G
guest1
Guest
Do you agree with non Calvinists ?I rep them because I agree with them. Is that okay with you?
Do you agree with non Calvinists ?I rep them because I agree with them. Is that okay with you?
On some things, sure. I agree with with the RCC on some things. Trinty, hypostatic union, virgin birth.Do you agree with non Calvinists ?
Does that mean you rep people just becuase they are calvinist? Not really for the substance of their post?
Amazing we have agreed twice today .There are a NUMBER of reasons for "liking" a post:
- agreeing with the entire content;
- agreeing with one particular point;
- encouraging a poster for commenting respectfully;
- presenting a clear, sound argument (even if you disagree with the conclusion);
- encouraging a poster because he agrees with your overall position;
- encouraging a poster for having the patience to answer the same criticism a hundred times;
- I'm sure there are more.
So IMO, it seems not a good idea to read too much into a "like".
Amazing we have agreed twice today .
Here and with MacArthur .
Like I said I’ll ignore you when it’s necessary and respond when I feel like it . As Bob would say it’s as simple as that .You're doing SUCH an amazing job "ignoring" me....
Oops!
Next!
Hope this helps!
Sure, now that i think about it, if I was to rep anyone, which I don't know how to do, it might be just because I agree with their point.I rep them because I agree with them. Is that okay with you?
Just hit the like icon. ?Sure, now that i think about it, if I was to rep anyone, which I don't know how to do, it might be just because I agree with their point.
Not quite sure on the point you think you can make. Wouldn't ones very committed to Calvinism seeing anybody leave it's way of thinking just be quick to say then he just didn't understand Calvinism? Even if they thought in times past they did they'll just claim well I guess they didn't. You should as well hear the case they make point by point, issue by issue and if their arguments have validity it doesn't even matter if they "understand" ALL Calvinism.What do you other posters think? Have some of you seen him here over the 5 years he spoke of? Should Chalcedon be trusted as one who understands Calvinism?
thanks. pretty easy. But I am a man so I only see what I am looking atJust hit the like icon. ?
Since I have been here it seems a huge percentage of posts are more attcking people than discussing scripture. Like I said, this guy's change of view should provoke lots of goof comversation instead of personal attacksNot quite sure on the point you think you can make. Wouldn't ones very committed to Calvinism seeing anybody leave it's way of thinking just be quick to say then he just didn't understand Calvinism? Even if they thought in times past they did they'll just claim well I guess they didn't. You should as well hear the case they make point by point, issue by issue and if their arguments have validity it doesn't even matter if they "understand" ALL Calvinism.
Your most welcome ?thanks. pretty easy. But I am a man so I only see what I am looking at
Since I have been here it seems a huge percentage of posts are more attcking people than discussing scripture. Like I said, this guy's change of view should provoke lots of goof comversation instead of personal attacks
can see another ad hominem coming lol.Since I have been here it seems a huge percentage of posts are more attcking people than discussing scripture. Like I said, this guy's change of view should provoke lots of goof comversation instead of personal attacks
Is it a ad hom to accuse someone of ad hom when they have not actually done so?can see another ad hominem coming lol.
is personally attacking another person an ad hominem ? yes or noIs it a ad hom to accuse someone of ad hom when they have not actually done so?
It certainly is. Hence my question.is personally attacking another person an ad hominem ? yes or no
that is what alexander has noticed/observed is happening.
next
See here @Alexander the adequate where the above is the definition of hyper by a calvinist.Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:
As Phil says, “All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility.
- Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
- Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
- Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
- Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
- Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Definition
The term hyper-Calvinist is often used as a pejorative. Almost any Calvinist who adheres to the doctrines of grace is likely to be considered a hyper-Calvinist by at least someone. Frankly speaking…www.challies.com
hope this helps !!!