From old England

[Pastor Scott Markle]

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

Follow the grammar of my sentence . . . .

Sister Ronda,

I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to ask your forgiveness for one particular element of my above response.  I opened that response with a commanding tone.  That was not "with grace, seasoned with salt."  I should, rather, have opened with a requesting tone, saying, "Please follow the grammar of my sentence."  I did not simply edit my response, because I believe that the Holy Spirit would have me to ask your forgiveness -- Will you forgive me for the tone of my opening statement in my above response?

[Ronda]

Apology accepted as per your tone. I ask your forgiveness in my own tone as well. I do hope we can return to civil/respectful/courteous discussion we did have before. I am not laying the blame at your feet (for the tone), as we got into a somewhat heated debate and both of us could have been more Christ-like in our addressing each other. I am taking it to the Lord in prayer. 

[Alimantado]

Hi Ronda

Since your earlier post seemed to be aimed at me (i.e. you quoted me), I'm going to reply to you out of respect, even though you've rarely responded when I've talked to you in the past.

19 hours ago, Ronda said:

Interesting you mention that... because here is what I found on a VERY QUICK once-over the reformed site brother Alan stated that these men regularly post on:

on this page: http://www.reformedtheologyinstitute.com/
I found this statement: "In general, the covenant of works was made with Adam, and in him with all his seed. The covenant of grace was made with Christ, and in Him with all the elect."

Oh, they do not call it a different gospel.they call it a different COVENANT over on the reformed site. Maybe you would consider that "the pot calling the kettle black", but probably won't take into consideration that I do not ascribe to replacement theology. Romans 9-11 makes it clear that God has NOT cast away His people (Israel) 

Firstly, I'm not sure I understand your point here, but since I'm the one who's just brought up the promotion of multiple gospels, I can only think you are saying that 'pot calls the kettle black' applies to me because I am objecting to the promotion of multiple gospels while at the same time affirming multiple gospels myself by believing in reformed doctrines. If you think this, please consider that I don't believe in reformed doctrines, and I'm not a member of that site.

Secondly, I know you don't subscribe to replacement theology and I don't think anything I've said in this thread (or any other) implies or in some way relies on a presumption that you do.

Quote

Now I do not claim I agree with ALL the things any other person on this forum believes, whether they be labelled a "hyper-dispensationalist" or not. I can only speak for myself.  And I do not claim I know more or better than anyone else. But I DO claim this: I DO love the Lord with all my heart. I DO study prayerfully and seriously, it's not a passing fad or just something to talk/argue about...

...if I err, it's because I take the words of God as literally as possible, with as much reverence as possible, and do not ever attempt to say that "no, it doesn't really mean what it says". Fault me all you want, but at least concede the truth... I do my best to take His word literal. 

Whether or not you feel your beliefs are honestly and sincerely held, whether you feel you interpret scripture literally while others don't, whether you can write a robust, scriptural defence of your doctrinal beliefs--none of those things are relevant to the point I was making.

What I was saying was, if we want to say that those who hold to calvinism or don't hold to dispensationalism or do or don't hold to some other eschatological view aren't welcome on this IFB forum, then what do we say about the range of views on the gospel? There are folk on here, including yourself (see below--just one example of many such postings) who on the one hand are saying the forum needs to take a hard line on things like eschatology and the atonement but on the other hand seem to be saying a wide spectrum of views on the gospel is fine so long as the holders are sincere. That doesn't sound very consistent to me.

My own opinion on it? I'd welcome an approach like the one Pastor Markle highlighted earlier, and yeah that would involve a more precise set of board rules than we have at present. For my first three years on this forum I was an atheist and in that time I questioned just about every Christian belief as politely as I could and as quietly as I could, and I got patient answers back. So I'm all for sincere, moderated discussion.

