Sourscholar
but to say that that extends to the entire "will" of a man is a bit of a stretch, and not all that Biblical
Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.D Dog
Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?
by AlmostAtheist 173 Replies latest jw friends
-
Deputy Dog
-
sweetscholar
...any provable "dodge". all she ranted about was how her pagan church and pagan platonic "trinity" and pagan Christmas are on her side.
nothing on how actually I "dodged" anything, and nothing on how "circular" my things were.
just "I can be mean, too" silliness and hypocrisy.
I guess I struck a nerve, though she lamely denies it. cuz if I didn't, why her rant and posting and "right back at ya" trinity gibberish? LOL
blow it out your nose, you little brat. you have nothing informative or scholastic or reasonable to offer. you pointed out NOTHING. just whined like a child about my supposed "tones" and "name calling", and ignored the actual real points made, that even AlmostAtheist acknowledged in many ways. so enough of you, Bucka.
go play in the traffic, little kiddie. apostate protestant worldly corrupt little twit. (Read Stephen's words to reptilian hypocrites. Acts 7,8)
you dissed me out of nowhere. and accused me of junk that aint true. I asked you to point it out specifically yet you don't. and still don't.
I told you not to write me anymore. didn't I? yet you did anyway. I told you not to send me anything, unless it was about birthday parties that you love to observe like a disciple of Herod Antipas would, or to point out real "dodges" on my part, or real provable pointable "circular arguments." well, Beeky, you failed to do that. instead you came at me with "I can be mean too" crap, and "right back at ya" silliness. I at least told you how you were copying Satan, with your false asinine accusations.
but all you can do is "right back at ya". yet you call me childish. I'm not perfect, I know that. and pardon me for my over-stepping. so what. that's not all I've done. you overlook that. yet you insult me with accusations and say lame rude crap to me. with nothing to back up what you're saying. you called ME names first, you inconsistent nut
I aint perfect. whatever. you protestant pagan. but neither are you.
by the way "Reverend is HIS Name" (Psalm 111:9, KJV) not some silly pagan protestant creep clergyman so-called "pastor" blind leading the blind. your "prayers" won't go beyond the ceiling, sorry to say. Stephen the same types of things to willfully blind hypocrites and liars too. read your Bible, why don't you. you should know better, but you don't.
again, enough of this. and Ellder. THIS CALVIN STUFF IS OFF THE BIRTHDAY TOPIC. I addressed it. you don't agree that corruption and "depravity" does not necessarily have to extend to the "will" all the time per se. that's your choice. but it's answered. Paul "willed" things that his corrupt sinful nature didn't always make easy for him to do. "when I WISH to do right" etc.
bye
-
ellderwho
Hey Dog,
Wasnt there 7,000 that Jehovah reserved for himself that have not bowed the knee to Baal. Will? Ha!
-
ellderwho
THIS CALVIN STUFF IS OFF THE BIRTHDAY TOPIC
You brought it up not me.
-
Deputy Dog
EW
Rom 9:14 What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God? Never may that become so! -
ellderwho
you don't agree that corruption and "depravity" does not necessarily have to extend to the "will" all the time per se.
Its not I that does not agree with you it is scripture.
-
Super_Becka
OK, I gotta post once more. I'd like to point out that what I've been posting apparently means nothing to our dear friend, sweetscholar, and certainly has no bearing on his beliefs but still he insists on posting his own rants about my words. You'd think that if my posts were so pointless, meaningless and useless, he'd just leave it alone and completely ignore me - after all, why waste your time and energy on something that is deemed worthless?? But still, he replies to me, so I must be striking a nerve.
And please, whatever you do, don't call me an apostate, because I'm not - I'm an "unbeliever", thanks. I've never been a JW and I never will be, and I thank God for that every single day because of ignorant people like you.
Ahh, and a tree-worshipping, protestant pagan, am I?? And JWs wonder why people just don't like them. That's why - God tells us to love each other, and yet there are JWs out there who insist on behaving like this because they believe that they're superior to the rest of the world. "Love your neighbour as yourself", sound familiar?? How about "judge not lest ye be judged"?? And "do onto others as you would like them to do onto you"?? Trust me, calling me and every other non-JW here names might make you feel better about yourself, but it isn't going to help you, you will be judged, too, just like everyone else, and I think you'll be found wanting. (Not to tar all JWs with the same brush, because I'm sure lots of them are very nice people, but it's the bad apples like sweetscholar that spoil the bunch.)
