Slave of Christ. Husband. Father of two. Particular Baptist. I have determined to know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Joined March 2010
- Tweets15K
- Following2.6K
- Followers1.8K
- Likes38K
Yea, hath God said?
Listen to me:
You were never born guilty due to the fall of Adam.
You were never born condemned, deserving of hell, unworthy, or a wretch.
Jesus never mentioned the fall of Adam and never taught any theology of original sin or total depravity.
You were born human with a heart capable of divine love and capable of missing the mark.
Your identity is that of a child of God and you have been born in his image.
God has created you just as you are and he loves you!
Jesus has invited you into his kingdom and to an abundant life.
Jesus was sent to perfectly reveal the love, character, and kingdom of God and calls us to live and to love according to his way, his truth, and his life!
This is quite possibly the weakest reason I’ve ever seen for someone to block me. I’ve been blocked for being a jerk, I fully admit. But I don’t think I was out of line here at all.
I have to wonder how many others who responded with correction were blocked? @JimmyParker87 @ThePastorBurris, did he block you guys?
Just because you phrase the question a certain way doesn’t mean people must answer it in that way, especially when they have legitimate reasons not to. I’ve seen your responses to people who say both are important and do not want to place one above the other.
You act like a jerk and act as if they can’t read the question, when their answer shows they certainly did read it as intended. They just answered in such a way to also correct the hidden assumption within the question.
This is similar to Spurgeon being asked which is more important to the Christian life, prayer or Bible reading and his response was “which is more important to breathing, inhaling or exhaling?”
The point is that both are equally as important. One can also argue, contrary to what you’ve told other people, that personal scripture reading and mediation is absolutely commanded in scripture. The difference is that corporate worship parameters are more explicitly laid out.
This is wild. When the Papists are accused of idolatry they all go up in arms. But when a cartoonist depicts God the Father holding a rosary, indicating that He is praying to Mary, they seemingly don’t care.
This is what pure blasphemy looks like.
Many young theologians, within all denominational perspectives, would benefit from taking this advice.
“Just as the author’s act cannot be morally neutral, neither can interpretation be ethically neutral. This should be obvious... Deliberately misconstruing a text to misrepresent its author is a morally reprehensible act; it is a kind of lying, a ‘bearing false testimony.’”
"Thus, the reader communes with the author's ideas. Even if the reader criticizes or rejects those ideas, he first attempts to understand , or set up in his own mind thoughts analogous to, those of the producer of the text. He aims for a 'meeting of meaning" with the author."
When debating many of the rabid anti-Calvinists, keep in mind thay this is often the level of thinking you are dealing with.
I’ve never once said it was a bad thing to respond to someone’s posts if you have that person blocked. In fact I don’t care if people do that or not. My comment about Leighton’s post wasn’t a complaint that he was making comments about what I said even though he has me blocked. So no, there is nothing hypocritical in my post since I do not complain when people comment about me behind a block and then turn around and do the same.
But people like JKR and Drew here are so incapable of properly understanding what they read that they somehow think that’s what I was doing. The reality is quite simple: there are people on his side of the aisle who call others “cowards” for making comments about them while behind a block. They do care about that kind of thing, even calling it “bad practice.” I called this out and asked if they would be willing to call Leighton a coward for doing the same thing. Of course the answer is “no” they won’t. When their friends do it then it’s perfectly fine. When the opponent does it then it’s bad. Double standard hypocrisy at its finest.
If JKR and Drew can’t even grasp this simple post then what makes you think they can grasp far more complex theological discourses? This seems to be par for the course with folks on that side. Reading comprehension is low, and instead of trying to figure out what is being argued they just throw out unwarranted conclusions and pretend as if they made a good point.
To answer this: I’ve never once made the argument that commenting about people behind a block was bad, at least not that I can remember.
So my post is, in no way, hypocritical. You and many others have called people cowards for doing that, so will you apply that standard consistently and call Leighton a coward? Or will you apply the standard selectively?
And there are plenty of examples of you doing this, along with others on your side. It took little effort to find multiple examples of you doing this, Derrik. I’ve seen others like Nate do the same.
So again, will you uphold this standard and call out Leighton or will it be just selective outrage?
I saw that. And I wanted to ask if sniping at people from behind a block is okay or bad. If it’s bad, why does he only get mad when theological opponents do it? If it’s okay, fair, but I’d want to see a precise example of the same individual having this double standard. Because @ReformedCaio believes in collective guilt, I wonder if he’s lumping all Provisionists together to make this claim or if he has individual examples.
For all his faults, I didn’t mean to imply that Derrik was lying about books he said he read. I know he read them. That post was worded poorly so I deleted it. What I tried to imply is that he read those books in a shallow manner, but my wording made it seem like I said he was lying and hadn’t read them at all. That was wrong on my part.
So, Derrik, I still think you are a poor interlocutor but you haven’t lied about the books you read. I apologize. @DPGBehler. Please forgive me for that unfair implication.
I’ll unblock you to ensure you see this post but then you’ll be blocked again.
Now this is interesting. I’ve seen many Provisionists, some of their more popular and well known voices, rant against Reformed folks who would block someone and then make posts about them behind the block.
I’ve seen these Provisionists calling people cowards and pathetic over such a practice.
Leighton has me blocked and yet here he is making a post about me behind that block. I have to wonder how many of his faithful acolytes will be brave enough to publicly call him a cowards? Come now, fellas! Now is your time to show some sort of standard that isn’t “double” and be consistent with your convictions!
I highly doubt they’ll do that, though. They are all too invested in protecting each other to actually follow through with their very strongly held conviction. As I said, if they didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.
The Atheists, Provisionists, and Hyper Calvinists share the same argument.
They all mock the universal love of God but from slightly different angles.
The atheist sees suffering/evil and asks “how can God love everyone if there is suffering?”
The Provisionist sees unconditional election and asks “how can God love everyone if election is true?”
And the Hyper Calvinist sees reprobation and asks “how can anyone claim that God loves everyone if reprobation is true?”
"The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded."
"Though I might have introduced subtle sense, had I studied subtlety, I cast that temptation under my feet and always aimed at simplicity." - John Calvin in his last address before he died.