What establishes your hermeneutics?

[TCGreek]

Wow, TCGreek, NPet, and Webdog, you sure know how to ruin threads with your juvenile posts.
Reading through those last two or three pages was an absolute waste of time.

It's embarrassing for the rest of us no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

TCGreek, I personally think you should never have posted this:


That is so blatantly and intentionally inflammatory.
It was just downhill from there.

Maybe a moderator could delete those posts. I would hate for that stuff to be archived.

1. While I acknowledge my wrongdoing here, I wish not to defend myself.

2. Personally, I find nothing juvenile about our exchanges; I thought they were in good taste, but if you thought they were juvenile, then I'm sorry about that.

3. There's nothing blatantly and intentionally inflammatory about what I wrote. I suggest you reread it in light of what has been discussed prior to it. Again, if you thought it was wrong, for that I apologize.

However, keep this in mind: That what you consider inflammatory may not necessarily be such.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

1. While I acknowledge my wrongdoing here, I wish not to defend myself.

2. Personally, I find nothing juvenile about our exchanges; I thought they were in good taste, but if you thought they were juvenile, then I'm sorry about that.

3. There's nothing blatantly and intentionally inflammatory about what I wrote. I suggest you reread it in light of what has been discussed prior to it. Again, if you thought it was wrong, for that I apologize.

However, keep this in mind: That what you consider inflammatory may not necessarily be such.

Apparantly webdog and I both agree on this. I think it was inflammatory and so did he given his initial response. And as you know, he and I don't agree over the Calvinism debate, but we both saw something in your post that we both felt was purposefully provoking, aka inflammatory.
I realize that you don't answer to me about your posts, but since your posts represent in part the Calvinistic view on this board and I'm a Calvinist, I didn't think the posts were doing anything to bolster our theological views nor the regard of Calvinists in general.

Anyways, thanks for acknowledging my concerns.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I agree with the above. I apologize for my part in the wasted pages on this thread. When attacked, I need to just let it roll off my back instead of fighting back. I've always been a fight guy instead of a flight guy...and that is something I need the Potter to crush and mold in me. No love lost for my brothers...

Thanks for being willing to admit all that, even if it meant agreeing with me on something.

 

[npetreley]

Apparantly webdog and I both agree on this. I think it was inflammatory and so did he given his initial response. And as you know, he and I don't agree over the Calvinism debate, but we both saw something in your post that we both felt was purposefully provoking, aka inflammatory.

I will also admit to contributing to the waste. I don't mean this as an excuse, but I don't take kindly to those who call us liars or self-deceived if we claim to have derived our soteriology from scripture and not from man. If webdog wants to continue to make this claim, he'll find no friendly response from me.

 

[J.D.]

Feel free to use it anyway you want...
And the numbers were arbitrary... The point is, they needed to work through all of them before trying to applying it to their lives....

Amy, Npet, and all others.. why don't you take some controversial passage like Romans 9 and work through it with my work sheet...

It may open your eyes to something, or confirm others....

Sounds like a good idea. John Piper says that Rom 9 is "the tiger that devours freewillers". It would be interesting to see some folks that might be in the neutral corner (if there is such a thing) on the C v A debate use a good hermeneutical approach to Rom 9 and see how it comes out.

 

[TCGreek]

Apparantly webdog and I both agree on this. I think it was inflammatory and so did he given his initial response. And as you know, he and I don't agree over the Calvinism debate, but we both saw something in your post that we both felt was purposefully provoking, aka inflammatory.

1. I went back and reread what Webdog said and he mentioned nothing about my post being inflammatory.

I realize that you don't answer to me about your posts, but since your posts represent in part the Calvinistic view on this board and I'm a Calvinist, I didn't think the posts were doing anything to bolster our theological views nor the regard of Calvinists in general.

2. Isaiah40:28, If you get into a discussion on Calvinism vs. a non-Calvinism view of Scripture, it is up to you to defend your bent.

3. Some of us on BB have built a relationship where we feel comfortable to get involved in one another's discussion with someone of the non-Calvinism bent. I find nothing wrong with that.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I will also admit to contributing to the waste. I don't mean this as an excuse, but I don't take kindly to those who call us liars or self-deceived if we claim to have derived our soteriology from scripture and not from man. If webdog wants to continue to make this claim, he'll find no friendly response from me.

I realize we are all goaded into unfriendly responses at times.
The point I want to be heard is, let our responses be edifying and firm at the same time. A gracious remark goes a lot farther than a snide one.
And if we can't find it in ourselves to do that, then let the post/comment slide.
We don't have to nor can we address everything from everyone.

But thanks for adding your acknowledgement as well.

 

[J.D.]

I will also admit to contributing to the waste. I don't mean this as an excuse, but I don't take kindly to those who call us liars or self-deceived if we claim to have derived our soteriology from scripture and not from man. If webdog wants to continue to make this claim, he'll find no friendly response from me.

I have to admit that even though I'm trying to avoid rancor these days I've silently enjoyed this old-fashioned C v A thread-hijacking row. One of these days I'm gonna take some time off from work and sit down and get with you guys - and we'll need to get Helen on line too - so I can participate in a good old free-for-all CvA brawl.

Okay, I'm evil - what else can I say?

Of course if you want to see some real combat we'll need to hunt down Joseph Botwinick and get him and Brother Bob goin at it.

BTW - Webdog, you were the instigator here.:tongue3: (that emoticon is sticking out his tongue to make you laugh at my inflammatory comment)

 

[TCGreek]

I have to admit that even though I'm trying to avoid rancor these days I've silently enjoyed this old-fashioned C v A thread-hijacking row. One of these days I'm gonna take some time off from work and sit down and get with you guys - and we'll need to get Helen on line too - so I can participate in a good old free-for-all CvA brawl.

Okay, I'm evil - what else can I say?

Of course if you want to see some real combat we'll need to hunt down Joseph Botwinick and get him and Brother Bob goin at it.

BTW - Webdog, you were the instigator here.:tongue3: (that emoticon is sticking out his tongue to make you laugh at my inflammatory comment)

I agree, Let's not kill a good thing. :thumbs:

 

[Isaiah40:28]

1. I went back and reread what Webdog said and he mentioned nothing about my post being inflammatory.

Thank you for allowing little non majestic 'ole me for gracing the presence of such majestic calvinists with such awe inspiring vast wisdom and knowledge.

BARF!!!

The pride on here is truly amazing!

You don't think he thought your words were purposefully provoking or inflammatory when he wrote this? (As soon as I read your post, I knew they were gonna jump all over you and rightfully so.)

Well, let's ask him then.

Webdog, did TCGreek's comments strike you as being purposefully provoking or inflammatory?

2. Isaiah40:28, If you get into a discussion on Calvinism vs. a non-Calvinism view of Scripture, it is up to you to defend your bent.

Exactly, keeping in mind that your posts may influence for good or bad the viewpoint you espouse.

3. Some of us on BB have built a relationship where we feel comfortable to get involved in one another's discussion with someone of the non-Calvinism bent. I find nothing wrong with that.

Nor do I. I get involved all the time. I just try not to "gang up" on the person, but provide meaningful posts by which discussion can progress forward and not take a nosedive into the ground.

 

[npetreley]

Webdog, did TCGreek's comments strike you as being purposefully provoking or inflammatory?

Now you seem to want to prolong the conflict.... What difference would web's answer make? Does it prove it was inflammatory? How about we just drop it?

 

[TCGreek]

Now you seem to want to prolong the conflict.... What difference would web's answer make? Does it prove it was inflammatory? How about we just drop it?

I'm for that.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Yes, please. Let's drop it.