someone that was arguing with him when he got banned, it wasn't me.

See above.

 

[Winman]

This is not factual, not even close, none of it. It is your method and you cannot and will not see it. Winman, I will be frank -- most of what you believe is grave error and you destroy dogma by taking many Scriptures out of context not knowing their meaning. You know what the Bible says but you struggle with its meaning and this is a well known fact. Many have graciously attempted to help you understand but as is typical your responses come back as mocking and polemic. You're unteachable winman and I say that with grace to you, in fact I say all of it with grace to you.

LOL, you are about the tenth Calvinist that has told me I know what the scriptures say, but not what they mean. That is funny, I don't think you realize how foolish this argument is. You are actually arguing that the scriptures do not mean what they say.

I don't know how you've come up with this idea that any of us blamed you for his banning. Interesting because we haven't. You're reading things into this that are simply not there, and again, frankly, that is a huge problem you have as you do it in other areas.

See above.

Then why were you two talking about me? What did I have to do with The Biblicist being banned? NOTHING.

I will say this though, Biblicist had a real bad habit of calling people liars and questioning their integrity just because they disagreed with him. He believed he was absolutely infallible, and if you disagreed with him he almost considered it blasphemy. I think he even accused me of that a few times.

Go back and read 20 or 30 of his posts, I don't care who he was responding to, he called everybody a liar, and everybody was some evil heretic. The guy was paranoid.

 

[preacher4truth]

LOL, you are about the tenth Calvinist that has told me I know what the scriptures say, but not what they mean. That is funny, I don't think you realize how foolish this argument is. You are actually arguing that the scriptures do not mean what they say.

Then maybe you should listen, they are correct, and I will add that I don't see it a bit funny, it is a solemn issue.

I'd say a person doesn't have to be Calvinist to see this. As far as your last point, you're not even close in what you say, yet this is another example of how you simply do not even interpret things such as common dialogue correctly.

One more time, no one blamed you for the banning, you're eisegeting yet again winman.

 

[Winman]

Then maybe you should listen, they are correct, and I will add that I don't see it a bit funny, it is a solemn issue.

I'd say a person doesn't have to be Calvinist to see this. As far as your last point, you're not even close in what you say, yet this is another example of how you simply do not even interpret things such as common dialogue correctly.

One more time, no one blamed you for the banning, you're eisegeting yet again winman.

Again, you are accusing me of believing what the scriptures SAY. That is your argument. I plead GUILTY. You are correct, I believe what the scriptures SAY.

Maybe it is because you are a Calvinist you do not see how ridiculously foolish this argument is, because Calvinism constantly, and I mean CONSTANTLY redefines words, and says scripture does not really mean what it plainly says.

I guess you guys think scripture is written in some mysterious backward code and means the opposite of what it says. :laugh:

And I am glad you do not blame me for banning The Biblicist, I do not know exactly what happened there myself.

But I will not miss him calling me and others liars and heretics just because we disagreed with him. I never considered that a real argument.

 

[preacher4truth]

Again, you are accusing me of believing what the scriptures SAY. That is your argument. I plead GUILTY. You are correct, I believe what the scriptures SAY.

And there is a vast difference between knowing what it says and what it means.

Maybe it is because you are a Calvinist you do not see how ridiculously foolish this argument is, because Calvinism constantly, and I mean CONSTANTLY redefines words, and says scripture does not really mean what it plainly says.

It's ridiculously foolish to discern the distinction between knowing what Scripture says and what it means? This makes all the difference in the world, and that you cannot grasp this is unfortunate, and is honestly telling. The Ethiopian eunuch even understood the vast difference between the two, and learned how gravely important it was to know what it means, not just what it says. This is also seen in preaching, we are not just telling others what the Bible says, hermeneutics are involved as well, so we preach what it means, not just what it says.

I guess you guys think scripture is written in some mysterious backward code and means the opposite of what it says. :laugh:

This is how you usually end up in the gutter in your dialogue with others: mocking, ridiculing, erecting straw man arguments. I won't go down that trail with you, you'll have to go it alone.

And I am glad you do not blame me for banning The Biblicist, I do not know exactly what happened there myself.

No one has blamed you for that, yet as is typical you somehow read that into the dialogue, and it was never there, nor was it even remotely there. You also do this with your interpretations winman, it's a pattern, but I humbly say that you are too proud to see it and hope that someday you will.

But I will not miss him calling me and others liars and heretics just because we disagreed with him. I never considered that a real argument.

Honestly winman you employ these tactics yourself.

 

[quantumfaith]

And there is a vast difference between knowing what it says and what it means.



It's ridiculously foolish to discern the distinction between knowing what Scripture says and what it means? This makes all the difference in the world, and that you cannot grasp this is unfortunate, and is honestly telling. The Ethiopian eunuch even understood the vast difference between the two, and learned how gravely important it was to know what it means, not just what it says. This is also seen in preaching, we are not just telling others what the Bible says, hermeneutics are involved as well, so we preach what it means, not just what it says.



This is how you usually end up in the gutter in your dialogue with others: mocking, ridiculing, erecting straw man arguments. I won't go down that trail with you, you'll have to go it alone.



No one has blamed you for that, yet as is typical you somehow read that into the dialogue, and it was never there, nor was it even remotely there. You also do this with your interpretations winman, it's a pattern, but I humbly say that you are too proud to see it and hope that someday you will.



Honestly winman you employ these tactics yourself.

:tonofbricks::tonofbricks::tonofbricks:

 

[preacher4truth]

winman, I am going to have to leave off dialogue with you. It is not profitable to do so and ends up going down a bad path. I sincerely do hope some day you will be capable of seeing what many have told you, things which you have unfortunately rejected.

 

[Winman]

And there is a vast difference between knowing what it says and what it means.

Obviously for you, yes. For me, no.

It's ridiculously foolish to discern the distinction between knowing what Scripture says and what it means? This makes all the difference in the world, and that you cannot grasp this is unfortunate, and is honestly telling. The Ethiopian eunuch even understood the vast difference between the two, and learned how gravely important it was to know what it means, not just what it says. This is also seen in preaching, we are not just telling others what the Bible says, hermeneutics are involved as well, so we preach what it means, not just what it says.

The Ethiopian eunuch was only uncertain of whom the scripture he was reading spoke of, Isaiah, or someone else.

Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

See how simple and easy scripture is to understand if you simply interpret it to mean what it plainly says?

Put it to the test, read scripture for awhile and ask yourself what it plainly says. You will be amazed how your understanding will be opened up.

This is how you usually end up in the gutter in your dialogue with others: mocking, ridiculing, erecting straw man arguments. I won't go down that trail with you, you'll have to go it alone.

Well, there comes a time to mock folks who are just being stubborn and obstinate. The prophet Elijah mocked the false prophets.

1 Kng 18:26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

These false prophets were just making a fool of themselves jumping up and down on the altar from morning to noon. This shows how obstinate and stubborn they were. Well, if they are going to be fools, mock them, they deserve it.

No one has blamed you for that, yet as is typical you somehow read that into the dialogue, and it was never there, nor was it even remotely there. You also do this with your interpretations winman, it's a pattern, but I humbly say that you are too proud to see it and hope that someday you will.


Honestly winman you employ these tactics yourself.

You guys were talking about me when I had nothing to do with Biblicist being banned, so I defended myself.

And I do not and did not employ the same method of interpreting scripture as Biblicist, I try to look at ALL scripture pertaining to a particular subject, and I understand scripture cannot contradict itself.

I gave the example of Romans 8:7,8. Taken alone and isolated from all other scripture these verses make an excellent argument for Total Inability. Problem is, there is much other scripture that shows this interpretation for these verses cannot be correct. When I pointed this out to Biblicist, he claimed I was going out of context and pitting scripture against scripture.

Now, he is wrong, I was not going out of context. But he is correct I was pitting scripture against scripture. And the scripture I showed proved his personal interpretation of these scriptures cannot be correct, because there is MUCH scripture that shows unregenerate men can understand and believe the gospel, and afterward they receive the Holy Spirit and are regenerated. I will show just one such scripture here and now;

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This verse refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8:7,8. It shows unregenerate men can understand at least some spiritual matters, and they have the ability to believe the gospel, and that if they do so, then afterward they receive the Holy Spirit.

Now, you tell me how my interpretation of Acts 2:38 is wrong. I will be waiting.