Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Auburn88

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Auburn88

  1. And your evidence for this is...? How do you get that from the text?
  2. Once again, I'm giving you an opportunity to correct me, to go through the scriptures with me, and yet, you insist on just hurling personal jabs. This thread is about arguing against Calvinism. Do you plan to tell me why you disagree with Calvinism, or are you just going to keep on sniping at me?
  3. So, because he didn't use deadly force where deadly force wasn't warranted, that's evidence against deadly force? What if the man had pulled out a knife and started charging toward the children and the pastor had a gun? Would he have been justified in shooting the man?
  4. Actually, the only person who's even responded is Ohio Patriot. Even though I called him out for plagiarism, plagiarism or not, at least he had the guts to try to engage me. That's a lot better than I can say for you. You were content to just sit back and bad mouth me. And yes, I realize you believe it doesn't really count, since you believe I did it to you. If I'm really the scumbag lowlife you say I am, why don't you be the example for me to follow? Better yet, let's just have it out right now. Keep in mind that I was perfectly willing to accept you as a brother in Christ and extend the liberty to you to disagree over these non-essential doctrines. But you're the ones who repeatedly called us heretics. Just keep that in mind. Let's start with this: According to Acts 13:48, which comes first: belief or ordination to eternal life? I realize you're going to dismiss as mere "prooftexting" but, thanks to the analogy of scripture, I can provide scripture to back this verse up.
  5. Nobody's attacking you. It's not an attack to say that claiming another's work as your own is plagiarism.
  6. I don't want to debate because I'm unsure. I want to debate because my beliefs have been deliberately misrepresented by those here who wish to slander those of us who adhere to Reformed theology and I want to set the record straight.
  7. Actually, you didn't post your thoughts. You posted somebody else's work without crediting them, thus allowing people to assume they were your thoughts. That's called plagiarism. But I will say this, plagiarism or not, at least you had the guts to respond. That's a heck of a lot better than I can say for your fellow Finney-ites.
  8. Why is this absurd or just? And to clarify, Calvinism doesn't condemn man for failing to repent and believe. Calvinism declares that God condemns the unregenerate for their sin. I hear your argument all the time from atheists. Congratulations. You now agree with atheists. 3. Since Total Depravity requires regeneration before faith and salvation, some Calvinists assume it takes place in infancy! "Some Calvinists"? Who, specifically? And what is their source for this? F. If, as Calvinism teaches, one cannot believe apart from being regevnerated and God regenerates certain individuals in order that they might believe, why doesn’t a loving and compassionate God regenerate ALL people that ALL might believe? Because, while God is loving and compassionate, He is not loving and compassionate to the exclusion of all other qualities. While He is loving and compassionate, He is also Holy, Righteous, and Just, and His righteousness and justice demand that He punish sin.
  9. If you don't want to debate me, that's fine.
  10. ...thus, those who did not obey are not included and "whosoever" doesn't mean everybody. Now, do you want to debate me or not?
  11. So let me get this straight: you refuse to even discuss it because it's settled in your mind, but then you turn around and say that there's no point in talking to Calvinists because we're allegedly closed minded (thus begging the question, if we're so closed minded, then how did we get talked into Calvinism in the first place), not to mention the hypocrisy of refusing to give an example to back up your claims when I asked you,e b but then turning around and criticizing me because you say I didn't give you an example.
  12. I didn't say it was disrespectful. I just said that it constituted a "no".
  13. OK. So, Dave and Ukulelemike aren't willing to discuss it. Anybody else? Come on! You mean not one of your wonderful, brilliant Finney-ites wants to put the big, bad, mean ol' Calvinist in his place? If I'm really the moronic heretic you all claim I am, then this should be simple for you.
