Special Thank You!!

[steaver]

that is how he posts he becomes your spokesman and tells you what you were implying or what you would say then he can respond to his own post that he himself created

Really brother? Did you read his post? It was exactly what he said, "we will ALWAYS choose eternity in hell". What is wrong with you people??

 

[steaver]

Don't put words in my mouth Steve. I never said that nor did I imply that. Now you are being deceiptful.

Oh good grief!!!

Oh Willis....alas they are yet in rebellion against holy God. We see a similar a priori presupposition in the case of atheistic naturalists concerning creation -- it just cannot be, for there is no First Cause that supernaturally spoke the cosmos into being by fiat, ex nihilo. Here, their presupposition is that God ALWAYS gives humans the final word in their own fate -- and in a sense He does, for left to our own devices, we will ALWAYS choose to spend eternity in hell! It is into that presupposition that God breaks, giving us (John 3:16-20) LIFE and more so, graciously and mercifully, ABUNDANT life

Do you guys even know what you are saying when you begin typing???????????????????

Now, did they choose hell, or did God choose it for them??

 

[steaver]

I read it, but I never read where he stated that Israel was a tool. I may have overlooked it and failed to see it. But, he was addressing works as being an evidence of salvation. I agree that Israel failed in keeping the commandments. We all do that. But their purpose was to bring forth the Messiah to die for sinners. .

Ephesians 2:10 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Eph 2:10). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

We are God's poiema (ποίημα - product/creation. What has been made). When something is made it is made for a purpose. The toolmaker makes a tool to perform a certain job. If it is made well the tool will perform as intended.

In Matthew 21 we read this of Jesus' encounter with a barren fig tree:

Matthew 21:18-19 18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry 19 Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He *said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Mt 21:18–19). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

The fig tree in this passage represents fruitless Israel. Israel was fruitless because it failed to do what God intended for it to do. God's covenant with Israel was contingent upon the nation's obedience.

Deuteronomy 11:26-28 26 “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today; 28 and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Dt 11:26–28). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Deuteronomy 28:15 15 “But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Dt 28:15). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Christians have been created in Christ Jesus for good works. Just like Israel was established in order to keep God's covenant, we, the members of Christ's church, have been created to do what God wants us to do, namely, good works. The absence of good works calls into question our profession based on the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture. Good works will differ in scope and frequency, and abiding sin may war with the new man making our works scarce at times. But make no mistake, we were created for good works by Christ Himself. They are not optional. They are the evidence of the new birth; not be be confused with a requirement of the new birth. While we were dead in our trespasses and sin (Ephesians 2:1) we had nothing to bring to Christ besides our sin. Our hearts were a den of iniquity and we were worthy only of wrath. But, oh! Glorious grace! Grace transformed us from workers of iniquity to workers of righteousness through Christ who died for us.

We were created for good works

I showed brother Reform his contradiction, which he could have simply stepped back and said your right I should not say that, but instead he didn't want to deal with it. Hey, we all make mistakes at times and need to correct something said. To often pride gets in the way of taking constructive criticism.

So I asked, why did the tool fail? Was it not made well by God?

It was made just fine by God, however, there is this thing called God given freewill in which people have the ability to listen and learn or rebel and suffer the consequences.

When God finished creation He said it was "very good". God made it just fine, perfect in fact. And in that Creation God implemented choice, and in order to have a freedom of choice there must be a real choice to be had. Enter satan..........

I am very leery of the Eternal Justification that has been bandied about by some on here. But, God deals with His sheep in a different way than He does the goats. The sheep are chastened until they get in line. God chastens them that He loves. Even before we were saved, He loved us. Christ bore our sins, our penalty, on Himself and nailed them to the cross.

But to say God loves the goats is foreign to the bible, imo...

There is a difference of opinion on this from Calvinist here on the BB. As I said, I believe Icon and Reform both have stated God hates the person until the person is regenerated.

 

[Benjamin]

You are still as modest as ever Ben.

Speaking of your whipping boys. I am wondering if you have changed your mind on at least one subject. Back in April of 2010 the subject of one of the threads was Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel. (The deceased died a year ago this month.)