On 12/09/2015 at 1:47 AM, Ronda said:

I often wonder why non-Baptist people come here and become members.  Could it be they want to cause contention and chaos? What good work are they doing for the Lord by doing this? NONE that I can see.  Is that a Christian thing to do? Is Calvinism am IFB doctrine? Nope. Why try to throw in a reference to non-IFB beliefs in every other forum topic?  ? Why doesn't the non-IFB member go start their own site and their own forums for their own denomination/beliefs? Could it be that mayb they weren't "predestined" to start their own forum/site??? lol 

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by Alimantado
typos

[Ronda]

8 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Since your earlier post seemed to be aimed at me (i.e. you quoted me), I'm going to reply to you out of respect, even though you've rarely responded when I've talked to you in the past.

Dear "Alimantando", I am sorry that if I gave the impression that my entire post was directed at you... it was not.

You may or may not be aware that I did openly state I was disengaging on certain parts of this discussion since parts of this discussion spilled over into another thread.
That said, if I respond to your statement, I cannot fully answer for myself.
If I did... I would be going back on my word,
and if I do not... I am then "not answering" you.
and if I try to find a happy medium by answering in part, then I leave myself wide open and vulnerable to "attack" (the picture in my mind is an animal rolling over with it's soft underbelly exposed and ready to be gutted) with no recourse to answer certain things without having to go back on my word of disengaging about a particular part of the topics I brought forth.

I will, however, risk answering a small part of your statement:

The direct quote I made from you was this (I added the blue color):
"Alan, and yet while they've been away, their particular profusion of 'interesting arguments' has been more than replaced in volume and frequency by another profusion of arguments, about there being multiple gospels and about how salvation isn't always by grace through faith alone. And this latter profusion appears to have been more widely tolerated on OB than the former."

I will rehash some point for clarification (without getting into the topic I disengaged from):

I do not hold the same belief as the gentlemen who frequent the reformed site.
I did not know if you do or do not hold to reformed theology and so the parts about reformed theology were not directed at you 
I was not alluding to you when I shared the statement I found on the reformed theology site. I did not clarify the people who are members of that site because I believe that was already addressed by brother Alan, so I didn't think I needed to clarify that.
And since you, yourself, had stated "their particular profusion of interesting argument..."(etc) I assumed you knew to whom I was referring and not to yourself.

And now to answer (in part) another statement forces a conundrum...
If I answer it will likely be said I am attenpting to advance a certain position, when in fact I am just giving the position.
And if I do not answer it, then I cannot defend my position.
So again I am left with something not close to a happy medium... but it will have to suffice.

8 hours ago, Alimantado said:

What I was saying was, if we want to say that those who hold to calvinism or don't hold to dispensationalism or do or don't hold to some other eschatological view aren't welcome on this IFB forum, then what do we say about the range of views on the gospel?

Believing something to be true is NOT the same as PROMOTING something.
For example. I believe that at one time there was a law in this town which could fine a person for spitting on the sidewalk. No matter what I think about that particular law (good or bad) I believe it WAS once true because when I read the old by-laws it was written there in them.
My belief that it was at one point true, in no way means that I promote it to be true now. That is likely a very poor example, but I hope to convey the difference in the belief in something and the promotion of something.
I do take offense when someone says that I "promote" something to which I do not actually promote (and I am not singling you out because the same rhetoric has been stated by other people).

I DO promote the gospel of grace by faith and belief in Jesus alone for salvation.
I do NOT promote any other gospel for this dispensation nor to anyone IN this dispensation, nor will I ever.
I could (again) bring forth scriptural reasons for this belief, and have not (in this answer) brought forth specific verses as this opens up a can of worms which has already been discussed, and does overlap on a recent conversation to which I have disengaged. If I go into detail, I will again be bringing forth verses pertaining to why I believe what I believe (literally and scripturally) and will then be called into question for promoting something which I don't actually promote and for but believing something to be true instead (in a past dispensation). Hope that cleared that up.