I'm not a "tree-worshipping, protestant pagan", I'm actually a baptized and confirmed Anglican. And I'm very happy with my faith, thank you very much. Calling me a pagan won't turn me from my beliefs. Do your worst, I have my faith and you can't take that from me.
And one other thing - you started the name-calling, but it wasn't aimed at me, it was aimed at "jeffy weffy", so I called you on it.
-Becka :)
-
sweetscholar
ok. well Hyper-Calvinists I have no further time for. cuz now YOU'RE dodging. what about Paul's words "when I WISH OR WILL to do right, what is bad is present"??? obviously there was difference between the "will" and the "inner nature".
(one thing. you, Ellder, say that I brought this up?? I only mentioned it in PASSING. real briefly. I did not "bring this up" in the way you've been wanting to go on in depth about it. in that past posting, I hardly said a word, and it was just a brief passing remark. I did NOT dwell on Calvin in that particular posting. and you know that. it was simply a little remark. that I mentioned because Little Toes had asked about human nature and sin and emotionalism, tying in with what humans "conjure up". I did NOT bring up Calvinism as a topic in and of itself, the way you're doing. so don't recklessly mix the two types of things. it was just a very small SIDE point in my posting way before, not the whole posting itself.)
and 'vessels of wrath' and Calvin's shallow reading of Romans 9. Pharaoh was made that way AFTER he was showing hardened resistance to God and His people. not before Genesis 1:1 in some philosophical "eternal decree".
but if you want to discuss this elsewhere, start another thread. by the way, you're disagreeing with most Methodists and even many Baptists, who reject hyper-Calvinism and "eternal decrees" and "irresistible grace" and "unconditional election". that's a non-Scriptural heresy taught by Calvin. based on his misunderstandings of Ephesians 1:4 etc.
one point before I go. we may grant that a man is "dead in trespasses and sins" and dead spiritually. and needs to be "regenerated". But to say that this is true that therefore man has no free will is non-Scriptural blasphemy contrary to the Word of God, no matter WHO professes to believe it.
the teaching that "depravity" extends to all of the WILL, and therefore is "total" is what is called a Bible-rejecting un-Scriptural Satanic heresy. ther term "freewill" is a Bible term. the expression "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace" and "sovereign grace" are nowhere to be found in the Word of God. nor their precise notions. the word "freewill" is found in Ezra 7:13. Ezra 7:16. we find offerings "willingly offered" too. by people in the "Old Testament" who were not even "born again" or "chosen in Christ". and they were all "dead in trespasses and sins". yet they were still responsible for pleasing God and acting of their own free will, and they had a free will. the doctrine of "total depravity" in the Calvinistic "includes the will" sense is not to be countenanced by the serious student of the Word of God.
John 3:36 says "the wrath of God abideth upon" the one who has not believed on the Son of God. Meaning that God's wrath is not there ONCE a person truly believes and obeys the Son of God. so if a person is "pre-elected before Genesis 1:1" then why was God's wrath "residing" on him before that? that's not a way to treat the "elect." Do you think that the Lord would pour out His wrath on an unsaved man when the unsaved man could do nothing about his condition?
One question that Calvin and hyper-Calvinists could never really face and discuss and still can't is how an unsaved man can be responsible for something he is unable to do and be held accountable for something he could not have done if he had tried. Calvin's "god" was not playing with a full deck. his theological docrinal "god".
Calvin confused "foreknowledge" with a hyper-predistination. God predistines CLASSES of individuals, not necessarily every single peron or every single person's acts. that would make God the biggest rapist in the universe. cuz He then created humans to rape and pillage and murder and steal. as "eternal decrees".
the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). Did Peter or the Holy Spirit lie?
Now to Pharaoh and "vessels of destruction".
Romans 9:17,18. to show my power in the earth. did you ever read Exodus to see what that was actually about and how it applied and at what point??? John Calvin didn't. He just took for granted that God hardened the nonelect and saved the elect and that was the end of it. rather stupid way to do exegesis. God had foreknowledge that Egypt would not let the Israelites go. Exodus 3. read it. election is based on FOREKNOWLEDGE. not some arbitrary thing on God's part.
