Freed From The Arminian Camp

In other words, we should trust you not only with respect to how scripture should be interpreted, but how we should react emotionally to the same texts. If we don't react emotionally the way you think we should, then we must not understand scripture.

And why are you convinced this is true? Because you claim you know what God's revelation of Himself is all about. And to prove to us that you deserve such authority, you fail to produce scripture that says the apostles are saved differently than the rest of us, fail to produce scripture that says our names are written into the book of life according to our deeds, and fail to deal with scriptures that fall outside your unique idea that total depravity is just misunderstood hardening. Yet we should think and react emotionally the way you believe we should because of "what you see in scripture".

So what does that say about someone who uses deceptive debate tactics to make his points? Who is author behind that?

 

In other words, we should trust you not only with respect to how scripture should be interpreted, but how we should react emotionally to the same texts. If we don't react emotionally the way you think we should, then we must not understand scripture.

And why are you convinced this is true? Because you claim you know what God's revelation of Himself is all about. And to prove to us that you deserve such authority, you fail to produce scripture that says the apostles are saved differently than the rest of us, fail to produce scripture that says our names are written into the book of life according to our deeds, and fail to deal with scriptures that fall outside your unique idea that total depravity is just misunderstood hardening. Yet we should think and react emotionally the way you believe we should because of "what you see in scripture".

So what does that say about someone who uses deceptive debate tactics to make his points? Who is author behind that? </font>[/QUOTE]Can you say MUMBO JUMBO?

 

The argument we were talking about was this:

Should the revelation of God be repulsive to most believers?

Can we tell what revelations are truly from God? Yes. How? Look at the scripture. But what if there is disagreement among believers?

You can tell if a person is a true beleiver by their fruits, I suppose you might be able to tell a deceptive doctrine by its fruits too, don't you think?

 

Yes, I do. Like father, like son, for example.

 

Nick, you have been reported for you continued personal attack.

I love you as a brother in Christ, but you have sinned against me:

1. You have called my arguments "from the pit."
2. You single out my arguments as being deceptive debate tricks yet most of my claims are seen in Arminius' works as I have shown.
3. You have come right out and called by a compulsive liar even after fully explaining the misunderstanding.
4. You now insult me and my son with your off hand cruel comments.

You owe me an apology.

 

Gee, I'm sorry, Bill, but it really wasn't me who posted that. It was my dog, who was using my account. Don't worry, though, I'm going to unsubscribe his account and mine. Having you here turns C/A into nothing but head games, and I didn't come here for that.

 

Don't tease me Nick, last time you left you came back after a few weeks. My heart can't take that kind of shock again.

Well, I can't say I'll miss you or your dog.

Maybe I'll stop in a see you on www.petreley.com, I'm sure you would like that. Naw, I better not, I don't want to stump you on your own board, that could be embarrasing for you.

Goodbye.....again.

 

But npetreley your dog was doing such a good job. I imagine your dog can show more sense than some people in this forum do.

Hang in there, buddy. I guess if the Arminians can win the debates in this forum, they'll just try to get all of the Calvinists kicked out.

 

Translation: Having you hear makes me think, and I didn't come here for that. I came here to give my pat answers to the same old Arminian responses that I've heard two thousand times before.

Heaven forbid you may be challenged.

 

Mr. Bill, at BB, it's up to others to decide what they believe about what you say, and what they are willing to tolerate regardless of what they believe. But don't even think about participating at my board because I'll ban your whole state if I have to in order to keep the likes of you off. I know that most of what you say is a head game and believe much of it is a flat out lie. I know who plays head games and who is the father of lies, and I will not allow his sons masquerading as brothers on my board.

If perchance I am mistaken and you are simply a seriously misled believer who thinks your tactics are justified because you believe they make people think, you are wrong, and I believe you will find that out one way or another.

But I do not believe your explanation for the postings from multiple accounts, I do not believe you are here to argue in good faith about election or free will, and I do not trust your motives. So as long as you are here to pollute the discussions, I'll be glad to find some other forum.

I won't miss you, either, but I most certainly will miss everyone else. I will miss even Yelsew, with whom I rarely, if ever, agree. At least he strikes me as one who believes his own arguments. You strike me as one who studied the art of logical fallacies and deceptive debate and is applying these tactics to the best of your ability. That is a good definition of a swindler, and we are told:

Good bye, and may God have mercy on you for what you're doing.

 

Amen and amen.

 

Hate to jump into this, but i think some of these accusations are a bit much. I notice that whenever a free will advocate comes up with stronger arguments than the average Arminian the calvinists feel they have blown away, there is always such an explosive reaction (think Dave Hunt). The adddress account thing may have made looked suspicious, but what he is saying is true.

WHAT?
It's actually the Calvinists who are always the ones telling us how we should react emotionally to Romans 9 if we are reading it right, as the final proof that their interpretation of it is right. "If we haven't struggled with it, we have not understood it" we hear, and that the concept of national hardening removes the "sword" or "offense" of the Gospel, and the fact that Paul "anticipates objection" is the ultimate proof that their position is true. This assumes it is supposed to be "offensive" to believers, but that God somehow makes them accept it. But this "sword" was not intended for believers, who are the ones opposing the doctrine. Yet it is truly a sword and offense for those it was intended for. (It is certainly offensive to Jews who were trusting in inheritance, or works). So Bill was right on the mark and gave the [partial] scripture reference to prove it: "The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing... [in contrast to those who are "being saved" --1 Cor.1:18]. Now, if you want to say that Christians who are offended at Calvinism are "perishing"... (I know there must be some who want to think that, but restrain themselves )

 

How do you know I haven't already been on your board for a while?

