What Are You Trusting In?

[Arial]

I did not say you are.

I was talking about Sissy.

Well you said Arial.

 

[Arial]

And you make the freewill choice to keep stepping into it anyway when you already know the chances are very high it will have the same result.
It takes two to tango.

I step into it because I want to. That does not mean I have to put up with the particular abusive remarks he lobs, which are prohibited by forum rules, and therefore I have a right to bitch about it. Mod's should be neutral in moderating and not base it on how they feel about someone's theology.

Stupid is to repeat doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Stupid is not knowing the difference between objecting to a person's accusations and objecting to their opinions

Scripture says you can walk away and wipe the dust from your feet.

It is not what I want to do. It does not mean I should back down to a bully.

Anyone can say that about what others say about their POV.

Well that is stupid. I am not objecting to his POV, I am objecting to what he says about Calvinism, because it is all false. Therefore, I correct his lies. And it makes him so mad that he breaks all the rules, but that's ok, who cares if he lies about what Calvinism is since you believe what he says anyway. Try thinking through it. Or read my posts. I did that for him. Both his views and mine.

It doesn't leave it undefended any more than it left the apostles theology and faith undefended when they had the good common sense to walk away and wipe the dust from their feet.

If he says something about what Calvinism is or teaches that is blatantly and provably false, and I in fear of him, don't set the record straight, Reformed theology goes undefended and the lies stand. I could care less whether Pate or anyone else believes it.

This entire post is filler of your opinion.

Stupid is also not being able to discern the difference between someone giving an opinion and someone trying to explain the process of having a meaningful discussion.

Or ..... you could use common sense and use your efforts with folks that fit your criteria.
You could have peace here if you do.
You have already used the word "never" when criticizing Robert's criteria and his way of communicating his POV, so why expect a different result?

People that fit "my criteria" are not lying about my beliefs.
I find the place very peaceful. I find Pate offensive and disgusting. But that is just my filler opinion.
Well at least I get my say. I am not expecting a different result. Stupid stubborn usually stays that way. But I shall criticise it all the same.

Most all of the bickering in any thread is a two-way street.
In other words, the fault does not lie with Robert's behavior alone.

I am not complaining about the bickering. I am complaining about having to put up with things that are against the rules, and that people on here should be protected from having to put up with by staff. It was kind of a promise from the beginning.

And that's my filler opinion, of which is all worthless for the actual topic of this thread, as all opinions are.

Glad you got that off your chest. I feel better just having had the opportunity to vent right back at you.

 

[Sissy]

God does not create mindless robots. There is no glory for God if we are just a bunch of mindless robots that cannot make choices. Everyday people are making decisions that are not God's will and are rebelling against him. Rebellion against God is proof that man has a free will. The angels in heaven have a free will. There was war in heaven and one third of the angels were cast out, Revelation 12:7. "Chose this day whom you will serve" Joshua, 24:15.

I heard an analogy that fits along those lines that compares God to the master chess player.
Is God the master chess player because he makes it impossible for the man to choose a good move, or is God the master chess player because no matter what move the man makes He will figure out a better move to counter what man chose?

 

[L.B.]

God does not create mindless robots. There is no glory for God if we are just a bunch of mindless robots that cannot make choices. Everyday people are making decisions that are not God's will and are rebelling against him. Rebellion against God is proof that man has a free will. The angels in heaven have a free will. There was war in heaven and one third of the angels were cast out, Revelation 12:7. "Chose this day whom you will serve" Joshua, 24:15.

No He does not create mindless robots. We do have a choice and free will to make decisions. "Freely they stood who stood, And fell who fell" (Paradice Lost, Book 3) might demonstrate this issue in the early modern period that still resonates today in societal discourse. I can see why the notion of predestination and free will can cause division. Reformist theology will still emphasise 'conscious choice'. But now I get some of your concerns... it is good to debate it and distil it down to that basic concern.

 

[meshak]

Well you said Arial.

You did the same thing as Sissy did.

But I can put you on ignore But I cannot put Sissy on ignore even though she was behaving like you did to me.

 

[Arial]

You did the same thing as Sissy did.

But I can put you on ignore But I cannot put Sissy on ignore even though she was behaving like you did to me.

OK

 

[Sissy]

I step into it because I want to.

Exactly.
You WANT to, knowing what the likely result will be.

That does not mean I have to put up with the particular abusive remarks he lobs,

Actually it does.
And likewise, Robert has to put up with your insulting criticism of him if he also chooses to keep engaging you with back-and-forth insults to each other.

which are prohibited by forum rules,

To an extent, Arial.
Staff is not so dumbfounded that we think no criticism will ever happen.
But when it becomes ongoing it does nothing but disrupt the topic of the thread into an insult contest.
A person that uses common sense would know the difference.

and therefore I have a right to bitch about it.

To an extent.

Mod's should be neutral in moderating and not base it on how they feel about someone's theology.

Unfounded accusation.
Staff does not makes decisions based on one's theology stance.
Staff makes decisions on how much bickering goes on in a thread.

Stupid is not knowing the difference between objecting to a person's accusations and objecting to their opinions

Accusations are opinions.

It is not what I want to do.

Your first statement in this post said you did.

It does not mean I should back down to a bully.

Robert does not bully you anymore than you have bullied him.

Well that is stupid. I am not objecting to his POV, I am objecting to what he says about Calvinism, because it is all false.

His POV is false in your opinion, but his POV is true in other's opinion.
So yes, you are objecting to his POV.

Therefore, I correct his lies.

Lies, in your opinion.

And it makes him so mad that he breaks all the rules, but that's ok, who cares if he lies about what Calvinism is since you believe what he says anyway. Try thinking through it. Or read my posts. I did that for him. Both his views and mine.

Unfounded accusation.
I have defended the right for both POVs, for and against Calvinism.

If he says something about what Calvinism is or teaches that is blatantly and provably false, and I in fear of him, don't set the record straight, Reformed theology goes undefended and the lies stand. I could care less whether Pate or anyone else believes it.

It does not go undefended just because one makes the choice to walk away and wipe the dust from their feet.
The apostles did it, and it certainly didn't leave their doctrine "unfounded", now did it, Arial?

Stupid is also not being able to discern the difference between someone giving an opinion and someone trying to explain the process of having a meaningful discussion.

There isn't much "meaningful" discussion going on about a theology point.
There is a lot of you and Robert making accusations against each other, which does NOTHING for an argument for or against the theology point made.

People that fit "my criteria" are not lying about my beliefs.
I find the place very peaceful. I find Pate offensive and disgusting. But that is just my filler opinion.
Well at least I get my say. I am not expecting a different result. Stupid stubborn usually stays that way. But I shall criticise it all the same.

Because you WANT to accuse, not because it settles anything because it doesn't settle anything of the theology point made.

I am not complaining about the bickering. I am complaining about having to put up with things that are against the rules, and that people on here should be protected from having to put up with by staff. It was kind of a promise from the beginning.

You take things too far and make it personal.

Glad you got that off your chest. I feel better just having had the opportunity to vent right back at you.

Which accomplished nothing towards a theology point made.
And now we have yet another thread that has delved into personal accusations so you can do what you WANTED to do.

Do you see now why staff would rather not let threads go this route?
Do you see now that none of the accusations do diddly squat towards a theology point made, and is only worthless filler?
Do you see now why we have a rule (as lenient as it is) to not have theology threads be bombarded with personal accusations that everyone has to weed through?
Let this thread be a witness as to why the rule exists at all.
We are lenient until it becomes a problem that excessively deviates from the theology point made.

 

[Sissy]

You did the same thing as Sissy did.

But I can put you on ignore But I cannot put Sissy on ignore even though she was behaving like you did to me.

haha!
You step into it also, Meshak.
You will bicker with people and make accusations toward them several times before you get tired of it, and then you cry foul.

And of course you can't put a mod on ignore.
You won't find hardly any site at all that lets you do that.
Mods have to have access to every post and be able to converse with every member.

 

[Arial]

"Chose this day whom you will serve" Joshua, 24:15.

Scriptures such as this from straight out of the OT and old covenant are a direct connection between covenant blessings and covenant curses, in which God was relating personally to them, not them to God, are often used to 'prove" free will. All it proves, is what we all know anyway, that man has a will and makes choices. If he didn't, he would be motionless. It says nothing about the will being free, whereas we are told in scripture that not only are we not free (which includes our will) but we are in bondage to sin, the very thing that will keep us out of the kingdom. (Hebrews 2:15; Eph 2:1-2; John 8:34; Col 1:13-14) In Joshua 24:15 God gave them two distinct things to choose from. Keeping the covenant commands or not keeping them. Keeping them was serving Him. Not keeping them was not serving Him. As we know, they mostly didn't even though they agreed to. Why not? Because they had other desires that were greater.

The will isn't a thing, like a hand or a foot or the mind etc. It is simply the force that moves according to our greatest desire. It is the action that results from our desires. Therefore, not only is it subject to sins, but it is subject to our desires. And our own sinful desires will always ultimately and in some way override the desire we have for God. It is not free to choose God completely and always, or for any purpose than a desire for something for ourselves. It is selfish. Self-centered, not God centered. Unless God in His grace and mercy intervene on our behalf, by taking us out of Adam in which we were born and giving a new birth by the Holy Spirit in Christ. John 3

 

[L.B.]

Exactly.
You WANT to, knowing what the likely result will be.


Actually it does.
And likewise, Robert has to put up with your insulting criticism of him if he also chooses to keep engaging you with back-and-forth insults to each other.


To an extent, Arial.
Staff is not so dumbfounded that we think no criticism will ever happen.
But when it becomes ongoing it does nothing but disrupt the topic of the thread into an insult contest.
A person that uses common sense would know the difference.



To an extent.



Unfounded accusation.
Staff does not makes decisions based on one's theology stance.
Staff makes decisions on how much bickering goes on in a thread.



Accusations are opinions.




Your first statement in this post said you did.



Robert does not bully you anymore than you have bullied him.




His POV is false in your opinion, but his POV is true in other's opinion.
So yes, you are objecting to his POV.



Lies, in your opinion.



Unfounded accusation.
I have defended the right for both POVs, for and against Calvinism.




It does not go undefended just because one makes the choice to walk away and wipe the dust from their feet.
The apostles did it, and it certainly didn't leave their doctrine "unfounded", now did it, Arial?



There isn't much "meaningful" discussion going on about a theology point.
There is a lot of you and Robert making accusations against each other, which does NOTHING for an argument for or against the theology point made.




Because you WANT to accuse, not because it settles anything because it doesn't settle anything of the theology point made.




You take things too far and make it personal.



Which accomplished nothing towards a theology point made.
And now we have yet another thread that has delved into personal accusations so you can do what you WANTED to do.

Do you see now why staff would rather not let threads go this route?
Do you see now that none of the accusations do diddly squat towards a theology point made, and is only worthless filler?
Do you see now why we have a rule (as lenient as it is) to not have theology threads be bombarded with personal accusations that everyone has to weed through?
Let this thread be a witness as to why the rule exists at all.
We are lenient until it becomes a problem that excessively deviates from the theology point made.

Let this thread be a witness as to why the rule exists at all.
We are lenient until it becomes a problem that excessively deviates from the theology point made.

Well said and confirmed by the naturally occurring evidence on the thread.
Hope it now returns back to theological business: the yays, nays, and still not sures!

 

[Arial]

You WANT to, knowing what the likely result will be.

It was not the result that I was complaining about, and just so you know, it is not just in this thread the RP had been doing what I am complaining about, and not just this thread in which we have had countless, exchanges in which I had already set the record straight as to what Calvinism is and isn't. This thread is just a carryover of him continuing with the lies about it. What I was complaining about was the things he was saying about me concerning my salvation.

Actually it does.
And likewise, Robert has to put up with your insulting criticism of him if he also chooses to keep engaging you with back-and-forth insults to each other.

I am not talking about insulting criticism. I am talking about. "If you are a Calvinist you are not saved." "You worship Calvin." Calvin is your God" "You do not have the Holy Spirit." "You are not saved." "You don't believe in justification by faith alone." "You don't trust in Christ." "you put your faith in predestination.". Are you saying that is not against the rules? Because some people have been banned for doing it and quickly. I think you just jumped the gun in posting these things to me without knowing what was really going on.

To an extent, Arial.
Staff is not so dumbfounded that we think no criticism will ever happen.
But when it becomes ongoing it does nothing but disrupt the topic of the thread into an insult contest.
A person that uses common sense would know the difference.

Again---it is not criticism that I am concerned with.

Accusations are opinions.

And sometimes they are spot on.

