The elect are choice meat?

[Iconoclast]

OK, I'm seeing what you guys are objecting to now. Unfortunate use of words.

I presume he meant that the meat was favored because it was chosen, not that it was chosen because it was favorable.
But, yeah, that's not what he said.

ITL,
You have shown yourself to be objective an honest overall.
That being said I cannot help but think we could show you a video of a non-cal robbing the bank, and you would find a reason why it was okay because you were going to defend him as a kindred spirit.
I get that. I have sometimes defended friends more for our overall friendship, rather than one particular incident.

Leighton attempted to present his positions and objections. We were all over him for sure as he was coming against what we see as truth. Sometimes we got heated up, as he did. That being said, he came back day after day and tried to make his case.
I would like if he popped in from time to time.
What is sad is...he looks to be objecting to object. Not objecting to come to truth.

He takes all solid grace verses and tries to explain them away with stories and anecdotes. James White was quick to point this out on the dividing line. Do not get caught in that trap.
He tries to take on John Macarthur, Dr.White, Rc Sproul, Jeff Durbin, and others on his podcast. he fails but no one is there to stop and question him. On BB, we did not let any of it slide.

 

[InTheLight]

ITL I cannot help but think we could show you a video of a non-cal robbing the bank, and you would find a reason why it was okay because you were going to defend him as a kindred spirit.
I get that. I have sometimes defended friends more for our overall friendship, rather than one particular incident.

I try to be objective. I would point to my opposition to Trump (as a person, not his political views) before the 2016 election and my now supporting him as proof that I can change my mind.

I've seen Calvinists band together in defense of things they should leave alone. More often, however, they've remained silent when some of their more hyper brethren post some wild stuff.

Leighton attempted to present his positions and objections. We were all over him for sure as he was coming against what we see as truth. Sometimes we got heated up, as he did. That being said, he came back day after day and tried to make his case.
I would like if he popped in from time to time.

I vaguely remember a Skandelon that posted here, which I now understand to be Dr. Flowers. Don't remember any particular threads involving him though.

 

[Iconoclast]

I try to be objective. I would point to my opposition to Trump (as a person, not his political views) before the 2016 election and my now supporting him as proof that I can change my mind.

I've seen Calvinist's band together in defense of things they should leave alone. More often, however, they've remained silent when some of their more hyper brethren post some wild stuff.
I vaguely remember a Skandelon that posted here, which I now understand to be Dr. Flowers. Don't remember any particular threads involving him though.

I agree. Once in awhile, I have been one who refrained. In those cases, I agree with the content of the person, and not necessarily on the way it was presented.
I have had some Cals back off of my posts for this reason also. They agree doctrinally, but do not support my method of communicating.

We only knew him as Skandelon. Aaron and P4T figured him out right from the start, and the rest of us saw he favored pauls objector in romans ( rather than the truth Paul offered. he still does so on His podcasts.

 

[Rob_BW]

It's truly a horrible analogy.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.

 

[Reformed]

Speaking only for me, I am focusing on LF's theology; what he believes and how he presents his arguments. If you watch his 2015 debate with James White (JW) on what was supposed to be Romans 9, you will see a textbook example of eisegesis combined with utter ignorance of the subject.

JW came into the debate having done his homework. He was prepared to have a discussion of the text in Romans 9. LW came armed with anecdotes and appeals to conscience. When JW pressed LF on why he could not offer any exegetical support for his position he deflected to blog posts and podcasts he had made, as though they an acceptable substitute for unpacking the text. LF tried to suggest JW and R.C. Sproul contradicted each other, a fallacy he had to apologize for later in the debate.

While JW won the debate going away, the reason it was so easy for JW is that LF did not argue from the text. No matter which side of theological debate you are on, you lose when you argue from man-centered, unbiblical logic. Calvinists can fall prey to this to, so it is not just a Synergist problem.

Lastly, debating JW is not a walk in the park. The man is at his best in debates and responding extemporaneously. He can mistakes too but you better bring your A game.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[MartyF]

If you watch his 2015 debate with James White (JW) on what was supposed to be Romans 9, you will see a textbook example of eisegesis combined with utter ignorance of the subject.

 

[tyndale1946]

He said choice meats, something that moves ppl to them. That’s how he defined choice in election. There was nothing ‘choice’ in the elect that attracted God to them. He elected them based on nothing good in them...because there’s not, but Himself.

According to scriptures I was Elected by the Father and given to his Son Jesus Christ when I didn't get a vote... And according to scriptures, I was Eternally Saved by Jesus Christ's precious sinless blood on Calvary's cross, when I was Ungodly, an enemy and a sinner... Hallelujah!!!... THAT"S MY GOD!!!... Brother Glen

Btw... I could quote scripture but I'm sure most brethren know what I'm talking about.

 

[Benjamin]

When will that Dr. Flower ever learn the Calvinist doctrine that God doesn’t choose based on anything, His judgment is truly NOT His real way, Deuteronomy 32:4, but rather as the Monergists/Determinists have declared God has gone about to pre-determined all men’s predestination based/judged on… least of all human volition, but well, the only acceptable way to explain God’s judgment is it is based on …umm, NOTHING. Probably just pure chance, like before creation God sat down on His throne at His table and said eenie, meenie, miney moe, this one stays but this one’s got to go…

 

[Iconoclast]

View attachment 2932

This seems sort of profane, don't you think?

 

[utilyan]

If you guys hear him and figure a person is saved by their own merit, its no surprise you got the bible all wrong too.

The "choice meat" is the result of being born again.

 

[Rockson]

Dr Flowers has given a rebuttal to Mr Whitie's charges. I believe most hearing it will set aside White's concerns as a misrepresentation .

 

[Mr. Davis]

I am saved by no merit of my own and I am not lost by any demerit of own, right?