ad hominem argument

That was 'hominy' and its great, especially in Taco soup!

 

when you say this I wonder what you mean. It is not Grace we have fault with it is how you get Grace. It is through faith you get Grace. We love Grace but believe that Grace hath appeared unto all men or at least that is what the Bible says.

It does matter. Maybe you don't keep referring to the Institutes but most of the others do. There is a thread going right now about it and can't remember if you posted there or not. The Institutes are not of the Bible but John Calvin. Whether he was a killer or not matters a lot. I for one do not know why John Calvin is used by you all. The same thread of The Institutes one poster said Calvisim is the Gospel. I find that almost blasphemy. I mean the Scripture is plain to have no other Gospels or not to add to or take away for there are punishments to do so. If you are labeled as Calvinist and you accepted it then you will be challenged the rest of your life about the man and why shouldn't you be. I use Jesus and you think I am not confronted about the man, yes I am. So we choose our bed we must lie in it.

You say this is not John Calvin but those on this board especially the young one speak of Calvin as if he were God Himself. Before the internet I guess you could use Calvin and the Institutes and no one knew the history of the man, but it is well known now and it is not a pretty picture. Now Jesus on the other hand is a pretty picture. I hope you are getting what I am saying. I know you continue to say its not John Calvin but if you use his writings then you are stuck with him.

I love the doctrine of Grace but not the way you all put it. Blessings,

 

Taco soup?

My mom used to fry it...

 

If you started those treads youself about "how does a Calvinist handle this" and "this is a hard verse for the Calvinist" then you were begging for answers you would not like. The same with this one. You seem to enjoy the argumentive type treads if its you posting them.

If for one moment you think I haven't been open then you are not reading my posts.

 

Then get onto the others about it.
I have never read ANY works by Calvin!

Them tell them, not us here, we don't worship John Calvin.
You are totally proving this whole point.

You have accused John Calvin of being a murderer.
That is a strong accusation. PLease back it up!

 

An example of Ad Hominem

BB posted:

Now there are two ways to address this post.

If I didn't want to look up any scripture I would say things like

"had of been"??? What does that mean?????Oh...I get it, "had HAVE been"

Which diverts the entire discussion away from the real issue at hand and instead focuses on his grammar.

Or the proper way would be to address the actual issue:


A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
(Proverbs 15:1)
As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
(Proverbs 26:21)

Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.
(Isaiah 58:4)
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
(Ephesians 4:31)

Again the statement:

So as long as the "Calvinists" are civil and kind, BB will be but if they won't, then he sure won't. Is it up to the others to keep things kind?

How about
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
(Luke 6:35)


I am not trying to pick apart that little statement too much, just giving an example of the different ways someone might respond.

 

See what I mean now what was the purpose of the above statement to show how much christian love he has. If you don't have a good answer then attack him. And the war goes on! Calvinism:tongue3:

 

I don't think they will let me post the material on it.

 

Where did the word hate come from?

From Wikipedia
John Calvin and the other Reformers (as well as Catholics in Middle Europe) believed that they should not permit the practice of witchcraft, in accord with their understanding of passages such as Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 20:27. Calvin comments on these passages under his analysis of the first of the Ten Commandments, which he understands to condemn the practice of other religions. Of witchcraft in particular, he says, "God would condemn to capital punishment all augurs, and magicians, and consulters with familiar spirits, and necromancers and followers of magic arts, as well as enchanters. And...God declares that He 'will set His face against all, that shall turn after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards,' so as to cut them off from His people; and then commands that they should be destroyed by stoning."[7] Following this understanding of the Old Testament law, in 1545 twenty-three people were burned to death under charges of practicing witchcraft and attempting to spread the Plague over a three year period.

In 1553, the Spanish scholar Michael Servetus, who is viewed by many Unitarians as a founding igure, was sentenced to death on the stake for the heresy of Antitrinitarianism with Calvin's approval

 

First of all lose the high and mighty act. It don't look good on you. You don't impress me at all.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.

 

Umm...Bob, that was my point. If I wanted to attack you personally that is what I would do, something stupid like attack your grammar or spelling.
It would also be hypocritical because I have a spell checker in my browser otherwise I would misspell things all the time

Go back and read the post again and you might see what I meant.

 

And this friends is another ad hominem by the master.

no doctrine here

At least mine is Historical can't say the same about the master's though.

 

I don't like any of what I posted.

And who were you going after the door man