...
Last edited:
Is Calvinism Wrong?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
...
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
You may not like GM's comments, but I love them. Double-mindedness? Nonsense.
You really need to stop picking on GM, and start making YOUR posts easier for us to understand.
Now, be nice!!!! :sibbie:
...
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Don't you dare. You just keep on being you and don't let a foot tell you how to comb your hair.
1 Cor. 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yes....:thumb:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Indeed. :banana:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Don't worry. He can't stay angry for long. I'll poke at him a bit just for the heck of it. :chuckle:
...
Last edited:
Of course, you do realize that his 'sense of humor' is nearly non-existent?
So is his conception of the Gospel.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I would indeed love to see AMR give his interpretation of the following verse compared to yours:
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).
He would say that it is "everyman" that has been predestinated to salvation. You can't win with a Calvinist.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am going to demur.
When someone offers up sarcastic comments about the "stuck in neutral" repetitiveness of another, that person should take care when casting stones, especially when their own behavior gives ample evidence of the very behavior being held up to ridicule.
A double-minded person will claim one thing, yet in conflict with what his mind led him to state publicly, do the very opposite. That is a conflicted mind, confused in its thoughts, actions, and behavior. This is the very definition of double-mindedness. For some the conflict of the mind never seems to end, true double-mindedness. For others it is situational, suiting one's desires in less than honorable motives. That latter bit likely describes GM, who revels in his "country boy" shtick at the expense and ridicule of others. It may tickle one's ears and entertain, but sooner or later the tactic becomes the message being sent.
This behavior is but one of the root issues with the decline in substantive discourse at this site. Lacking that, idle hands (boredom) becomes a workshop for mischief and mockery. Just toss out some inflammatory rhetoric red meat, then sit back and watch what endues. It may pass the time, but it soon becomes so enervating that others will grow weary and move along, occasionally stopping back in to see if anything has really changed. Yet, if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. No one grows in their understanding in an echo chamber.
As to your make it understandable posting complaint, see this post by GM:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?130626-Is-Calvinism-Wrong&p=5274334&viewfull=1#post5274334
FOG index of the post: 12.2
Compare that to the FOG Index of my content quoted in that response linked above: 11.92
If others are having trouble parsing my posts, the issue is not with the reading level of the reader I have assumed.
When I have a question about a post, I sincerely seek clarification, take it from there and am hopefully edified.
What I do expect, as should we all in discussions of doctrine, is that our interlocutors occasionally make a reasonable effort to substantiate their naked opinions or assertions when so examined by another. If they do not, these persons are just blogging in a discussion venue, all the while ignoring that the same platform actually provides a blogging feature and a ChatBox for their personal ruminations. This is yet another one of the root issues of the decline in the vibrancy of this site.
AMR
Rosenritter
New member
I'm not sure how it happened, but AMR's post above doesn't reply with quote. Did it manually. Not the point though... but isn't 11.92 a bit higher than necessary? Is the gospel and salvation really such a complex subject that it requires complex language?
For example, I used the Gunning-Fox index on this passage:
Hebrews 2:9 KJV
(9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Score = 4.853
Sometimes the simpler way to say something might be better.
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It all depends, of course, on the situation at hand. No one is witnessing to some curious person in this thread. It is assumed that most are professing believers. Hence, examining that profession is what is going on in most discussions like this one.
Accordingly, reducing the Gospel to but mere incantations is generally ill-advised, given the exegetical presuppositional freight these presumed "simple" passages carry.
Just asking a Mormon if he believes that Jesus died for his sins and getting a resounding "yes" does not a Christian make.
Our minds are idol factories, wherein we are always subject to creating intellectual idols of our own making and go off worshiping them at our temporal or eternal peril.
For more on this, see:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Y-ONE-GOSPEL&p=5076158&viewfull=1#post5076158
AMR