Only calvinists are believers.

[quantumfaith]

What no mead! at least we share our love of dogs:smilewinkgrin:

Oh boy, I am a DOG LOVER too. Have three rugrats. Papillion, Malti-Poo, and a roadside rescue which appears to be long hair chihuahua.

 

[Arbo]

Calvinism to whisky to dogs...

Methinks the thread's derailed. :laugh:

 

[mandym]

Iconoclast vehemently denies he questions the salvation of others when called out on it...on what seems to be a daily basis. Let his words condemn him.

Any other cal want to join him in this belief? I would rather have one thread where I can go to in order to update who believes me to be a reprobate so I know for future reference in debate on this board. Amazing this blatant rule violation is allowed.

You make a very good point. But seeing as the main leadership on this board is a cal it will be ignored.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinism to whisky to dogs...

Methinks the thread's derailed. :laugh:

Not at all, but after reading it it makes you want to sit back in the lazy-e-boy, have a drink pet your beloved dog (s). :smilewinkgrin:

Maybe we need to start a thread on Lazy-E-Boys....put your feet up.:wavey:

 

[Havensdad]

Sure he does, but that was not the question posed by the OP.

Sure it is. WD specifically attacks ICON for saying that certain other beliefs are outside of Christianity. You need to go back and read it again.

That IS in fact the very point of the thread...and the problem is...that ICON, is the one who fails to distinguish between the two...did this escape you? If so, how?

You need a better grasp of the English language. ICON is NOT failing to distinguish; in his belief, the line is simply drawn in a different place. You seem to think that only you are allowed to determine where that line is... :tonofbricks:

I cannot fathom what this means

Might I suggest a book on English?

...I really can't....a "degree" of "Grace" is something that only is meaningful to a Calvinist,

Or to anyone who knows the definition of the word "grace."

in that, no one else thinks that "Grace" is somehow properly defined as a causal force with a limited or certain level of efficacy.

Who on earth is trying to define grace that way? Grace is unmerited favor, extended to undeserving persons. "How much grace" is a proper use of the term...maybe that is why your theology is so off; you don't even know what the word is, or how to use it in a sentence.

You must understand Haven, that, as Calvinists have now laid claim to the very definition of the word "Grace" that no one else is now able to intelligently engage you on a discussion of the topic since, as far as anyone knows..."Grace" now apparently means: "Determinism".

Nope, it just means "unmerited" favor. Favor that is not due the person, for ANY REASON. Including that the individual was smarter, better, or more righteous enough to ask for it.

Due to this problem, there are quite a few more Cals (for the time being) but no one knows how to intelligently engage them, because they have no idea what you mean by that word.

Might I suggest Webster's Dictionary? :tonofbricks:

 

[webdog]

Sure it is. WD specifically attacks ICON for saying that certain other beliefs are outside of Christianity. You need to go back and read it again.

I attacked nobody, I quoted IC verbatim. His own words condemn. You need to go back and read it again.

You need a better grasp of the English language. ICON is NOT failing to distinguish; in his belief, the line is simply drawn in a different place. You seem to think that only you are allowed to determine where that line is... :tonofbricks:

for harping on reading comprehension so much it would do you a world of good to heed your own advice. The line was drawn at those who believe
as he does are believers, those who do not serve another god. He (nor you or anyone) has any business making such bogus claims.

Might I suggest a book on English?



Or to anyone who knows the definition of the word "grace."



Who on earth is trying to define grace that way? Grace is unmerited favor, extended to undeserving persons. "How much grace" is a proper use of the term...maybe that is why your theology is so off; you don't even know what the word is, or how to use it in a sentence.



Nope, it just means "unmerited" favor. Favor that is not due the person, for ANY REASON. Including that the individual was smarter, better, or more righteous enough to ask for it.



Might I suggest Webster's Dictionary? :tonofbricks:

Yawn.

 

[MorseOp]

I don't know everyone's history here, but is it possible that the rhetoric just becomes too heated at times and people say or interpret things the wrong way?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sure it is. WD specifically attacks ICON for saying that certain other beliefs are outside of Christianity. You need to go back and read it again.



You need a better grasp of the English language. ICON is NOT failing to distinguish; in his belief, the line is simply drawn in a different place. You seem to think that only you are allowed to determine where that line is... :tonofbricks:



Might I suggest a book on English?



