Different types of Calvinism

I get it, you're angry.

<Chuckle>

Not only is bearing false witness (I suggest you repent), but you are DEFLECTING from your bogus claim, and trying to mud-sling me.

Let's try to stay on TOPIC, okay?
Are you capable of doing that?

1) You claimed dispy's "have an issue" with sola Scriptura (with ZERO evidence whatsoever).
2) I asked you if you thought Johnny Mac rejected sola Scriptura.
3) You said there is a difference bretween "rejecting" and "having an issue with".
4) I asked you to EXPLAIN this alleged difference.
5) You then proceeded to engage in personal insults and attacks.


So are you claiming that there is no difference?

Or are you now willing to try to EXPLAIN this alleged "difference"?
I'll give you another chance.

I can have an issue with you being angry often but I am not against you or your anger.

I'm not "angry".
Why are you projecting emotionalism onto to me?
And why are you derailing discussion AWAY from the issue, and trying to attack me instead?

Having a problem with something doesn't mean being against it.

So you CLAIM.
An empty claim is not convincing.
Can you provide a convincing argument?

(Without the personal attacks?)
 
Last edited:
what a hypocrite he tried bullying johnny earlier and intimidate him and now he is refusing to do the same thing with you he demanded with johnny and character assassinate him . Troll is exactly what he is on the forum.
 
<Chuckle>

Not only is bearing false witness (I suggest you repent),
That never happened which we know would mean you are...
but you are DEFLECTING from your bogus claim, and trying to mud-sling me.

Mud sling you? Never happened.
Let's try to stay on TOPIC, okay?
Are you capable of doing that?
More insults The0?
1) You claimed dispy's "have an issue" sola Scriptura (with ZERO evidence whatsoever).
I didn't make that claim, lol!
2) I asked you if you thought Johnny Mac rejected sola Scriptura.
I didn't make that claim, lol! And YOU want ME to stay on topic? LOL!!!!!!!!!
3) You said there is a difference bretween "rejecting" and "having an issue with".
I didn't argue that either. Gio back and re-read. Use the correct terminology, anger makes us make knee-jerk responses, and you're doing it.
4) I asked you to EXPLAIN this alleged difference.
5) You then proceeded to engage in personal insults and attacks.
That never took place. Show us all these personal insults and attacks you see everywhere.
So are you claiming that there is no difference?

Or are you now willing to try to EXPLAIN this alleged "difference"?
I'll give you another chance.



I'm not "angry".
Why are you projecting emotionalism onto to me?
And why are you derailing discussion AWAY from the issue, and trying to attack me instead?



So you CLAIM.
An empty claim is not convincing.
Can you provide a convincing argument?

(Without the personal attacks?)
You have enough to deal with in the above responses.
 
what a hypocrite he tried bullying johnny earlier and intimidate him and now he is refusing to do the same thing with you he demanded with johnny and character assassinate him . Troll is exactly what he is on the forum.

I know... Johnny is one of the easiest guys to get along with on this forum. He hasn't found a place on either side of the A&C issue, but simply wants to read and learn. He had a good point of not willing to read through (what?) a thousand posts, and simply asked him if he could summarize his position, or perhaps he could have quickly found one of the posts and linked to it.

But no...
"I want to understand your position, can you summarize it?"
"You want to understand me! How dare you! I'm going to insult and attack you!"

With this issue of "against" or "take issue with", if P4T simply thinks it's "obvious" (sorry, I don't), he can simply say that, and then the discussion would be over, and it's all good. But no, he had to turn it into a war. So sad.
 
what a hypocrite he tried bullying johnny earlier and intimidate him and now he is refusing to do the same thing with you he demanded with johnny and character assassinate him . Troll is exactly what he is on the forum.
Yes, asking for someone to explain why they agree with another that I am a liar is bullying. To you attempting Biblical reconciliation is bullying. Then to top it off you name call. It's all public too.
 
I didn't make that claim, lol!

I didn't make that claim, lol! And YOU want ME to stay on topic? LOL!!!!!!!!!

<sigh>

So carbon made the original claim, and you jumped in to try to defend it.
Mea culpa!
That has nothing to do with you evading the topic.

I didn't argue that either. Gio back and re-read. Use the correct terminology, anger makes us make knee-jerk responses, and you're doing it.

I'm still not "angry".
And you are still bearing false witness.
And you still need to repent.


And since neither you nor carbon have YET shown any difference between "has an issue with" and "rejects", I think we can reasonably conclude they mean the same thing.
 