I admit I do believe in the pre-trib rapture (and before coming to this site I thought ALL IFB did as well). And I admit I made some rather rude and snide comments to  a brother in regard to this. I should not have done so. I still firmly believe in the pre-rtib rapture, but I do not think I should have made such comments as I did, in the tone and disrespect with which I did. But there is something to which I DO take a hard line. Replacement theology leads to antisemitism which then leads #1: unfair ethical treatment of Jews #2: persecution of Jews #3: actual Jewsh lives being taken by murderers
Conditions such as these were seen escalating just prior to the holocaust. And this is happening again today in rapid increase. That is why I say I despise (in strong terms) replacement theology.
There are other reasons as well... all Biblical and if you would like to discuss that I would be happy to bring forth verses which show that God has not cast off His people Israel, but that they are (temporarily) blinded in part until the fulness of the gentiles be come in, and that God gave an irrevocable/unconditional land covenant with Israel.
I digress (temporarily) or I will likely fill a page on the topic.
And let me add I hate the sin of replacement theology, but not the person him/herself who ascribes to it. 
Those are ones I pray for most earnestly.

Another difference I would like to point out in regard to belief/promotion is that one of the reasons I despise replacement theology  is that they DO PROMOTE the belief that the church CURRENTLY replaces Israel.
It is not something they believe happened in the past but is not relevant for today, it is something they believe is true for right now in this current age of grace.
I would say that is promoting something... something a person believes IS relevant for today and IS relevant for the age of grace.
Which is the difference in believing something once was but no longer is in operation, as compared to promoting something that is (supposedly) true now. Not only that, but something that they want others to participate in. Replacement theology/antisemitism.
There is a difference (to me) in what someone believes was once true but is no longer true, compared to believing something IS true and relevant NOW.
I guess no-one (but me) sees the difference there.

Thank you for telling me that you were an atheist questioning Christian beliefs.  I am glad that you got patient answers back during that time when you were searching for answers in Christ.
I am glad you found this forum condusive to learning and a non-hostile environment. I would not say that is the case right now. I can give examples of recent visitor's who went scurrying off after reading some rather nasty comments amongst supposed brothers/sisters.
Then some have used the excuse that they do not consider another person a brother or sister (which somehow gives them the right to speak to that person however they wish, I assume).
It reminds me of the man in Luke 10. I don't know how much Bible reading/studying you do, but there's a neat story here in Luke 10:25-37  about a lawyer (they must still be the same today, always looking for a loophole, lol). This lawyer asked Jesus some questions. PART of Jesus' answer was that he should love "thy neighbour as thyself".  Right away the lawyer man was looking for a loophole. Verse 29 "But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?"
You can read the account for yourself (maybe you already have, I do not know how much you do or don't know so please do not think I am talking down to you in any way).
Some people will find ways to treat other people with disrespect and justify it with certain verses. But many of those same people (and I'm not talking about this being specific to this forum by any means... professing "christians" are rampant with this all over the world), but many of those same people will then say "you will know them by their fruits", when they themselves do not employ Galatians 5:22-23 in the least for themselves.
I, myself have had my "hackles raised" a few times and spoke hastily before truly considering the tone or attitude with which I should be addressing another person.

It is true that "you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", an old adage my grandma used to say...
In plain terms... a person will likely learn more from another person who treats them with patience and kindness when they do have questions.
Rather than someone who is hostile to them. And when disagreements arise all of us (including myself) could be more grown up and respectful towards each other...

You (yourself) have recently stated: "contending earnestly for any true belief is still good"
Yet now you state that you would welcome an approach "that would involve a more precise set of board rules than we have at present."
So forgive me if I have difficulty reonciling the two statements.
I agree that there should be some parameters. But as for how far the parameters go... that's another issue.
We have wonderful moderators who have vastly differing views on some things one from the other. 
So who would decide a newer set of parameters? And why (in honestly) would those parameters be set?
Some who disagree on topics are outraged when another person's viewpoint doesn't "match" their own (and not just me or with me, I've seen plenty of disagreements here which had nothing to do with me nor my own particular beliefs). If someone is bringing scriptural evidence forth to support their belief should that be disregarded?
And the answer can't be "I think I know better than you do, so your understanding is void" (in broad terms)
Then again, the ecumenical movement throughout churches today is also rampant and no-one wants the "all roads lead to god" lie. So there has to be a happy medium there somewhere. Someone recently asked a question about IFB doctrinal statements. If you take a look around the web for brick and mortar IFB churches which have a web page, you will quickly see that there are a wide range of differences in doctrinal tenets. I myself was a member/attended an IFB church for a good part of my life... that church teaches and believes the same way I do (what many people here call "hyper-dispensationalism"). When I came here I was pretty naive' in thinking that everybody else was going to believe the exact same way I did. I had thought all IFB believed the exact same way! YIKES!  It was a RUDE AWAKENING for sure!!! Not only did I find that many here do not believe dispensationally the same way, but that I am called into question for these beliefs on a regular basis. I came for fellowship... I do get some fellowship... but I can say it was not what I was expecting when I came here. The rose colored glasses are off now, lol.

