MacArthur

[DaveW]

On Wed Apr 05 2017 at 6:13 AM, D-28 Player said:

And if you continue as you have I will expect you to be unnecessarily aggressive and rude.

 

1 hour ago, D-28 Player said:

And yet he acknowledged that I did 

Only after you first consistently ignored him, and then when he pressed you, you accused him of aggression and rudeness. Falsely, I might add, for he was neither. 

 

You only acknowledged him when he basically forced you by pointing out you tactic of ignoring anyone you don't want to deal with.

[D-28 Player]

7 hours ago, DaveW said:

 

Only after you first consistently ignored him, and then when he pressed you, you accused him of aggression and rudeness. Falsely, I might add, for he was neither. 

 

You only acknowledged him when he basically forced you by pointing out you tactic of ignoring anyone you don't want to deal with.

Actually, he was both, as you have been. 

Because you think I'm a Calvinist, your hatred of Calvinists has come through in every post. That's why I told you I wouldn't take your bait in the other thread. I've already put one poster on ignore because he couldn't be civil. 

I've literally been told in this thread that I am not saved just because the poster thinks I'm a Calvinist. That you guys think I'm not a Christian because you think I'm a Calvinist is your problem, not mine. 

7 hours ago, DaveW said:

Would you care to define who makes up the "whosoever" precisely?

Rather than leaving it up to us to try figure out what you mean by "whosoever".

pronoun;, possessive whosesoever; objective whomsoever.

1.

whoever; whatever person:

Edited April 7, 2017 by D-28 Player

[No Nicolaitans]

Folks, we must remember that definitions of certain terms are different from the Calvinist viewpoint. While on the surface, the definitions are claimed to be the same and used in the same ways, those definitions may (and do) contain caveats. All doesn't mean all, whosoever doesn't mean whosoever, etc...

Calvinism's "regeneration" HAS to take place first. If it didn't, there's a bit of a conundrum...in order to harmonize with the other points of their soteriology, if "regeneration" didn't take place prior to salvation, that would then mean that only a saved person could get saved...but that's Arminianism.

That's one of the reasons for why I said that I wouldn't "play the game". One can go back and forth all day long, but because some words have different meanings, both parties can proclaim, exclaim, and bring shame (until they're blue in the face) without having to admit that they're wrong or even possibly wrong. 

 

[D-28 Player]

5 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Folks, we must remember that definitions of certain terms are different from the Calvinist viewpoint. While on the surface, the definitions are claimed to be the same and used in the same ways, those definitions may (and do) contain caveats. All doesn't mean all, whosoever doesn't mean whosoever, etc...

Can't wait to share this comment with the group on Facebook. The Calvinists in that group already think you guys are a hoot. 

[No Nicolaitans]

4 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Can't wait to share this comment with the group on Facebook. The Calvinists in that group already think you guys are a hoot. 

Ah yes...more of the "attempting to shame"...

I still find it interesting that while claiming to be willing to answer questions and explain Calvinism, you still don't do it. Rather than "correcting" my supposed misconception about definition differences, rather than "denying" my assertion of definition differences, rather than explaining Calvinism's view on certain terminology...you've chosen instead to try and shame me (and others here) publicly.

Tell your friends that No Nicolaitans said, "Hello!" 

...unless hello doesn't really mean hello.

If that's the case, tell your friends that No Nicolaitans said, "Suprahelloism!" 

:)

 

[Orval]

D-28,

Would you be willing to answer a simple question from me?  Did you get saved in a Reformed church, or were you saved elsewhere and then became a member of a Reformed church? 

[D-28 Player]

Just now, Orval said:

D-28,

Would you be willing to answer a simple question from me?  Did you get saved in a Reformed church, or were you saved elsewhere and then became a member of a Reformed church? 

This is a little like asking, "Do you still beat your wife", as it assumes that I'm a member of a Reformed church. 

But in answer to your question, not only was I not saved in a Reformed church, the church I joined after I got saved was Arminian and when the one Reformed guy in that church tried to explain Reformed theology to me, I was almost as hateful and antagonistic toward him as you all are toward Calvinists.

I had so any of the same misconceptions about Reformed theology that you all have about Calvinism that it's safe to say I didn't really even know what it was until I had been a Christian for about ten years. 

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Folks, we must remember that definitions of certain terms are different from the Calvinist viewpoint. While on the surface, the definitions are claimed to be the same and used in the same ways, those definitions may (and do) contain caveats. All doesn't mean all, whosoever doesn't mean whosoever, etc...