Your statement here once again just shows the hatred and unChristlike attitude in which you have responded to me since I came on this board. I have tried the gentle answers and the biblical rebukes, but nothing I do is met with any kind of willing spirit of reconcilation. Even your PMs are harsh and abusive. You have never, in any way shape or form treated me or many others who disagree with you theologically with any kind of brotherly love or even respect.

I love the Lord Jesus Christ and I actively share the gospel with those I come in contact with. I have raised my children in the ways of the Lord and have a Godly home and ministry. But for goodness sake, if I happen to disagree with the all knowing Nick Petreley and can hold my own in a debate forum then I must be from HELL? This is the most absurd and vindictive attack I have ever heard.

"Head games"??? I don't even know what you mean by this. You think its my desire to get in you head and play tic tac toe or something? What does this mean. We are debating theology. That's it. You are making too much of simple brotherly discussions of which I can have with Dallas, Russell55, Sturgman, ScottJ, Glenn and most ever other person except for you. Why is that Nick?

One, you are mistaken. Two, I don't believe I'm misled. Three, I have no "tactics." Four, I do enjoy thinking and causing others to do the same. Five, we will all find out where we have made errors one way or another, even you Nick.

I'm sorry you don't believe me. Can you tell me why you don't and maybe I can further explain. I know the moderators would perfer we did that through PMs. I'd be glad to try to straighten out any misunderstanding as I have always done.

You can't be more wrong about me. I love theology and I love debate, but I love Christ so much more than both of those, and for that reason I love you too Nick. I forgive you for not treating me with love and I forgive you for your vengence and hatred toward me. I just want to debate the issues. That is all. Its fun. It brings me joy and it sharpens my mind. That is the extent of my motives I assure you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I do wish we could get along, but apparently we cannot. I'm not going anywhere because I don't have any problem with you except you contastant attacks upon me personally. But if you feel you must leave I'll respect your decision.

Nick, come on. Don't you think you are overreacting just a tiny bit here?

You want God to have mercy on me for debating on a debate board using what you think are deceptive debate tactics. I promise you that I have never studied "logical fallacies" or "debate tactics" and I have most certainly not sought to employ them while on this board.

I'm honestly debating what I believe scripture is teaching to be true. I still have questions and I'm willing to learn, but if you have interpreted that as being insincere you have interpreted wrongly.

I have most assuredly not attempted to swindle anyone. But if your right then I guess everyone should feel the same way you do and leave the board, right? They don't feel the way you do and they won't leave the board. Why? Because you are overreacting and your are not acting in brotherly love. I suggest you take a few days to cool off and then come back and we'll just do our best to avoid each other. Doesn't that sound more reasonable?

 

Dave Hunt's anti-God's amazing grace book was a joke - he even had friends tell him so. Fortunately, it has been relegated to the dustbin of bad theological books.

I have noticed in his newsletters he has dropped his misguided tirade against God's amazing grace and has now gone after Islam. Good for him. At least his aim is better now from a Biblical perspective.

 

Thank you Eric for your post.

 

Calvinist friends, not doubt. And Calvinists who have so relegated it. Just what I am saying. The reaction to this book is purely based on what side you take in the issue, so the Calvinists' triumphalism like everything else is based on the presumption that their position is "just true, and that is all there is to it/our opponents just cannot ever be right".

 

Absolutely not. The bad reaction the book received is because it is very, very, very poor scholarship. It is frankly laughable. I imagine Dave Hunt wishes he had never written that silly book now. I understand from his newsletter that he lost a bunch of subscribers and his organization took a major financial hit. I think the Christian world has spoken loudly and clearly about Dave Hunt's poor scholarship methods, whether he had been on the side of truth(which he wasn't) or the side of error(which he was).

 

Calvinists, even though claiming to be the persecuted minority now, are the loudest and most scholarly and intellect oriented in the Church now, so that is why it seems like "the church has spoken out loudly". Hunt, as he admitted, had never really gotten involved in the debate, so there were probably many Calvinists supporting him, and when he wrote the book, they were flabbergasted and turned against him or urged him not to write it.
As for scholarship, he documents all of his sources, which are many, so what else do you want from him? He does say some things that I think are wrong, but Calvinists say many worse things, (Arminianism is a false gospel, cannot save, etc)and none of these people are correcting them, being they see it as on "the side of truth". Still, Calvinists are arguing more on these things than whether what he is saying is actually right or wrong, and this makes it appear that they have been knocked for a loop by such an unusual strong free-will thesis and don't have much else to answer with. Of course Calvinists are not going to be unbiased towards it.

 

I agree completely Glen. I know we differ theologically but we are in total agreement on this point. I'll do my best to refrain from accusations, but I must defend myself and my family if we are continually attacked in this manner. I hope you understand.

Thank you for moderating.