Featured Saved from what ?

I want to add that one time, Brother SN thought, and the Lone Oak fire dept got called out. Both firemen....yes two came. They have two, so that one can drive and the other sticks his head out to make the siren noises. Brother SN thought and it caused a black smoke to permeate Lone Oak's atmosphere.

This is the same fire dept that got dispatched to a 5 alarm fire a few years ago and allowed the house to burn to the ground. They started down the street where the fire was, but felt it necessary to stop at EVERY house to ask them if it was their house that was on fire.

 

Why do both of you keep avoiding the question as to whether or not you think Jesus was really a white man.

It's OK to come all the way out of the closet. There's plenty of groups that claim to be Christian (e.g., Christian Identity) that believe the same way you do. I'm sure they'll share their coffee.

 

How is it "foul" when you state that there's been anti-semitic sayings, and yet, you stoop to that level when you slander those of us from Kentucky? I was born and raised in that great state until I was 34. I then married and moved to WVa and have lived there for over eight years now. I have a mom buried there, a set of grandparents, two sets of great-grandparents, aunts, great aunts and uncles, buried there, so for you to slander us, is akin to anti-semitism, imo. Look, anyone who slanders the Jews aren't in the right, but neither are you when you misrepresent others.

 

What do I think? I think I have been called a lot worse.

 

All I can tell the doctor is, if one does not like it, do not start it.

 

Don't start it???? You and KY are both two-faced lying hypocrites that BOTH started with the racial slurs, racist jokes, and defaming my character based upon being Jewish (among whatever other fantasies you've concocted), and then you have the gutless nerve to say *I* started it? Don't be a coward fella. Don't act like a pansy Muslim terrorist throwing bombs into our land and then complain when you get fired back on.

 

There is nothing racist about this. Reference the remarks you have made about our culture. That is really not the point. The point is, you started on this board misrepresenting yourself both in education level and theological knowledge. You were caught lying and involved in plagarism several times. You came to this board with a chip on your shoulder. I cannot figure out against what groups, perhaps Calvinists in general.

Call me a racist if you please, but Kyredneck said nothing out of the way to you. You have been asked to leave by several posters, and I join the chorus.

Cheese with your whine?? Perhaps you could hire a fiddler (on the roof).

 

The comments were directed specifically for WestboroKYRedneck and SaturnOutatune.

 

How did I misrepresent myself? Do you have solid conclusive proof that I do not have a degree?? Show me your evidence. You simply assume that I do not have any education because you disagree with my views against Calvinism.

I was not caught lying about anything. What I did was a deliberate attempt to catch someone else that was purposely disagreeing with my posts so I used craftiness to catch them doing which is perfectly in line with 2 Cor 12:16. It worked. Several people disagreed with their own views for the sole purpose of attempting to make a liar out of me, and it backfired against them, and now you attempt to hold it over my head as an unpardonable sin and even accused me of blasphemy with no evidence even when several people asked you all to prove it.

Ever since I came to this board, I've watched your ilk slander me and everyone else that is opposed to Calvinism. You've attacked the integrity, their character, their salvation, their sanity, their intelligence, and you simply don't like the fact that you can't run all Non Calvinists off of the forum. Not everyone puts up with your crap and that irritates you that someone dishes out what you put out.

Your and your ilk think you're the only ones that have ever read or studied the Bible or even read a book, and when someone disagrees with you, you act like a bunch of little brats and question everything from the persons shoe size to whether they were actually born human or not.

To me, you are nothing but some coward keyboard gangsters that try to bully everyone into capitulating to your point of view, and when that doesn't work and they fight back, you throw stones at them, and whine like a little girl when they throw it back in your face.

 

Eye no that, but I was born and raised in Kentucky the first 34 years of my life. When you disrespected them, you got me as well. I live about 10 munutes from Kentucky, a place that is still "home" to me.

 

I'm not slamming him BECAUSE he's from Kentucky. KY is his user name, so that's why it's being used. I'm criticizing him because ever since I defended being Jewish in the history forum, he has consistently posted racist articles from conspiracy sites against Jews, and some of which were from Aryan Nation sources. Then SN joined in it with his racial slurs and jokes on another thread, and both of them follow every thread I post on and leave their racist comments.

 

The proof is in the nature of your posts, getting caught in plagarism, and error in both doctrine and facts. If I was the only one who made the observation, I would think maybe I was wrong. That is not the case.

No comment from me. I will let those who caught you back it up.

Again, another lie. Convicted 1 is a non Calvinist, and his conclusions are the same. Your action transcends the doctrine.

I have no ilk, and do not put words and associations in my mouth. No, I have no degree in theology. The fact that laymen can crush you on every post shouts you have no degree.

To me, posters have justly put you in your place. The light has shone on you, and your purposes here are very much in focus.

 

It's not plagiarism unless you attempt to publish a post for the sole purpose of taking credit for another persons work. The fact that I admitted that I had an ulterior motive to catch someone, and even admitted to what I did shows that it was not plagiarism.

And error in doctrine? Of course you would say that because you don't agree. Come over to an IFB forum and see how well Calvinsts fair in numbers. Location and number of those who agree compared to those who don't is not the standard for determining error. Your argument is based on trying a sheep with a jury full of wolves.

If the majority rules, since Calvinism is in the minority in all Christian circles as a whole, then I guess that makes you wrong by default.

And yet you used something as proof that you just admitted that YOU can't back up.

You won't speak for others when you don't have the proof, but now you speak for Convicted when he addressed you too? Nice side-step by the way. The comment was directed toward a pattern that you and your buddies/ilk have consistently demonstrated toward me and many others on this forum.

As usual, the typical Calvinist egotism speaking. Nobody crushes anybody. It's a dialogue and a debate with people that disagree with each other. Crushing is a subjective term that anyone who thinks they're right will use pejoratively against anyone they disagree with and judge the outcome of a debate simply because they (you) THINK they're(you're) right.

That is a pathetic way to analyze debates and quite possibly one of the most unintelligent statements I've ever seen.

The only thing you and "posters" have done is show how much of a jerk you can be when someone doesn't kiss the ring of Calvinism or Reformed Theology (same thing). The only light that has shone is that Calvinist can't debate anything beyond the same misinterpreted proof texts, and that they are very knowledgeable about Calvinist theologians, and very unknowledgeable about Bible.

I have rarely seen the Non Calvinists here quote from creeds or other men's works. I've seen them argue the Bible and when the Calvinist gets stuck, post something from Knox, Spurgeon, Pink, Sproul, Kennedy, Piper, London Baptist Confession, and never deal squarely with a text that is debated. Calvinism 101 is the same as Watchtower 101: don't address any verses outside of the proof texts that the organization has established as the truth. Doing so might lead to a change of mind because you will realize that there are other Bible verses outside of Romans 9 and Ephesians 2, and they might realize that the Bible has a book called Revelation at the end of it (prophecy being a subject that Calvinists can't handle).

What you have proven is that you worship men and follow the doctrines of men. My theology is based on no creeds, confessions, or "Institutes" and if that makes me wrong because the forum population is Calvinsts 20 Non-Calvinists 10 then:

"..I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" Acts 24:14

 

More nonsense. I am not a Calvinist. I am a believer in doctrines of grace and sovereignty. When one slings around labels without any knowledge, they work themselves into the pit that you find yourself in. If you have read my exchanges with Rippon, you would never have made this post.

Do you know what this tells me, you on one extreme, and Rippon on the other, rip me daily. It tells me I am right on target. The difference between you and Rippon is, Rippon at least understands his position on Calvin, Calvinism and how sovereignty relates to the Bible. Our disagreement is on the character of Calvin. You, on the other hand, type posts without any direction from the Bible.

Rippon cites his sources, you freelance as you go.

 

Come on Brother, fess up. You're a closet Calvinist, and you use their "Calvin hatred" as a facade so that you're not exposed. I have heard rumblings that you're trying to learn to become a flame thrower so that you can be just like your idol, one who can burn people up.......

I also heard you went to the local hospital wanting to submerse infants, and they walked you out in a straight jacket, because you began calling them heretics and wanted to start putting them all on a pole and start flame throwing them, after they refused to let you....come on, fess up.....