Your first statement in this post said you did.

Maybe I changed my mind?

Robert does not bully you anymore than you have bullied him.

The above is the bullying I am speaking of.

His POV is false in your opinion, but his POV is true in other's opinion.
So yes, you are objecting to his POV.

It is not his POV that I am concerned with or objecting to. It is the above type of statements.

Lies, in your opinion.

It is not my opinion that they are lies. They are lies. I am the Calvinist. I know that they are lies.

Unfounded accusation.
I have defended the right for both POVs, for and against Calvinism.

Not talking about POV's.

It does not go undefended just because one makes the choice to walk away and wipe the dust from their feet.
The apostles did it, and it certainly didn't leave their doctrine "unfounded", now did it, Arial?

This is a conflation of two entirely different things. The apostles were preaching the gospel, not defending a theology. When someone rejects the gospel, there is no more to be done. If someone misrepresents a theology, and a person capable of setting the record straight doesn't, the theology went undefended.

There isn't much "meaningful" discussion going on about a theology point.
There is a lot of you and Robert making accusations against each other, which does NOTHING for an argument for or against the theology point made.

As I said, the discussion has been going on over many threads. This is only the tail end of it.

Because you WANT to accuse, not because it settles anything because it doesn't settle anything of the theology point made.

I WANT to accuse?! Ahh another person who can read my mind.

You take things too far and make it personal.

The thinks that disturbed me are listed above. That is not me making it personal. It is personal. You are talking about one thing and I another as you do not evidently have the full information. All those threads and all those posts back and forth between RP and me, not once did I complain, even though he was constantly saying many things just like what I listed, instead of dealing with my posts. So, his POV, and insults and criticisms, and mine back at him, were never the issue.

Which accomplished nothing towards a theology point made.
And now we have yet another thread that has delved into personal accusations so you can do what you WANTED to do.

Did you really think that you could start that by posting what you did to me and not get a response back? Then respond to my response and still not get a response back? So let it rest. No hard feelings here. I think you just misunderstood what was going on.

Peace and blessings

 

[patience]

Scriptures such as this from straight out of the OT and old covenant are a direct connection between covenant blessings and covenant curses, in which God was relating personally to them, not them to God, are often used to 'prove" free will. All it proves, is what we all know anyway, that man has a will and makes choices. If he didn't, he would be motionless. It says nothing about the will being free, whereas we are told in scripture that not only are we not free (which includes our will) but we are in bondage to sin, the very thing that will keep us out of the kingdom. (Hebrews 2:15; Eph 2:1-2; John 8:34; Col 1:13-14) In Joshua 24:15 God gave them two distinct things to choose from. Keeping the covenant commands or not keeping them. Keeping them was serving Him. Not keeping them was not serving Him. As we know, they mostly didn't even though they agreed to. Why not? Because they had other desires that were greater.

We still have two distinct things to choose from in the NT: Believe in Jesus Christ or don't believe in Jesus Christ and that choice is freely made. Same as promised in the OT, we choose Christ, we are blessed with eternal life, if not, we are cursed - wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

The will isn't a thing, like a hand or a foot or the mind etc. It is simply the force that moves according to our greatest desire. It is the action that results from our desires. Therefore, not only is it subject to sins, but it is subject to our desires. And our own sinful desires will always ultimately and in some way override the desire we have for God. It is not free to choose God completely and always, or for any purpose than a desire for something for ourselves. It is selfish. Self-centered, not God centered. Unless God in His grace and mercy intervene on our behalf, by taking us out of Adam in which we were born and giving a new birth by the Holy Spirit in Christ. John 3

The will is in the mind where thoughts originate and decisions are made. Sinful desires don't always win - even for those who aren't born again - people willingly make changes in their lives everyday. It is a free choice to choose to serve God and Jesus Christ - the choice is free in that it is made without coercion, without force - a voluntary decision to love and serve. Even for those born again, it is a choice, a decision to be made - to either walk by the spirit or walk by the flesh.

John 3 - being born of the Spirit is in relationship to our belief (which is a decision we make) in the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ (John 3:16) which places us in union with Christ; "in Christ" - the new creation God accomplishes within us because of our belief in His Son, i.e. being born of the Spirit - the righteousness of God through faith [trust/belief] in Jesus Christ for all who believe.