Or to anyone who knows the definition of the word "grace."



Who on earth is trying to define grace that way? Grace is unmerited favor, extended to undeserving persons. "How much grace" is a proper use of the term...maybe that is why your theology is so off; you don't even know what the word is, or how to use it in a sentence.



Nope, it just means "unmerited" favor. Favor that is not due the person, for ANY REASON. Including that the individual was smarter, better, or more righteous enough to ask for it.



Might I suggest Webster's Dictionary? :tonofbricks:

Why so wordy??? All this post states is: "You are stupid and can't read." Did you need this many words to say it? Allow me to help you: next time you respond to something I say, just copy/paste this:

You can't read HoS get a dictionary.

That way, you don't need to type 250 words. :smilewinkgrin: Just trying to be as helpful as I can!

Favor that is not due the person, for ANY REASON. Including that the individual was smarter, better, or more righteous enough to ask for it.

This has always been a stupid argument....anyone not utterly ignorant of the idea behind LFW....knows that it is un-caused, and has no determining factors....to include mana, armor class, hitpoints, intelligence or righteousness. It is YOUR philosophy which requires a "determining" factor in choices...not LFW. You see.... that, Haven, is why YOU are a "determinist". You are super-imposing a determinist assumption onto a philosophy which precludes it. Is this your slam dunk! You need to demand a refund, if you went to seminary to learn to think like this.

 

[jbh28]

I would say that this thread has gone downhill, but that would assume it was ever up the hill. This has got to be one of the saddest threads I've seen in a while. The unchristlike behavior that is being demonstrated. First, the thread should never have been made. Rules clearly state that if you have a personal issue to take it up in private messaging and not in the open forum. Second, the conversation that has followed has been nothing close to christlike.

 

[webdog]

I would say that this thread has gone downhill, but that would assume it was ever up the hill. This has got to be one of the saddest threads I've seen in a while. The unchristlike behavior that is being demonstrated. First, the thread should never have been made. Rules clearly state that if you have a personal issue to take it up in private messaging and not in the open forum. Second, the conversation that has followed has been nothing close to christlike.

He made the comments on the open forum, I addressed them the same way. Nothing "sad about that. The only thing "sad" are those calvinists who believe as he does. I want them to come forward if they really believe that way so I know for future reference. Your insinuation I violated a rule without even addressing the clear rule violation (whether Havensdad thinks it is or not) is what is "sad".

 

[Alive in Christ]

Havensdad...

Sure it is. WD specifically attacks ICON for saying that certain other beliefs are outside of Christianity.

Maybe so, but its because Iconoclast had been "CARPET-CONDEMNING" every single non-cal that came his way! Basically declaring that that all non cals are heretical reprobates!

Flagrantly disregarding the warning to not question the salvation of anyone on this board.

And the mods do nothing!!

Gee, I wonder if the mods are calvinists??

 

[Iconoclast]

Havensdad...




Maybe so, but its because Iconoclast had been "CARPET-CONDEMNING" every single non-cal that came his way! Basically declaring that that all non cals are heretical reprobates!

Flagrantly disregarding the warning to not question the salvation of anyone on this board.

And the mods do nothing!!

Gee, I wonder if the mods are calvinists??

You and webdog are liars.

Provide where I said that or shut up.

Webdog pulled part of what i said out of context, because in context and understood it was fine. He just does not like it.
You cannot answer to scripture that comes your way so you jump on the band wagon....as long as these kind of threads move away from scripture to a personal attack you feel free to attempt to pile on.

You cannot answer, Aged man, Havensdad,or anyone else who offers scripture, that should be your concern as well as webdog and others who turn from scripture and look to divert things into this name calling.

if you do not care to discuss scripture, there is no need for this mindless nonsense you are posting.

 

[webdog]

You and webdog are liars.

...and you have the nerve to tell me to step up my posting This must be the "aggressive" part of the passive / agressive Iconoclast...

Provide where I said that or shut up.

Webdog pulled part of what i said out of context, because in context and understood it was fine. He just does not like it.

Yeah...right. Here we go (in context)

Quote: HOS
This is yet again, your consigning someone to Hell and proclaiming their being un-saved because they disagree with your "correction"....Why do you do this? That is evil. This is why I said: (I should not have generalized all into one group).

Quote: IC
This is evil........
HOS..... I am responding to what you post. God is the one who sends people to heaven or hell. I believe these verses;

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

I confess before men how the biblical God has saved me and others. Multitudes have agreed to the same confession of faith and others very much like it. They are called calvinists.
You and others on BB have openly denied the biblical God I worship.

Yep...still says the same thing.

You cannot answer to scripture that comes your way so you jump on the band wagon....as long as these kind of threads move away from scripture to a personal attack you feel free to attempt to pile on.

Third grade debate tactics. You have already been told and shown we answer your Scripture (when you supply it and not the work of your hero's)...you just don't like the answers, and dismiss us as lost since we do not agree with YOUR interpretation of it.

You cannot answer, Aged man, Havensdad,or anyone else who offers scripture, that should be your concern as well as webdog and others who turn from scripture and look to divert things into this name calling.

Names...like liar? Step up your game, man! Provide the Scripture that I don't worship the same God as you... or maybe it is you that needs to step back into the shadows.

if you do not care to discuss scripture, there is no need for this mindless nonsense you are posting.

Kinda like your tripe in the op?

 

[Arbo]

Yep, I like dogs.

 

[Alive in Christ]

You and webdog are liars.

Provide where I said that or shut up.

Webdog pulled part of what i said out of context, because in context and understood it was fine. He just does not like it.
You cannot answer to scripture that comes your way so you jump on the band wagon....as long as these kind of threads move away from scripture to a personal attack you feel free to attempt to pile on.

You cannot answer, Aged man, Havensdad,or anyone else who offers scripture, that should be your concern as well as webdog and others who turn from scripture and look to divert things into this name calling.

if you do not care to discuss scripture, there is no need for this mindless nonsense you are posting.

Not worthy of a response

 

[jbh28]

He made the comments on the open forum, I addressed them the same way. Nothing "sad about that. The only thing "sad" are those calvinists who believe as he does. I want them to come forward if they really believe that way so I know for future reference. Your insinuation I violated a rule without even addressing the clear rule violation (whether Havensdad thinks it is or not) is what is "sad".

My case in point.

I'm not insinuating anything. I thought I was saying it very clear. Rule 4. Also, the way you are handling it is not with grace.

 

[webdog]

My case in point.

I'm not insinuating anything. I thought I was saying it very clear. Rule 4. Also, the way you are handling it is not with grace.

It's being handled in the same way it was intended to be received, and in the way Paul handled blatant error with Peter.

 

[jbh28]

It's being handled in the same way it was intended to be received, and in the way Paul handled blatant error with Peter.

you are violating rule 3 and 4. You are doing wrong. You are not showing grace to other posters who you disagree with(violation of rule 3). You started a new thread for the sole purpose of attacking another poster.(violating of rule 4)

If you really believe Icon has done something wrong, you should contact him and the moderators and get it resolved. Having a thread like this serves no real purpose. It just gets people mad and fighting(like we have seen in the 10 pages so far).

 

[webdog]

you are violating rule 3 and 4. You are doing wrong. You are not showing grace to other posters who you disagree with(violation of rule 3). You started a new thread for the sole purpose of attacking another poster.(violating of rule 4)

One, the thread is now closed. Two, that is NOT why I started the thread, and I have no idea how you construe it to be an attack. It is exposing this sickening practice of IC (and others here) who feel they are the ONLY believers on here for adhering to a systematic theology of a flower. I have violated no rules. The violation of rules 3 and 4 were what I quoted in the OP.

 

[jbh28]

One, the thread is now closed. Two, that is NOT why I started the thread, and I have no idea how you construe it to be an attack. It is exposing this sickening practice of IC (and others here) who feel they are the ONLY believers on here for adhering to a systematic theology of a flower. I have violated no rules. The violation of rules 3 and 4 were what I quoted in the OP.

That's exactly why you started the thread. It is an attack on the character of another poster. You have violated 2 rules which I already showed you in the previous post. Don't deny it.

Anyway, this is my last response here unless you have a question for me. It's obvious you don't want to be corrected. I would agree that questioning ones salvation would be wrong, but if you feel that has been done, there is a correct way to handle it. Starting a thread about another poster for the this purpose is a rules violation.