Again as for how certain parameters should be drawn or what to do about other issues as well...
I don't have the answers because I am not the admin, nor do I have any governing power over the forum.
But I CAN say that it is an hostile environment where many newer members are not as bold or forthright to bring forth their thoughts or even QUESTIONS for discussion for fear of being ripped to shreds.
So shouldn't the hostily be addressed as well? 
I don't have the answers to either questions. 

You say: "I'm all for sincere, moderated discussion", but what if the moderator who happened to moderate the discussion to which you were a party to decided against you/not in your favor?
And... I don't think these mods get paid to mod. I haven't been here long enough to know how it works.
But I think they do it out of the goodness of their hearts and the love of the Lord. I think they all likely have families and lives and many things far more better to do than moderate between people who often act like small children (myself included, sadly).
So how could the site have 24/7 "moderated discussions" when people can't even get along for 5 minutes on some days?
I'd hope that the brotherly/sisterly Christ-like attitude would flourish more... and I'm not leaving myself out of that equation either.
We could ALL improve on that! 

Sorry if I was seeming to ignore you... I did not intend that.  There are times I DO disengage in certain conversations where things just keep get repeated back and forth and it seems inane to keep going over and over the same topic when neither side is going to agree with the other anyways, and I didn't think that was the point (total agreement) but rather that one side presents their viewpoint and the other side presents their viewpoint. No amount of discussion is going to change viewpoints, (at least not often that I have ever seen when it's a heated argument anyways), BUT that it helps one person understand where and/or why another person believes what they believe. Hope that helps   
 

[Invicta]

Firstly I would like to say that GP left the site for a while voluntarily.  Secondly GP considers himself IFB, ID doesn't.  Thirdly ID would call himself reformed GP I don't believe does. Fourthly to say that they both post regularly on the RTI site is a bit of an exaggeration, they haven't posted for a while,for that matter it seems that nobody else has much either. Fifthly the 1646 WCOF is based on the earlier 1644 London Baptist COF revised in 1646, adding the Presbyterian sections

Just to be completely honest with you. I have a FB discussion going with Russ (GP) and Ian,  It is mostly about family matters, Ian's wife has cancer and the family and friends of Russ have health problems, and my granddaughter who is studying in Paris has "an issue of blood" and has to have an operation.Should she have it in France and hope her insurance will cover it, or return to UK and get it free?  We pray about all these things.  

I had no idea that they were planning to return to the forum.

[HappyChristian]

11 hours ago, Invicta said:

Firstly I would like to say that GP left the site for a while voluntarily.  Secondly GP considers himself IFB, ID doesn't.  Thirdly ID would call himself reformed GP I don't believe does. Fourthly to say that they both post regularly on the RTI site is a bit of an exaggeration, they haven't posted for a while,for that matter it seems that nobody else has much either. Fifthly the 1646 WCOF is based on the earlier 1644 London Baptist COF revised in 1646, adding the Presbyterian sections

Just to be completely honest with you. I have a FB discussion going with Russ (GP) and Ian,  It is mostly about family matters, Ian's wife has cancer and the family and friends of Russ have health problems, and my granddaughter who is studying in Paris has "an issue of blood" and has to have an operation.Should she have it in France and hope her insurance will cover it, or return to UK and get it free?  We pray about all these things.  

I had no idea that they were planning to return to the forum.

Thank you for this explanation, Invicta. I'm glad the three of you are able to fellowship on Facebook and to pray for each other. Family health brings heavy burdens. Knowing that fellow believers are bringing them to the Lord in prayer offers a comfort nothing else can!

 

I think maybe this thread has run it's course now.