Featured where are the Covenants of Works and between the Father /Son in Bible?

If you don't like what a person says, ignore it, and, don't engage yourself and then tuck tail with lame excuses as in your previous post. Since you don't like the incessant themes, prove it by not engaging the person. His opinion was sought and desired, that is why you involved yourself in it. The fact is you were rebutted and then came up with your personal assault afterwards.

Another thing, it wasn't that you 'simply told him not to waste his time', so stop with your blindness and disingenuous excuse above. What you actually did was state that He doesn't know God well enough to even share Him with others &c. What you're doing now is attempting to polish the flux you presented to Iconoclast. Your post was ridiculous and works of the flesh.

Yes, I highlighted your inflammatory comments, and they were just that.

Your ending comments don't neutralize your inflammatory comments and personal insults. Out of your mouth came cursing and blessing, this ought not to be -- James 3:9-12.

 

I have neither "tucked tail" nor made lame excuses.

Ever had to endure a constantly dripping faucet, a hissing radiator, or an incessantly screechy laugh? Ever not, eventually, said something? One can't see the constant "johnny one note" theme of the posts and not be compelled to say "enough already."

How so, by merely posting a comment? I didn't address him, nor did I particularly care one way or another for any reply he might have made. He is obviously free to post, but as I didn't address him but he decided to address me, then I felt free to share my feelings.

I didn't. He chose to comment on what I said, not the other way around, initially.

"Rebutted"? Hardly. His points don't begin to address the questions raised in Williams' article. It is the same old hyper-Calvinist rhetoric he constantly posts.

If he took it personally, he should be the one to defend himself, don't you think?

And yet agian, of what concern is it to you? I'm far from blind and certainly not disingenuous. I said what I think. If he is concerned about what I said, let him address me personally, since he felt free to do so without an invitation to begin with.

Then it should have been easy for you to overlook it as some silly sinner who doesn't know any better, shouldn't it?

 

That is totally uncalled for on your part.

The above is utterly disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That's rank hypocrisy on your part.

 

He specifically quoted and rebutted a number of things in Williams' article --laid them flat out and you didn't like it. So you respond with...

That tired old pejorative which holds no weight. DHK and you should join the same club. You both like to bandy that term around like a tennis ball --yet no substance is behind that false charge. You use it when you have run out of a reasonable argument.

His hours vary. He can't be expected to defend himself when he is on the road. But his brothers can do so.

 

Not shameful but informational.....should have been in a PM however. I would say though, let Icono fight his own battles.... we dont need to step in.

 

So tell me then, what is a Hyper Calvinist?

 

Yes, but ...

Not at all.

From strictly an argumentative perspective, he did nothing but offer an opinion, itself without biblical support. To say he "laid them flat out" is not only a misrepresentation of his argument, but it is an effort to reframe a weak response to an opinion contrary one he holds dear.

Hyper-Calvinsim is unbiblical. For that matter, four of the five points are unbiblical, and Calvin didn't support the extremes to which his students after him, and now their adherents 400 years later, take them.

I have not begun to argue the Calvinistic misrepresentations. I don't believe the supporters of what passes for Calvinism today would want me to, because they would have no legitimate response. But then again, it's a waste of time, as most are more sold out to the false dogma than they are to the truth.

Then perhaps you and P4T would like to leave room for him to have his say, rather than making his argument for him? Just a thought.

To avoid further derailing the thread -- which had absolutely nothing to do with this tired, endless discussion -- I will bow out. Let Icon get off the road and contact me directly if he wishes. I will be happy to discuss this with him.

 

Well said, and point well taken. God bless.

Iconoclast, forgive me. I was out of line. I will never, ever agree with you, and have solid theological reasons for that position, but that is no cause to post insults, even those said in the guise and personal justification of "putting you in your place." That's not my job.

And truly, God bless you ...

... and you, P4T ...

... and you, Rippon. Done here.

 

I agree. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Two truths that do not exclude one another, but do not have to be explained by one extreme or the other.

 

I would like to give you a Kudos for this post. Thanks.

 

I have posted things about hyper-Calvinism so often because of the gross misrepresentations many here have of it. A lot of folks think it is merely anyone holding to the Canons of Dort for instance.

But I will just offer the concise treatment of Jim Ellis who said it "consists of two fundamental errors:A denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel."

 

Hey man he can fight him as well. I will stand up for my brothers.

 

Thanks brother. :thumbs:

 

Rippon

Hello Brother....I would like to commend you and p4T for speaking up on my behalf. :love2: My hours do vary...i am taking a mandatory break here in Indiana....

Looking back at the quote by Mr Williams.... I saw no scripture to really comment more in detail. I just think it did not say much.

This is always the default argument against the truths we hold.

Thank you once again for bringing a balance and light to the situation.:wavey:

 

thisnumbersdisconnected

Hello NDC,

No problem NDC. I do not have thin skin because if i did I would not come in this kind of forum.It looks like you overheated and blew a fuse.I have done this in times past. We can all learn even from this....we can hold what we believe as truth and contend for it. I will not shrink back from expressing what I see as truth,and that which opposes truth.No one posts what they believe to be in error...do they?

I can be glad that you are passionate enough for your position and by all means feel free to be critical of what i offer.....I just ask two things;

1] Do not bear false witness of me....do show evidence for your criticism

2] Offer scriptural correction...I am open to the scripture....not so much to what you"speculate" I might be thinking.

Sorry My posts have not been of any profit to you.Even if we do not agree at this point in time...I try to offer good verses,links or quotes for people to consider.

NDC....I do not agree with your statement here.....One or both of us might be in error and God can grant repentance or modification toward positions we hold. Offer your solid theological positions....i will interact or not...as i see fit.

If I offend you{or even if i do not...but you think I do}...by all means come right at me...I am okay with it. Each of us should be open to correction.

[/QUOTE]

Listen...as i said... use this forum as a way to sharpen each other,Speak unto edification.Let's move forward:thumbsup:

 

Dr. Bob

]

Hello DR.BoB,

When I post I use different colors....not so much to "shout"....but rather to highlight what I believe is being overlooked...or to be the key part of a verse or sentence..

It might be my "inner child" expressing itself:laugh: That might be why I drive a truck rather than work at NASA:laugh: what can i say...I like the colors:love2: