Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

DaveW

MacArthur

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way - I am not referring to myself in my first paragraph above..... I  have no respect for you and expect none from you - because of your manner, not your doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DaveW said:

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

In fact, this is what you are your type do - slyly attack and prod unril you get a reaction, the 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........

And this is precisely why I said it would be a waste of time trying to talk to you in the other thread 

21 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

Then I look forward to your posts rebuking your fellows here for their lies 

 

20 minutes ago, DaveW said:

By the way - I am not referring to myself in my first paragraph above..... I  have no respect for you and expect none from you - because of your manner, not your doctrine.

Nor I you and that's why I'm putting you on ignore 

Incidentally you came out swinging fro the beginning not because of my behavior but because of the doctrines you assumed I hold because I corrected a false claim about Calvinism 

 

Edited by D-28 Player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and where is "Fundamental Faith" in all of this? I thought he wanted to have some intellectual discussions. Oh wait...I forgot. He supramisrepresentedismed himself when he joined the board. Feigning one who had concerns about Calvinism and his son's involvement in said Calvinism...all the while, being an actual proponent of Calvinism himself.

Them Calvies are a sneaky bunch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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." 

Unless "you all" really means a subset of "you all"... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 1:55 PM, Alimantado said:

Orval, I've interpreted your argument here as being that if a person believes there is something necessarily prior to the finished work of Christ, then it follows that the person can only be placing their faith in that thing or things but not in the finished work of Christ itself. Is that your argument? If so then it makes me wonder about my own faith in Jesus Christ, since I also believe there are things necessarily prior to the finished work of Christ, for example God's love for the world and his desire for all to be saved. On the same basis, could someone say that I'm not putting my faith in the finished work of Christ?

"When you place God's desire for all to be saved as a prerequisite for salvation you are placing your faith in a system that begins with God's desire for all to be saved.  If you remove God's desire for all to be saved, then there is no purpose for the death of Christ for without God's desire for all to be saved why would Christ need to die for no one could go to heaven."

 

Hello my brother,

 

Thanks for the message to remind me I had not answered you.  I wrote out a response, did not post it and then forgot about it. Lol

 

I want to first point out two things about the post.

 

1st I do believe that the Reformed position teaches a system and that the launching point of the system is election.  My point being that God, in his sovereignty, has chosen to use election as the cause of salvation.  Of course, this is from the Reformed understanding and not my personal belief.

 

2nd To answer your question directly yes, I do believe the Reformed place their faith in God’s election.  As a continuation to this statement I must also add, that what a person believes currently does not always match up with what he believed aforetime.  Since an extremely high percentage of those in Reformed Theology converted to the Calvinistic system after they were saved their current belief is inconsistent with their practice. 

 

Very few people understand anything about theology when they get saved other than they are convicted of their need to be saved and respond accordingly by belief that Christ died for them and confession that they need salvation.  I do not believe this process changes no matter if you are Reformed or Arminian.  The point of my illustration to D-28 is that if he truly looks at his system of belief it does not hold up in regards to where his faith is placed now as opposed to when he got saved.  If he believed, then what he believes now he could not be saved because his view on sovereignty and election in relation to salvation.  His own theology teaches he cannot be saved unless he is elected to salvation.  This means he cannot come to Christ and if he comes to Christ it is because he is elect.  Therefore, salvation is all about Sovereignty and election and not about Christ.  I am saved because I am elected is a far stretch from I am saved because Christ died for me.  I am not saying D28 is not saved I am saying he could not be saved in the Reformed system because his faith would not have been in Christ but in election.     

 

To answer your second question concerning God’s desire. I freely admit this question is a bit perplexing. When we enter a discussion about God and asking if God’s desire is prerequisite to faith we are dealing with an unknown.  While God’s attributes are knowable how can we know God’s thoughts, for they are above our thoughts. While God’s sovereignty is part of his attributes election is not an attribute.  Because man puts a high value on election, predestination etc. does not mean they are part of God’s core being, his attributes. 

 

If I understand your post, your concern lies in the fact that God has a criterion (based on all of God’s attributes) for offering salvation to all and if you understand an aspect of that criteria that makes your salvation invalid.  That is not what I was implying when I wrote the post.  God is not subject to what man believes, if our faith is placed in Christ and his finished work our salvation is secured in what Christ has done, is currently doing and will do in the future. 

 

Once again, my point was that D-28 could not be saved if he believed in the system he supports at the time of salvation.  I am not challenging he is saved, but his salvation was based on choice and after salvation he chose to believe in the Reformed system.  The reformed system would not have allowed him to get saved.  How can they know they are elect prior to salvation?

 

I hope I have not muddied the waters.

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Orval said:

The point of my illustration to D-28 is that if he truly looks at his system of belief it does not hold up in regards to where his faith is placed now as opposed to when he got saved.  If he believed, then what he believes now he could not be saved because his view on sovereignty and election in relation to salvation.  His own theology teaches he cannot be saved unless he is elected to salvation.  This means he cannot come to Christ and if he comes to Christ it is because he is elect.  Therefore, salvation is all about Sovereignty and election and not about Christ.  I am saved because I am elected is a far stretch from I am saved because Christ died for me.  I am not saying D28 is not saved I am saying he could not be saved in the Reformed system because his faith would not have been in Christ but in election.     

 

You are a liar. Just a flat out unrepentant liar and are of your father the Father of Lies.

No matter how any times you deceitfully misrepresent my views, I will continue to believe and to preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins and salvation by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone.

CHRIST A-LONE!!!! Do you understand that, liar? 

 

54 minutes ago, Orval said:

Once again, my point was that D-28 could not be saved if he believed in the system he supports at the time of salvation.  I am not challenging he is saved, but his salvation was based on choice and after salvation he chose to believe in the Reformed system.  The reformed system would not have allowed him to get saved.  How can they know they are elect prior to salvation?

 

    

If you don't believe that one is not saved by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone then it's you who are not saved not we Christians 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

You are a liar. Just a flat out unrepentant liar and are of your father the Father of Lies.

No matter how any times you deceitfully misrepresent my views, I will continue to believe and to preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins and salvation by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone.

CHRIST A-LONE!!!! Do you understand that, liar? 

 

If you don't believe that one is not saved by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone then it's you who are not saved not we Christians 

Good grief man...you know not of what you speak.

Shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

You are a liar. Just a flat out unrepentant liar and are of your father the Father of Lies.

No matter how any times you deceitfully misrepresent my views, I will continue to believe and to preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins and salvation by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone.

CHRIST A-LONE!!!! Do you understand that, liar? 

 

If you believe I am a liar then defend your system.  Prove that I misrepresented the Reformed system.  You said yourself you were not saved in a Reformed church, you were saved in a free will church.  I contend that if you believed when you were saved what you believe now your faith would not have not been in Christ but in the system you propagate.  Calling me names will not convince me to disbelieve what I believe to be true. 

Edited by Orval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Orval said:

If you believe I am a liar then defend your system.  Prove that I misrepresented the Reformed system.  You said yourself you were not saved in a Reformed church, you were saved in a free will church.  I contend that if you believed now what you believed when you got saved your faith would not have not been in Christ but in the system you propagate.  Calling me names will not convince me to disbelieve what I believe to be true. 

Another lie! I never said I was saved in a "Free Will church"! I said that wasn't saved in any church but only became a member of a church after I was saved;

Like I said if you don't believe that repentance and faith alone in Christ alone is what saves then it's you who aren't saved and your fruit of dishonesty shows this to be the case 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Orval said:

Hello my brother,

 

Thanks for the message to remind me I had not answered you.  I wrote out a response, did not post it and then forgot about it. Lol

 

I want to first point out two things about the post.

 

1st I do believe that the Reformed position teaches a system and that the launching point of the system is election.  My point being that God, in his sovereignty, has chosen to use election as the cause of salvation.  Of course, this is from the Reformed understanding and not my personal belief.

 

2nd To answer your question directly yes, I do believe the Reformed place their faith in God’s election.  As a continuation to this statement I must also add, that what a person believes currently does not always match up with what he believed aforetime.  Since an extremely high percentage of those in Reformed Theology converted to the Calvinistic system after they were saved their current belief is inconsistent with their practice. 

 

Very few people understand anything about theology when they get saved other than they are convicted of their need to be saved and respond accordingly by belief that Christ died for them and confession that they need salvation.  I do not believe this process changes no matter if you are Reformed or Arminian.  The point of my illustration to D-28 is that if he truly looks at his system of belief it does not hold up in regards to where his faith is placed now as opposed to when he got saved.  If he believed, then what he believes now he could not be saved because his view on sovereignty and election in relation to salvation.  His own theology teaches he cannot be saved unless he is elected to salvation.  This means he cannot come to Christ and if he comes to Christ it is because he is elect.  Therefore, salvation is all about Sovereignty and election and not about Christ.  I am saved because I am elected is a far stretch from I am saved because Christ died for me.  I am not saying D28 is not saved I am saying he could not be saved in the Reformed system because his faith would not have been in Christ but in election.     

 

To answer your second question concerning God’s desire. I freely admit this question is a bit perplexing. When we enter a discussion about God and asking if God’s desire is prerequisite to faith we are dealing with an unknown.  While God’s attributes are knowable how can we know God’s thoughts, for they are above our thoughts. While God’s sovereignty is part of his attributes election is not an attribute.  Because man puts a high value on election, predestination etc. does not mean they are part of God’s core being, his attributes. 

 

If I understand your post, your concern lies in the fact that God has a criterion (based on all of God’s attributes) for offering salvation to all and if you understand an aspect of that criteria that makes your salvation invalid.  That is not what I was implying when I wrote the post.  God is not subject to what man believes, if our faith is placed in Christ and his finished work our salvation is secured in what Christ has done, is currently doing and will do in the future. 

 

Once again, my point was that D-28 could not be saved if he believed in the system he supports at the time of salvation.  I am not challenging he is saved, but his salvation was based on choice and after salvation he chose to believe in the Reformed system.  The reformed system would not have allowed him to get saved.  How can they know they are elect prior to salvation?

 

I hope I have not muddied the waters.

    

Grateful for this, Orval. I responded to your post because I was interested in a particular argument that it seemed to me you were making about why a hypothetical Calvinist who professes faith in Jesus Christ may not actually have a saving faith, which is that their particular beliefs mean that the object of their faith is wrong. More particularly, that because Calvinists belief in a system, it must necessarily follow that they are putting their faith in the first 'step' in that system, or in the 'cause' as you call it above (bolded orange), which is Election, rather than in Jesus on the cross. I outlined a general form of the argument in my first post to you and asked you whether I'd got it right but you didn't address my outline nor my question directly in your answer.

That's the discussion point I was interested in and I'd be happy to talk more about it, the reason being that, if I'm understanding you correctly, it's an argument I've heard often and at times in my walk with Christ hearing it has had an affect on my own assurance of salvation.

As to the other things you bring up, I don't have any argument with these ones (paraphrased for brevity so correct me if I've got any wrong):

--Calvinism isn't your own belief;

--A person may get saved believing one thing and then go on to believe another, thus still being saved but having a different faith to the saving faith they once had;

--Lots of Calvinists have got saved before becoming Calvinists, and therefore are saved in spite of being Calvinists;

--You aren't saying D28 isn't saved;

The two paras in blue: I don't think I understand them but they don't appear to address what I was bringing up. If we talk some more maybe those points will 'come out in the wash' so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Another lie! I never said I was saved in a "Free Will church"! I said that wasn't saved in any church but only became a member of a church after I was saved;

Like I said if you don't believe that repentance and faith alone in Christ alone is what saves then it's you who aren't saved and your fruit of dishonesty shows this to be the case 

My apologies for misrepresenting you.  None-the-less you were saved and then joined an Arminian church (which is free will) and it was in this Arminian church that you began your theological trip down the road to being a full blown Calvinist.  But you were saved when you chose to come to Christ you were not saved by believing in election nor in predestination nor in the Sovereignty of God.  You were convicted of sin and responded to that conviction and came to Christ.  Not because you were elected but because you were convicted by the Holy Spirit.  Had you believed your present system of soteriology when you got saved your salvation, in my mind would not have been based the work of Christ but on the election of God.  Now instead of calling me names please defend your own positon and prove me wrong.

Edited by Orval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Another lie! I never said I was saved in a "Free Will church"! I said that wasn't saved in any church but only became a member of a church after I was saved;

Like I said if you don't believe that repentance and faith alone in Christ alone is what saves then it's you who aren't saved and your fruit of dishonesty shows this to be the case 

Hmmm...let's see who's being deceitful....

4 hours ago, 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? 

 

4 hours ago, 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. 

It would appear that no one is being deceitful, yet your answer gave a certain impression. You never said whether you were saved in a church or not...so your own words defy you. Surely...as someone who holds to Calvinist doctrines, words mean something to you. Orval's assumption that you were saved in a "free-will church" are completely understandable, yet your constant accusations toward him (or her) are completely out of line.

Shame on you.

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Orval said:

None-the-less you were saved and then joined an Arminian church (which is free will) and it was in this Arminian church that you began your theological trip down the road to being a full blown Calvinist.  But you were saved when you chose to come to Christ you were not saved by believing in election nor in predestination nor in the Sovereignty of God.  You were convicted of sin and responded to that conviction and came to Christ.  Not because you were elected but because you were convicted by the Holy Spirit.  Had you believed your present system of soteriology when you got saved your salvation, in my mind would not have been based the work of Christ but on the election of God.  Now instead of calling me names please defend your own positon and prove me wrong.

I love the way you "apologize" for lying about what I said and then call me a "full blown Calvinist". 

Yes I was saved the same way everybody who is saved is saved: By repentance and faith in Christ Not by believing in election or predestination 

I've never believed otherwise and unless someone can show me definitively from the Word of God that one is saved by believing in election or predestination will never believe otherwise 

 

 

Edited by D-28 Player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

I love the way you "apologize" for lying about what I said and then call me a "full blown Calvinist". 

Yes I was saved the same way everybody who is saved is saved: By repentance and faith in Christ Not by believing in election or predestination 

I've never believed otherwise and unless someone can show me definitively from the Word of God that one is saved by believing in election or predestination will never believe otherwise 

What absolute moron would read anything I've said and interpret it to mean "--A person may get saved believing one thing and then go on to believe another, thus still being saved but having a different faith to the saving faith they once had;

--Lots of Calvinists have got saved before becoming Calvinists, and therefore are saved in spite of being Calvinists"

 

 

If you are not Calvinist then why would you defend Calvinism?  Secondly if you are not Calvinist then what are you? 

Edited by Orval
edited because the original post was edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Like I said if you don't believe that repentance and faith alone in Christ alone is what saves then it's you who aren't saved and your fruit of dishonesty shows this to be the case 

Actually, I believe that the Calvinistic system would emphatically declare (according to its monergistic viewpoint) that GOD HIMSELF is the ONE WHO saves, but that He saves through "repentance and faith alone in Christ alone."  Indeed, I believe that the Calvinistic system would declare that it is GOD HIMSELF ALONE in that He first predestinated and irresistibly regenerates those whom HE has predestinated, such that those irresistibly regenerated individuals will have both the ability and the inevitable desire to repent and believe toward Christ alone.

As such, the Calvinistic system requires the following in the life events of the lost sinner:

1.  God's irresistible grace of regeneration.
2.  The sinner's divinely created repentance and faith toward Christ.

___________________________________

Now, I myself have a conflict with the manner in which Brother "D-28 Player" continues to employ the words "saved" and "salvation" (in their various forms).  In my system of belief, the words "saved" and "salvation" (in their various forms and in relation to eternal salvation) encompass such aspects of eternal salvation as regeneration, adoption, redemption, forgiveness, cleansing, imputation, justification, reconciliation, etc.  As such, I would find the Calvinistic system to be accurate in claiming that eternal salvation is through repentance and faith alone toward Christ, at least in regard to the majority of these aspects of eternal salvation.  However, when the Calvinistic system claims that regeneration is NOT through repentance and faith alone toward Christ alone because it is actually BEFORE and UNTO repentance and faith alone toward Christ alone, then I must contend that the Calvinistic system does actually deny (what I believe to be) one of the aspects of eternal salvation from being through repentance and faith alone toward Christ alone.  As such, it would appear to me that Calvinistic system teaches that MOST of the aspects of eternal salvation are through repentance and faith alone in Christ alone, but not ALL of the aspects of eternal salvation are through repentance and faith alone toward Christ alone.

Now, the Calvinistic system does indeed have the option to deny this claim by simply declaring within its system that REGENERATION is actually NOT an aspect of eternal salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

 

22 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Hmmm...let's see who's being deceitful....

 

It would appear that no one is being deceitful, yet your answer gave a certain impression. You never said whether you were saved in a church or not...so your own words defy you. Surely...as someone who holds to Calvinist doctrines, words mean something to you. Orval's assumption that you were saved in a "free-will church" are completely understandable, yet your constant accusations toward him (or her) are completely out of line.

Shame on you.

No actually I was very clear that I got saved and then joined a church The word "after" denotes an order of events In this case getting saved and then joining an Arminian church. 

Sorry if using polysyllabic words like "after" confused you. 

9 minutes ago, Orval said:

This in my opinion has become somewhat funny.  If you are not Calvinist then why would you defend Calvinism?  Secondly if you are not Calvinist then what are you?  Thirdly your comment "lots of Calvinists have got saved before becoming Calvinist, and therefore are saved in spite of being Calvinist" actually supports the same point you called me a liar on.  LOL

Actually those were aliantado's words that were edited into y post by mistake and have since been removed 

Edited by D-28 Player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Actually those were aliantado's words that were edited into y post by mistake and have since been removed 

I removed it from my response as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

 

No actually I was very clear that I got saved and then joined a church The word "after" denotes an order of events In this case getting saved and then joining an Arminian church. 

No...you actually said that after you were saved, you joined a church. You said nothing about being saved in a church or not. To which, you responded to Orval; in which, you explicitly said...

1 hour ago, D-28 Player said:

I said that wasn't saved in any church

...which you didn't actually say.

37 minutes ago, D-28 Player said:

Sorry if using polysyllabic words like "after" confused you. 

LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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. 

By the way, I hope you've given them the link to the thread(s) from which you're "quoting" us so that they can see everything for themselves. It wouldn't be very nice to only give one side of the situation. 

Whether you did or not though doesn't matter in the end...

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 45 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...