Calvinism's "regeneration" HAS to take place first. If it didn't, there's a bit of a conundrum...in order to harmonize with the other points of their soteriology, if "regeneration" didn't take place prior to salvation, that would then mean that only a saved person could get saved...but that's Arminianism.

That's one of the reasons for why I said that I wouldn't "play the game". One can go back and forth all day long, but because some words have different meanings, both parties can proclaim, exclaim, and bring shame (until they're blue in the face) without having to admit that they're wrong or even possibly wrong. 

 

This is precisely why I asked him to define "whosoever" to make sure we are talking about the same thing - but he gave a dictionary definition rather than explaining what he means by it.

 

Maybe D-28 will then explain how he applies "whosoever" in John 3:16?

Otherwise we might think that the whosoever applies to anyone who believes.........

Feel free to explain your understanding of this verse and how "whosoever" works in it.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by DaveW
Phone spelling

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 hours ago, DaveW said:

Only after you first consistently ignored him, and then when he pressed you, you accused him of aggression and rudeness. Falsely, I might add, for he was neither. 

You only acknowledged him when he basically forced you by pointing out you tactic of ignoring anyone you don't want to deal with.

2 hours ago, D-28 Player said:

Actually, he was both, as you have been. 

Because you think I'm a Calvinist, your hatred of Calvinists has come through in every post. That's why I told you I wouldn't take your bait in the other thread. I've already put one poster on ignore because he couldn't be civil. 

1 hour ago, D-28 Player said:

Can't wait to share this comment with the group on Facebook. The Calvinists in that group already think you guys are a hoot. 

BROTHER "D-28 Player,"

First, I desire your recognition that I myself have only referenced you as "brother" throughout my discussion with you.  I myself choose to do this only if I feel comfortable in acknowledging that the one with whom I am communicating is indeed a child of God and a fellow brother in Christ.  Even so, I call you -- BROTHER.

Second, as I have indicated in an earlier posting, I certainly acknowledge that I engaged in reproof against your continued avoidance of my question (which you have now answered, and I thank you).  As such, I believe that "reproof" could indeed fall under the definition of "aggression."  However, as I have also indicated in that earlier posting, I do NOT accept your accusation that I committed the SIN of "unnecessary" aggression and "rudeness."  So then, I would request that you might define for me your perception concerning the sin of "rudeness," in order that I might examine more closely if I have sinned against you and against the Lord my God.  If I have indeed committed such sin, it is my desire to make it right.  However, I would have you to note that IF your definition for the sin of "rudeness" encompasses any and all forms of reproof against another, then I will NOT accept that definition as being Biblically valid (since the act of reproof is Biblically defined as righteousness at times).

Third, I wish to make clear that although you yourself may be "saying bad things" about me to your outside group of Calvinistic friends, I myself have NOT spoken in relation to you with anyone apart from my engagements with you on this very thread.

[wretched]

34 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah yes...more of the "attempting to shame"...

I still find it interesting that while claiming to be willing to answer questions and explain Calvinism, you still don't do it. Rather than "correcting" my supposed misconception about definition differences, rather than "denying" my assertion of definition differences, rather than explaining Calvinism's view on certain terminology...you've chosen instead to try and shame me (and others here) publicly.

Tell your friends that No Nicolaitans said, "Hello!" 

...unless hello doesn't really mean hello.

If that's the case, tell your friends that No Nicolaitans said, "Suprahelloism!" 

:)

 

They do thrive on their made-up words and definitions don't they..hilarious.

I am always curious to the answer because I have never heard of a reformer/calvinist who got saved in a reformed church. There maybe a case or two in history but I have never heard of it. In my experience, they are always "membership transfers". Then they claim to understand better how it all works after sincere Christians shared the Word of Life with them.  Had these folks checked their pride of life and stayed, they could have actually grown in Grace instead of trivial intellectualism. There may be an exception here or there but by enlarge this is what I have seen of them.

Strange bedfellow though... reformers all claim they are God's chosen people but had it not been for a sincere free will Christian caring for their souls, they would have never known they were God's special elect... It is quite ludicrous IMO. 

[DaveW]

Oh and by the way D-28, I  don't hate you for beong a calvinist - I feel sorry for you sure enough, but mostly I don't like your rude and abrasive manner.

And I think it is laughable that you are accusing others of it whilst holding a halo over your own head, but being just about as rude as you can be without being kicked off the board.

When that eventually happens, you will retreat to your little group and stand up proudly stating that the meanies over here persecuted you.

Just like the last name you joined up here under.....

Edited April 7, 2017 by DaveW

[Pastor Scott Markle]

23 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

I had so any of the same misconceptions about Reformed theology that you all have about Calvinism that it's safe to say I didn't really even know what it was until I had been a Christian for about ten years. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother "D-28 Player,"

With your usage of the phrase "you all," you have encompasses me also under the accusation concerning many "misconceptions about Reformed theology."  Yet in any earlier posting you indicated that I DID have an accurate presentation concerning the Calvinistic system of belief.  If there is a place in this thread wherein I have presented a misconception concerning the Calvinistic system, would you be willing to specify it for me and to explain precisely wherein I have that misconception?  I ask in order that I might maintain an accurate view of Calvinistic doctrine, even if I do not agree therewith.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[D-28 Player]

2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "D-28 Player,"

With your usage of the phrase "you all," you have encompasses me also under that accusation concerning many "misconceptions about Reformed theology."  Yet in any earlier posting you indicated that I DID have an accurate presentation concerning Calvinistic system of belief.  If there is a place in this thread wherein I have presented a misconception concerning the Calvinistic system, would you be willing to specify it for me and explain wherein I have that misconception?  I ask in order that I might maintain an accurate view of Calvinistic doctrine, even if I do not agree therewith.

You've already asked this and I've already answered it. You even acknowledged that I answered it. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Third, I wish to make clear that although you yourself may be "saying bad things" about me to your outside group of Calvinistic friends, I myself have NOT spoken in relation to you with anyone apart from my engagements with you on this very thread.

I don't badmouth people to others I just quoted you all verbatim and let the Christians there make up their own minds. 

Anything that was done to make you look foolish was done by your own words. 

[Orval]

Just now, D-28 Player said:

This is a little like asking, "Do you still beat your wife", as it assumes that I'm a member of a Reformed church. 

But in answer to your question, not only was I not saved in a Reformed church, the church I joined after I got saved was Arminian and when the one Reformed guy in that church tried to explain Reformed theology to me, I was almost as hateful and antagonistic toward him as you all are toward Calvinists.

I had so any of the same misconceptions about Reformed theology that you all have about Calvinism that it's safe to say I didn't really even know what it was until I had been a Christian for about ten years. 

I am somewhat taken aback by your comments in the second paragraph.  I do not believe that at any time I have attacked you though I have called you out for failure to answer charges leveled against Calvinism.  My stand against Reformed theology is that it teaches a belief in a system for salvation.  If you believe I was attacking you perhaps I used the wrong choice in my wording or you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say. 

None-the-less you were kind enough to answer my question and I thank you for it.  I have a follow up question if you would allow.  Amongst your reformed friends how many would say they were saved in a Reformed church?  I have spoken to between 30-50 men who are Reformed and to my knowledge only two of them were saved in a reformed church.  Nearly all of them were saved in a Baptist Church or led to Christ by a Baptist.  Here is my point.  The current Reformed movement has not gained strength by witnessing and bringing people to Christ, it has grown by proselyting members of other churches and teaching them the Reformed system.  Please do not read anything into this post emotionally, if we were setting at a table we simply be discussing this point not arguing. 

As an example, to what I am saying, 3 years ago the Reformed church in our area approached our pastor, for a meeting.  The purpose of the meeting was to find the secret of our numerical growth.  Their biggest hurdle was they were not evangelistic apart from their pulpit. Their system works against them in reaching the lost.  Those of reformed mind set have so bought into the system they have removed themselves from the process of bringing people to Christ. 

You don't have to answer this question as a matter of fact I would be shocked if you did.  What kind of personal evangelism do you practice?  when is the last time you actually led someone to Christ? Just think about it.  Let us take it a step further if we can, how many unsaved have you witnessed to, one on one?  Now ask your self how often you debate your system of belief in relation to witnessing to others about Christ.       

What I am asking you to do is look beyond the intellectual system and its propagation and look at the results.  Thanks for reading.

[D-28 Player]

18 minutes ago, DaveW said:

 

18 minutes ago, DaveW said:

 

Otherwise we might think that the whosoever applies to anyone who believes.........

 

That's exactly what it means, Einstein.