  14. Well, that's a "no" from Dave. Anybody else?
  15. Simple question: Is there anybody here who wants to debate me on this and do so respectfully and politely?
  16. Yes, I sure did. And I stand by it. I didn't come here to fight. I came here to talk. Imagine my surprise when I look in this thread before even posting one word here and seeing people call me a heretic and a liar. And then, for simply calling attention to the fact that serious and false accusations have been thrown at me, I'm the bad guy for that, too. You guys just tell me what you want to do. Do you want to discuss this together like men? Or do you just want to tell me what a heretic I am and how I must be ignoring scripture because I disagree with you? Your choice. If you want to discuss it, fine. If you just want to throw rocks, then let me know now before I waste any more time.
  17. Does it? If I'm in a room full of people and I say, "OK, for whosoever goes out the door on the right, there will cookies." Does that include absolutely anyone?
  18. Yes, I said he was being dishonest. The difference is, I can show where he has repeatedly said factually wrong things. You can't show me where we've ignored scripture or what we believe that's ever been declared heresy.
  19. You see, that's exactly the sort of childishness I'm talking about. We don't see you as "ignoring the truths that come forth from the Bible". We assume that you're sincere, and that you merely came away from your study of the Bible with a different conclusion than we did and we'd like to discuss it with you. You immediately assume the worst about us, that we know that Reformed theology is Unbiblical, but that we ignore the Bible's teaching so we can hang on to it in spite of what the Bible says. What happened to charity? What happened to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt? This is precisely why I'm so reluctant to talk to you. No matter what I say, you're going to assign some underhanded motive to it. Why can't you give us the same benefit of the doubt we give you and that you would demand for yourself? Grow up.
  20. You say "novel", I say "blatantly dishonest". Like the Catholics who come to Christian websites to argue against Christianity, those here who are arguing against Reformed theology must use straw men and outright false claims in order to paint in it the most unflattering and diabolical light possible, because they know that if they were honest about what Reformed theology is and is not, their Finney-ism wouldn't stand a chance.
  21. In all fairness, the Phillies have had similar "Christian Day" promotions in the past, too. I remember hearing Brad Lidge give his testimony.
  22. Which tenet, specifically, do you believe isn't in the Bible? After thinking about it, I'm tired of this. If you guys want to fight, then bring it on.
  23. I find that it's just the opposite; that the anonymity of the internet causes people to say things they'd never say to somebody in real life. But, in the case I was talking about, it wasn't a matter of self control, but of bad manners, bad theology, and general jerk-ishness. If it had been a heated conversation and they had said something in a momentary fit of frustration or even anger, as we're all prone to do, that would have been a lack of self control. But they just kept going on and on. I find it's best just to put people like that on ignore.
  24. I read this. I found a couple of problems with it. The first was the use of Kenneth Hagin as an example of Christian doctrine. Hagin is...or was...part of an abberant movement within Christianity that has been pretty much universally condemned within Christianity and several tenets of which directly contradict Christian doctrine and nearly all of the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of orthodox Christianity. To try to pain Hagin is, at best, a straw man, argumentem ad absurdem and, at worst, outright dishonesty, but I'll grant that it's possible that the author did not know of Hagin's disgraced position in Christianity. Although it seems a little odd to me that the author would preface his remarks by stating he is talking about "fundamentalists and evangelicals" and then immediately offer for his example the words of a man who is neither fundamentalist nor evangelical. The second problem is that even among those who believe in the Finney-esque teaching of the "Sinner's Prayer", I seriously doubt that you'd find one who believes the prayer, itself, saves. At least, if they do, then they do so in spite of the plain teaching of scripture and not because of it. The third is related to the second, in that the author claims that our living "exemplary lives" does not affect our salvation. In the sense that we're not saved by our behavior or merit added to our salvation by our behavior, the Bible tells us that there are four primary ways by which we know that one is saved, two of which being fruit and sanctification (i.e. our behavior). So, while the author implies that we believe that once we say a few magic words, we can go back about our business of sinning as an ongoing lifestyle of willful disobedience. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible is very clear that our salvation will result in good works and, if bad works continue, then that is evidence we have not been born again. He then goes on to argue that one can lose his salvation and makes the categorization fallacy of comparing the loss of salvation to returning a birthday present to the store where it's bought, thus showing his ignorance of the new birth and the regeneration that occurs upon salvation.
×
×
  • Create New...