 

I heard your high school diploma is signed by Dr. Arch. Since you two are on the same side of the sovereignty issue, maybe you two could start a seminary. You could name it the Conarch Seminary. I do not think the word order of convicted Arch would work.

 

The difference in DoG and Pony (Calvinism) is semantics. It's like a Jehovah's Witness saying they don't follow Charles Russel, just the Watchtower. You would not have Reformed Theology or "DoG" without Calvin, it wasn't developed until Calvin, it was based off of Calvin's reasoning which in turn were based on Augustine's. If you are not a "Calvinist" then why do you rush to the defense of it's doctrines every time someone opposes CALVINISM?

What your exchanges with Rippon show is that you don't like John Calvin. But you are still a Calvinist along with every other Reformer or DoG and Pony that tries to distance themselves from Calvin because they don't want to be associated with a murderer. Leopard can't change its spots anymore than DoG can swear off its Calvinist/Augustinian roots. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

I don't cite sources because I rarely ever use them. Don't need to. I read a book and take a few notes, compare the notes to the Bible instead of comparing theologians to other theologians. You and most of the Calvinists on here have internet theology and scholarship onlysim theology. Real Bible believers rely on the Bible ALONE for their sole source of information and authority.

You will never see me debate a Bible passage with "But MacArthur says this, and Piper wrote the following...and Spurgeon didn't agree with...and this commentary says such and such...and the 1689 Confession holds that..." blah, blah, blah. That's why Calvinist, DoG, Reformed is all philosophical because Calvinist theologians merely repeat each other and don the Confessions and conclusions of the synods as the holy grail of Christendom instead of relying on the B-I-B-L-E. That's why some of these newer believers on here that are Non Calvinists make so much more sense because they study THE BIBLE more than they study some man-made doctrines.

God forbid the day I and other believers ever have a dispute over the Bible, and convene a counsel/synod/committee and then tout our findings as the authority for doctrine above the Bible.

 

ACH,

This post is ignorant and shows why you make no progress and repeat error after error.
it is excessive hubris on your part to say that because reformed believers do not despise scholarship and gifts given to the church that somehow you and your private interpretations trump all manner of Christians before you came along.
Why I say it is ignorant is all the confessions and catechisms exalt scripture first and primarily.They are formed to give protection for the kind of error ,you and others want to post.

 

And your repeated errors of taking verses out of context, applying man-made theology to passages, and never really getting to the bottom of anyone's argument or accurately stating what they said or believe is why you think everyone else that disagrees with Calvinism is wrong. We can argue in those circles all day long. I think you are employing private interpretation because you rely on the doctrines of men and creeds like a Muslim relies on the Hadith to interpret the Quran, like a Mormon uses the Book of Mormon to interpret the Bible and how a Jehovah's Witness uses the "Studies in the Scriptures" and the Awake publications to interpret the New World Translation. It's a classic hallmark trait of a cult.

And where is the scriptural support for adopting man-made creeds to "prevent error"? Paul's prescription for error was, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

I can't count how many times I have seen you attempt to refute someone's Biblical exegesis with a quote from the Baptist Confession. You might as well quote the dictionary and Wikipedia because they have some Bible verses printed in them, too. The fact that you nor any of the Calvinists here can hold a discussion without relying on a creed or confession or the interpretations of doctrines developed by a murdering, baby sprinkling sociopath who in turn ripped off a Catholic heretic (Augustine) should be enough for any Bible believer with common sense to treat Calvinism like the plague that it is, and inoculate themselves with Scripture.

 

But isn't any creed, confession, catcheism, articles of faith, etc., a list of beliefs that any denomination believes to be the truth? We, in the ORB's, have what we call "The Articles of Faith", and it is by these which we are governed by. These are our beliefs as to what we believe the Word of God means. Now, some of it would be in accord with the LBCF, but some wouldn't. So, if one doesn't agree with our AoF, would they be considered rubbish, too?

I know that confessions, creeds, catcheism, articles of faith, etc., are founded on the Word, but some people would consider one solid and the other rubbish, and so on. Any of these needs to be founded correctly on the Word. Just because any of them puts a list of verses to support that portion of a creed and/or confession, doesn't mean that what they believe is what is being espoused by the Word.