Paul loved people. He died for people. Hard for me to believe that Paul would pray to have people removed from him....

As I said, they were people that were fighting against his preaching this new gospel of Jesus. BTW, I've also been chastised by God about prayer, and am just has human as Paul. And it was also due to weariness. Back in 2012 I fell and prayed my own will, that God send me a platonic friend to help me do things around my yard and things. It was answered miraculously two days later. But like Numbers 11:31-34 it wasn't good for me, but against me to teach me to stay with what I had been taught - to ONLY pray His Rhemas (Words) spoken to me directly. That platonic friend turned out to be a con artist who stole all my tools and my car and thousands of dollars. But I am grateful for Him loving me enough to teach me through answered prayer.
 
that is better than something bad..... or maybe that IS something bad..... :)

I'm not certain if you're sincere or not.

I wait on Him, not the other way around. I'm His servant. He is not my servant. He rarely tells me anything about other people. By His answering my prayers like He does and through the way He's taught me, I know I am saved and am pleasing in His sight. The only thing I must do extra is obey His commandment to FORGIVE those who speak against me. Matthew 6:14-15. Believe me, there are many. LOL My experience with God is extraordinary I know. And I've only met one other person who had a similar experience when he was baptized in the Spirit. It is true, that few there are that find it.
 
Last edited:
<sigh>

So carbon made the original claim, and you jumped in to try to defend it.
Mea culpa!
That has nothing to do with you evading the topic.



I'm still not "angry".
And you are still bearing false witness.
And you still need to repent.
You're calling me a liar, correct? That's against the rules, correct?
And since neither you nor carbon have YET shown any difference between "has an issue with" and "rejects", I think we can reasonably conclude they mean the same thing.
Nearly everyone who responds to you in an argument you accuse of insulting you.
 
what a hypocrite he tried bullying johnny earlier and intimidate him and now he is refusing to do the same thing with you he demanded with johnny and character assassinate him . Troll is exactly what he is on the forum.
Look, more name-calling.
 
You're calling me a liar, correct? That's against the rules, correct?

You're still personally attacking me, correct?
And that's against the rules, correct?

And you still haven't demonstrated the difference between "has issues with" and "rejects", correct?

And no, I never called you a liar.
I said your statement was false.
Perhaps you sincerely believe your false claim.
That doesn't make you a liar.

That simply makes you trying to play the victim, and personally attacking me instead of addressing the issue.

I simply want to make sure everyone can CLEARLY see what is going on.

Nearly everyone who responds to you in an argument you accuse of insulting you.

You're still personally attacking me, correct?
And that's against the rules, correct?
 
You're calling me a liar, correct? That's against the rules, correct?

Nearly everyone who responds to you in an argument you accuse of insulting you.

Convince me that "having an issue with" something is different than "rejecting" something.

And please try to do so without making ad hominem attacks referring to my imaginary "emotions".
 
You're still personally attacking me, correct?
And that's against the rules, correct?

And you still haven't demonstrated the difference between "has issues with" and "rejects", correct?

And no, I never called you a liar.
I said your statement was false.
Perhaps you sincerely believe your false claim.
That doesn't make you a liar.

That simply makes you trying to play the victim, and personally attacking me instead of addressing the issue.

I simply want to make sure everyone can CLEARLY see what is going on.



You're still personally attacking me, correct?
And that's against the rules, correct?
None of your above accusations have happened.
 
Convince me that "having an issue with" something is different than "rejecting" something.

And please try to do so without making ad hominem attacks referring to my imaginary "emotions".
Funny thing is Theo I've already addressed that, and you never touched it.

Who wants you to be my enemy Theo so they can praise your efforts?

You hate me don't you Theo?
 
You're calling me a liar, correct? That's against the rules, correct?

Nearly everyone who responds to you in an argument you accuse of insulting you.
Look into the mirror for once and try a self examination to see whether or not you are in the faith.

Is that verse ripped out of your bible too ?

Your ad hominems are getting old and I haven't reported you yet but now I will.

next
 
Why is there a war here? From just one man?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

P4T tried to defend your unsubstantiated claim, and tried to claim that "have an issue with" is different from "reject".

I asked him to defend his claim.
He could choose to defend it, or not defend it.
But instead, he decided to attack me personally.

So maybe you should take issue with his comments.

I think it goes beyond that. Why are you throwing more wood on the fire?

I think P4T is the one guilty of that, not me.
I wasn't the one throwing around false personal attacks of being "angry", as a way to avoid defending his claim.

Shouldn’t we just let it die?

Again, you need to take that up with P4T.
 
Back
Top