SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Who are the we, ye, and us in Ephesians?
ECT Calling All Confused "MADs"
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
- Status
musterion
Well-known member
Borrowed wisdom. The Net is a big place to pick seeds from.
But all this is beside the point. Bottom line is, you don't want a regulated discussion where your slander can be addressed without disruption. I bet you wouldn't even agree to a one on one with just STP, your main target.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I would post scripture and attempt to explain my reasoning logically. He would reply, "Your approach is off".
musterion
Well-known member
True but he deserves an honest chance to gird up, don't you think? To demonstrate once and for all his superior approach?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
1 Cor 16:13 (KJV)
He would say you haven't studied the years that the locust hath eaten. :chuckle:
I will go for it and boot anyone that starts trolling. Let's see how well Danoh can debate. It's Danoh versus the MAD members he's called out. No one else. I will moderate.
musterion
Well-known member
Big George didn't play around.
Don't bother.
This debate goes back decades - all the way back to Stam, Baker and O'Hair (SBO), against said Hybrid views, and Moore and Brackin (MB) on the other.
In the end they parted company over them.
MB both erroneously asserting that SBO did not see their (erroneous) view because the three were not KJVO.
That is how incompetent those two were
Many, many Mid-Acts Based Pastors who hold the KJVO view do not hold to any of these errors.
A debate would go the way the way the KJVO debate went. Nowhere.
With the same old fools carrying on exactly like they are carrying on on here at this very moment.
I post on these issues only here and there; more often then not, I don't bother. Because I know exactly the incompetents I am dealing with in these so called MADs on here.
Just go back through STP's and heirs posts to others over the last month or so, barely a peep from me to either of them on any of this.
And the fact is that I hold most of the same conclusions of those 25 errors against said views outlined on the documents in that link in my OP.
Which everyone who has responded to this thread thus far has deflected, made excuses about, distorted, etc.
Why aren't calling them on that?
Sorry, but I no longer trust you as a moderator - you continually take their side against anyone not of their number.
Which only hurts these fools for it has only made them worse.
Do what you will.
Rom. 5: 6-8.
Wow, Danoh-you've morphed/(d)evolved into a little kid, having a tantrum, thinking everyone is trying to gyp you out of your blow-pops.
I've had "run in's" against the mods here often, but I "take my medicine," don't cry, and move on-they make the rules. It's called power......accountability......authority.
Lighten up-you take yourself way too seriously.
No charge.
Dr. J.
Depending on how you study a thing out, the phrase is actually: "more often THAN not" because more often THEN not doesn't make any sense.
musterion
Well-known member
No trust required, Danoh. This could not be any easier.
1. You post a problem doctrine. You include your position showing where we're wrong.
2. We reply, one post each. You don't reply to us, we don't reply to each other. Sherman keeps out the riff raff and punishes any participant who gets personal or off topic.
3. When each MAD who wants to reply has done so, you lock it.
4. Repeat.
5. It isn't a debate with back and forth. Everyone who reads decides for themselves whose approach is sound. Since it isn't a debate, it forces everyone who participates to be concise and thorough because they get only one shot per topic.
What's the problem?
1. You post a problem doctrine. You include your position showing where we're wrong.
2. We reply, one post each. You don't reply to us, we don't reply to each other. Sherman keeps out the riff raff and punishes any participant who gets personal or off topic.
3. When each MAD who wants to reply has done so, you lock it.
4. Repeat.
5. It isn't a debate with back and forth. Everyone who reads decides for themselves whose approach is sound. Since it isn't a debate, it forces everyone who participates to be concise and thorough because they get only one shot per topic.
What's the problem?
I think that's a great idea, each one on their own. No insults, high fiving or off topic posts.
JohnW I have tried to basically not tangle with you. For we just might end up at war with one another.
And I like you too much for that.
Your above post is your mis-reading a thing into a thing.
I was merely calling things as I have seen them.
Musti has repeatedly slandered me and gotten away with doing so, each time.
Including on this very thread.
He then comes up with these rules for this; that; the other, that I am supposed to trust him on, as to his actual intent, despite his obvious animosity towards me.
And never mind the obvious double-standard of Musti and others who have posted one bit of nonsense or another on this thread in response to that rather thorough 25 point outline in those documents in the link in my OP.
Most on here learned their version of MAD from someone.
Which they now repeat out of their agreement with same.
I posted that link to that very well laid out 25 point outline because I find it matches many of my own conclusions.
What is the issue with that if not either a double-standard or that those 25 points are actually valid?
Where is the Acts 17: 11 Berean in anyone on here thus far, as to this?
Debate me on what - on those same 25 points plus others I have posted on here, only every now and then over the last four years or so?
Something is not kosher here on your pal's side of the table.
Fact is some three or four years ago, I posted the basis of my views (my basic study approach) over on the MAD Forum and got much of the same flack for it I have been getting on here.
The last time I called attention to that, the same individuals took personal issue and I wound up unjustly and permanently banned from that Forum.
I moved on with not so much as a peep about any of that.
Now this hypocrite (Musti) wants to dictate to me on here, how these things should go, because he and your pals are skirting those 25 points on that outline.
I don't think so.
[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] - please close this fool thread already: it has run its course to nowhere; as usual.
Thank God for Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.
musterion
Well-known member
Exactly.
- Status