You had said the following in one of your posts on 4/20/2010: "To be frank,...Hard/Determinism/Hyper Calvinism does more to fit the bill of cultic teachings, and/or is not teaching the true Word, and is more damaging than Murray's Cain/Kenite stuff in comparison."

Of course you never fleshed-out what Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism is, and who its proponents are and have been.

Rip, yer funny, my rhetorical friend. But you don’t even seem to realize that your first response regarding my claim, “As expected, Calvinists/Determinists do not seem interested in rational and ethical debate, and/or they simply don't understand the principles of critical thinking skills.” began with a direct rhetorical personal attack which clearly demonstrates the aforementioned ignorance concerning a lack of structured debate here. Then you follow by your second response - a totally off topic, red herring fallacy supplemented by what you apparently hope is a “good attempt” at another fallacy of “poisoning the well”. So Rip, you merely unwittingly proved my point with your fallacious examples that you, “simply don't understand the principles of critical thinking skills” concerning having a debate with some basic logical principles.

Of course you never fleshed-out what Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism is, and who its proponents are and have been.

Now Rip, this tactic of yours to set up a scenario where you start squealing the distress call, like a pig stuck in the mud, by claiming someone has alluded to the conveniently and often biasedly used dreaded charge here of heresy toward one of your heroes, say “Calvin” for instance

, is getting old. Especially, in light of your hypocrisy regarding your supposed entitlement to straight out call John Wesley a heretic on this board. DO we really go down these roads and play these games every time in order to support an unrelated claim??? BTW, that’s a rhetorical question, as shown above you’ve already helped me demonstrate my point and to draw out the truth on this matter of my claim in this thread.

Your philosophical musings have found a more receptive audience now?

As a matter of fact, my growth in the area of drawing out the truth from within people’s claims through defining and using logical principles of reason has proved to be quite beneficial, at least for those who are interested in the truth. A while back I was talking to the leader of a Bible study group who were going down the road of Calvinism’s philosophical musings of the TULIP. As commonly takes place by those being introduced into owning a soteriological position they were enthusiastically falling for it hook, line and sinker, but my logical warnings to him of the theological fatalism of Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism views ended up getting relayed to his class. The result was that all 7 of them turned away from and rejected the “Doctrines of Preselected Deterministic Grace” AKA Calvinism. There have also been several individual cases where I have used constructive philosophical reasoning to reveal the truth concerning the Doctrines of Determinism. So yes, I would say I am finding receptive audiences due to my continued study and commitment of logically cutting through and exposing the common meaningless rhetorical arguments given by Calvinists.

…But I must admit it is easier when a person is actually more interested in drawing out the truth in a debate rather than merely senselessly arguing and that seems to be a rarity as far as those who typically try to push Calvinistic agendas on the internet.

It not too late though Rip, remember, “Whatever you practice you get better at.” For instance anytime you’d like to address this thread concerning a common fallacy (weasel words), started a while back in your honor, it will be waiting. Really! You might learn something about basic logic and critical thinking skills. Maybe then we could see who would like to retract what without all the rhetorical fallacious nonsense you’ve grown so accustomed to relying on around here.

I hope your sentences have become more concise.

I try.

You used an economy of words in this post. So maybe you're improving in that area.

Well, thank you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

that is how he posts he becomes your spokesman and tells you what you were implying or what you would say then he can respond to his own post that he himself created

Yea....the guy has had an agenda from the very beginning ....that's what I mean by rebellion. Denying the doctrine of total inibility and downplaying the doctrine of origional sin & insisting on a universal atonement. Bottom line here is that these types insist on preserving a place for human agency in the process of salvation. Well I beg to differ....see from my prospective, when divine sovereignty is pushed aside to make way for human ability, a theological dislocation occurs and this guy is a perfect example of it. So Iconoclastic & Willis, you guys should just give it up....either he will come around or he wont. Thats his choice.


Me....I gotta church to find or plant in my community. I have little time for this guy. Bless youse for trying though.

 

[steaver]

Yea....the guy has had an agenda from the very beginning ....that's what I mean by rebellion. Denying the doctrine of total inibility and downplaying the doctrine of origional sin & insisting on a universal atonement. Bottom line here is that these types insist on preserving a place for human agency in the process of salvation. Well I beg to differ....see from my prospective, when divine sovereignty is pushed aside to make way for human ability, a theological dislocation occurs and this guy is a perfect example of it. So Iconoclastic & Willis, you guys should just give it up....either he will come around or he wont. Thats his choice.


Me....I gotta church to find or plant in my community. I have little time for this guy. Bless youse for trying though.

WHAT???? You mean I have a CHOICE????? :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

WHAT???? You mean I have a CHOICE????? :thumbs:

Here yes....belief no.:tongue3:

 

[Rippon]

Rip, yer funny, my rhetorical friend. But you don’t even seem to realize that your first response regarding my claim, “As expected, Calvinists/Determinists do not seem interested in rational and ethical debate, and/or they simply don't understand the principles of critical thinking skills.” began with a direct rhetorical personal attack which clearly demonstrates the aforementioned ignorance concerning a lack of structured debate here. Then you follow by your second response - a totally off topic, red herring fallacy supplemented by what you apparently hope is a “good attempt” at another fallacy of “poisoning the well”. So Rip, you merely unwittingly proved my point with your fallacious examples that you, “simply don't understand the principles of critical thinking skills” concerning having a debate with some basic logical principles.

And on and on you go for ages. You have not learned to be concise at all. But I had such high hopes for you. You keep getting lost in the weeds.

Why can't you simply answer direct questions with direct answers?

The teachings of Arnold Murray are still pretty solid in your eyes compared to Calvinists --which you refer to as hard determinists and hyper-Calvinists.

Nope, you have not changed -- such a pity.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rip, yer funny, my rhetorical friend. But you don’t even seem to realize that your first response regarding my claim, “As expected, Calvinists/Determinists do not seem interested in rational and ethical debate, and/or they simply don't understand the principles of critical thinking skills.” began with a direct rhetorical personal attack which clearly demonstrates the aforementioned ignorance concerning a lack of structured debate here. Then you follow by your second response - a totally off topic, red herring fallacy supplemented by what you apparently hope is a “good attempt” at another fallacy of “poisoning the well”. So Rip, you merely unwittingly proved my point with your fallacious examples that you, “simply don't understand the principles of critical thinking skills” concerning having a debate with some basic logical principles.

Now Rip, this tactic of yours to set up a scenario where you start squealing the distress call, like a pig stuck in the mud, by claiming someone has alluded to the conveniently and often biasedly used dreaded charge here of heresy toward one of your heroes, say “Calvin” for instance

, is getting old. Especially, in light of your hypocrisy regarding your supposed entitlement to straight out call John Wesley a heretic on this board. DO we really go down these roads and play these games every time in order to support an unrelated claim??? BTW, that’s a rhetorical question, as shown above you’ve already helped me demonstrate my point and to draw out the truth on this matter of my claim in this thread.



As a matter of fact, my growth in the area of drawing out the truth from within people’s claims through defining and using logical principles of reason has proved to be quite beneficial, at least for those who are interested in the truth. A while back I was talking to the leader of a Bible study group who were going down the road of Calvinism’s philosophical musings of the TULIP. As commonly takes place by those being introduced into owning a soteriological position they were enthusiastically falling for it hook, line and sinker, but my logical warnings to him of the theological fatalism of Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism views ended up getting relayed to his class. The result was that all 7 of them turned away from and rejected the “Doctrines of Preselected Deterministic Grace” AKA Calvinism. There have also been several individual cases where I have used constructive philosophical reasoning to reveal the truth concerning the Doctrines of Determinism. So yes, I would say I am finding receptive audiences due to my continued study and commitment of logically cutting through and exposing the common meaningless rhetorical arguments given by Calvinists.

…But I must admit it is easier when a person is actually more interested in drawing out the truth in a debate rather than merely senselessly arguing and that seems to be a rarity as far as those who typically try to push Calvinistic agendas on the internet.

It not too late though Rip, remember, “Whatever you practice you get better at.” For instance anytime you’d like to address this thread concerning a common fallacy (weasel words), started a while back in your honor, it will be waiting. Really! You might learn something about basic logic and critical thinking skills. Maybe then we could see who would like to retract what without all the rhetorical fallacious nonsense you’ve grown so accustomed to relying on around here.

I try.
Well, thank you.

another post...carnal speculations, debate fallacy this and red herring that, but once again...no scripture at all:thumbs: