MacArthur

[No Nicolaitans]

4 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

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. 

LOL! You knew exactly what you were doing...and your purpose for doing it. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaveW]

2 hours ago, D-28 Player said:

...........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. 

.............

And in that thread was I baiting?

Was I rude?

Did I attack you in any way?

No, I thanked you for the information, checked the information, acknowledged that it was indeed as you said, agreed with your supposition that I would probably find it a bit weak, and left it right there.

I would appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that in that instance I was entirely civil, and 100% honest in my enquiry.

[Orval]

To DaveW,

My apologies as it just dawned on me (even though I read an earlier post referencing it) that we have gone way a field of your original post. 

[DaveW]

D-28 said to me (in a badly quoted post); "That's exactly what it means, Einstein. " And that wouldn't be at all rude, would it?

[No Nicolaitans]

7 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

That's exactly what it means, Einstein. 

Nice...your true colors are really revealing themselves today. 

However, you still admitted that whosever has a caveat in a previous post.

[DaveW]

4 minutes ago, Orval said:

To DaveW,

My apologies as it just dawned on me (even though I read an earlier post referencing it) that we have gone way a field of your original post. 

No worries - it left its original purpose a long time ago.

I originally posted in response to a direct question to me in another thread, and I didn't want to pollute that thread. 

 

[heartstrings]

13 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

That's exactly what it means, Einstein. 

[No Nicolaitans]

14 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

That's exactly what it means, Einstein. 

Are you sharing (these types of comments that you've made) this with your "Facebook Friends" too? If so, do they approve of it?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

10 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

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

Well then, Brother "D-28 Player,"

Since you have earlier indicated that I DID understand the Calvinistic system correctly and that I did NOT have any misconceptions thereof, would you please refrain from including me with the phrase "you ALL" when you make the accusation concerning misconceptions?  Technically, the phrase "you ALL" for that accusation would present a FALSE accusation against me, as per your own acknowledgement of my accuracy.
 

14 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

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. 

Then I myself have NO need for concern that I appeared "foolish" in presenting a misconception concerning the Calvinistic system, since you yourself have earlier acknowledged that my presentations were accurate.
 

28 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).

Brother, were you yet planning to address my request concerning your definition for the sin of "rudeness"?  I genuinely DO want to make right with my Lord and with you, IF indeed I have committed that sin.  However, at this present time I do NOT see that I have committed such a sin.

[D-28 Player]

32 minutes ago, Orval said:

My stand against Reformed theology is that it teaches a belief in a system for salvation. 

ongst 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.

First you know that it's a lie to say "[Reformed theology] teaches a belief in a system for salvation".

Second given that some of the most prolific evangelists today are Reformed and that Reformed and Confessional churches are growing I think it's safe to say that quite a few people are saved in Reformed churches (and no I don't care whether or not you believe that)

Third many Baptists are Reformed in their theology

Third my "personal method of evangelism" is to present the Gospel and call sinners to repent and receive Christ

Fourth I've witnessed to hundreds of people Our church has an evangelism team of about eighty people 

Fifth I've never led anybody to Christ and neither have you That's the Holy Spirit's job and not ours But I have seen any people repent and receive Christ by faith including any in our own church who are producing good fruit unlike the people here 

Sixth I don't debate "my system of belief" in witnessing because Christ is the focus not my beliefs 

There Consider yourself shocked 

25 minutes ago, DaveW said:

And in that thread was I baiting?

Was I rude?

Did I attack you in any way?

No, I thanked you for the information, checked the information, acknowledged that it was indeed as you said, agreed with your supposition that I would probably find it a bit weak, and left it right there.

I would appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that in that instance I was entirely civil, and 100% honest in my enquiry.

Yes You managed to be civil for two whole posts We might have had a nice conversation if not for your behavior in this thread 

21 minutes ago, DaveW said:

D-28 said to me (in a badly quoted post); "That's exactly what it means, Einstein. " And that wouldn't be at all rude, would it?

Just trying to fit in with the rest of you 

12 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well then, Brother "D-28 Player,"

Since you have earlier indicated that I DID understand the Calvinistic system correctly and that I did NOT have any misconceptions thereof, would you please refrain from including me with the phrase "you ALL" when you make the accusation concerning misconceptions?  Technically, the phrase "you ALL" for that accusation would present a FALSE accusation against me, as per your own acknowledgement of my accuracy.

So have you used your infinite knowledge of Calvinism to correct any of your fellows' lies Or do you support their lies because you're fighting a perceived common enemy? 

Edited April 7, 2017 by D-28 Player

[heartstrings]

21 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

That's exactly what it means, Einstein. 

 

 

[No Nicolaitans]

7 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Yes You managed to be civil for two whole posts We might have had a nice conversation if not for your behavior in this thread 

Ah...perhaps I sense a bit of supramisleadingism here...

I well remember your ORIGINAL response to DaveW's question; in which, you later edited out all of your non-civil rhetoric. 

[wretched]

2 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah...perhaps I sense a bit of supramisleadingism here...

I well remember your ORIGINAL response to DaveW's question; in which, you later edited out all of your non-civil rhetoric. 

New words is fun :) maybe I shall reform myself.....NOT

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if your creatively invented words in this thread show up in the next reformed merchandise someone writes as new "doctrines" to intellectualize over.

[DaveW]

22 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

First you know that it's a lie to say "[Reformed theology] teaches a belief in a system for salvation".

Second given that some of the most prolific evangelists today are Reformed and that Reformed and Confessional churches are growing I think it's safe to say that quite a few people are saved in Reformed churches (and no I don't care whether or not you believe that)

Third any Baptists are Reformed in their theology

Third my "personal method of evangelism" is to present the Gospel and call sinners to repent and receive Christ

Fourth I've witnessed to hundreds of people Our church has an evangelism team of about eighty people 

Fifth I've never led anybody to Christ and neither have you That's the Holy Spirit's job and not ours But I have seen any people repent and receive Christ by faith including any in our own church who are producing good fruit unlike the people here 

Sixth I don't debate "my system of belief" in witnessing because Christ is the focus not my beliefs 

There Consider yourself shocked 

Yes You managed to be civil for two whole posts We might have had a nice conversation if not for your behavior in this thread 

Just trying to fit in with the rest of you 

So have you used your infinite knowledge of Calvinism to correct any of your fellows' lies Or do you support their lies because you're fighting a perceived common enemy? 

This is why you get so little respect here - you first ignore then attack people who are consistently trying to engage you respectfully.

In fact, this is what you and your type do - slyly attack and prod until you get a reaction, then cry that people are rude to you.

You show no respect and only come here with one intent - to cause strife and division.

 

What exactly was the last name you registered here with?

Or the one before that?

Dr James would be able to find out, if he was still here........

Edited April 7, 2017 by DaveW
Phone spelling

[Pastor Scott Markle]

6 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

11 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well then, Brother "D-28 Player,"

Since you have earlier indicated that I DID understand the Calvinistic system correctly and that I did NOT have any misconceptions thereof, would you please refrain from including me with the phrase "you ALL" when you make the accusation concerning misconceptions?  Technically, the phrase "you ALL" for that accusation would present a FALSE accusation against me, as per your own acknowledgement of my accuracy.

So have you used your infinite knowledge of Calvinism to correct any of your fellows' lies Or do you support their lies because you're fighting a perceived common enemy? 

Brother "D-28 Player,"

You and I BOTH know full well that NO man has an "infinite knowledge" of anything.  Furthermore, I have NOT claimed "infinite knowledge" concerning the Calvinistic system.  Rather, I have only claimed ACCURATE knowledge thereof, an accurate knowledge that you yourself have acknowledged.  Therefore, I am compelled to conclude that your use of the phrase "infinite knowledge" was intended with sarcasm.  I now wonder if such sarcasm is included within your definition for the sin of "rudeness"?  If it is, then I would have you to consider that you may have now committed that sin against me, and thus also against the Lord our God.  As such, I would humbly challenge you as a dear brother in Christ to make that sin right.

Concerning your question itself --

1.  I do NOT support falsehood in any regard, even when it is falsehood against a doctrinal "opponent."

2.  The other members of this forum were able to observe my accurate presentations concerning the system of Calvinism just as well as you were.  Therefore, if they possessed a misconception concerning one of those points about which I spoke, my presentations certainly had the ability to correct them thereof.  Indeed, if any of them were to ask me questions or respond to me directly, I would certainly be willing to correct any misconceptions.  However, I am not the resident Calvinist in the this thread discussion.  Rather, you are.  Thus it would be better if you the Calvinist would engage in thorough correction and explanation concerning your own system of belief, than if I who am an "opponent" of that belief system should do it.