Recently an Administrator asked me to stop "trolling" a violation of Rule 5. I had posted that Calvinists believe God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. I backed that up with a quote from Boettner. The Administrator also indicated that my views were "false." If non-Cal views are to be considered trolling because numerous Cals complain, then this represents a significant change in policy. Here is a mainstream position held by numerous baptists: We deny that this atonement results in salvation without a person’s free response of repentance and faith. We deny that God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will. We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved… We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel. Thus the statement denies "Limited Atonement." Would discussing that Limited Atonement is a mistaken view also be classified as trolling? Ditto for Unconditional Election. Ditto for Regeneration before Faith. At issue in the thread (Blaming God for Man's Sin) was the "T" of the Tulip, Total Spiritual Inability. My view is that fallen people have the ability to respond effectively to the gospel. A mainstream view. Yes I was charged with trolling. Please allow non-Cal views to be posted and defended from scripture without of the claim of rule violations.