What is the context of Romans 9:21?? Hath not the potter power over the clay? there is no "clay" before Genesis 1:1. what is the context? THE VESSEL IS ALREADY THERE. God saw that Pharaoh ALREADY hardened his heart, and God allowed it, and thereby continued in that sense "hardening it" for a purpose.
22: Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. what fitted them for destruction??? well the "wrath" of God abides on those who ultimately don't believe in Christ. it's based on a person's own selfish will and choices. not some eternal "decree of reprobation."
I am not a Calvinist. which is the equivalent of saying that I'm not ready for the looney bin.
In Calvin's system, the ones who are elected to damnation couldn't be saved and couldn't believe even if they wanted to. and not one drop of Christ's blood was shed for that person. according to Calvin. no "straw dummy" is being built. that's what he taught. I have his books.
Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth..." willeth what?? Calvin never found out what the what was. "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy...I will have compassion...." but that's not referring to an unsaved sinner receiving Christ. and by free will. as I said, "freewill" is a Bible term and idea. (Ezra 7:13; 7:15; 7:16; Exodus 35:21; 35:5; and 35:29)
and in the "Old Testament" none of them was born again or "in Christ" and yet they still could choose right or wrong, in that dispensation.
Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth...." THAT WILLETH WHAT?? a man cannot by act of will make God have mercy on him or make God have compassion on him. that's what that is specifically saying. that's not saying "well man has no free will in anything." If you want mercy from the Almighty and compassion you are going to have to come HIS way, not your own way. that's fairly clear from the text, if a man could read it all carefully. in other words, you can't make up in your own mind how to be saved or right with God, but it's HIS way. it can't be like "ok, I am determined by my own act of will that God will have mercy on me." it can't be done that way. it is of God. But Calvin and hyper-Calvinists for some oddball reason believe that that verse denies the free will of man in receiving Christ, when that specific thing was not even under discussion those verses.
someone might say "Well at Calvary the Lord has mercy on a man and a man receives compassion, at Calvary." Sure, well that's the point isn't it. The point is that, if you want God to have mercy and compassion upon you, you can't just will His mercy upon you, on a whim; you have to obey God's will. And the Scriptures say that God has determined that He will have mercy and compassion on no man but a man who ultimately receives His and Messiah, as his Saviour and King.
anyway, I wrote enough on this topic for now. given that this is not even the right thread for that. but I only mentioned "JWs are not Calvinists" in an earlier post, IN PASSING. but Ellder and Deputy. I am not angry with you. I jusgt disagree with you and your hyper-Calvinism. and with your mis-application of Scripture, and mis-contextualization of things.
bye
-
sweetscholar
they don't wonder anything. the Bible says that Christ's true people would be "hated by all nations" and would be persecuted and lied about and dogged.
read your Bible a bit more carefully.
by the way, not all JWs would necessarily come off the way I've been with you. I'll concede a few things. my tone could have been calmer with you. granted. but you really were so out of line and inaccurate in your rude accusations. you think you were perfect in this whole thing??? really?? think again.
now for being overly gruff, my apologies. but again, I did NOT "dodge" really any thing that was asked of me. and it was unfair for you to say that. the other dude who brought up WT validity was bringing up irrelevant things and was being rude and weird about things.
most of my posts have been minus any "name-calling" or anything. did you really really read them all??
JWs don't wonder why sticking thorns in pagans sides would cause most of them not to like them.
People thought Noah and his family were arrogant and presumptous and annoying and "unlikable" and "cultic" too.
and it's not just a legend or allegory. people had their own religions and beliefs too back then. and Noah's Ark proved to be the only true religion on earth at that time in history. whether it consisted of 8 people or 800. I got more into that in other threads. that's a whole other topic in itself. (mentioned in PASSING here, Ellder.)
-
LittleToe
Interesting. I appear to have you so riled that you can't stop using my name, even though I've been away for over a day - LOL. It's coz I told ya I loved ya, isn't it?
...mental case demonized nut, who calls himself "Little Toes".
Emulation is the greatest form of flattery. Thanks. Genuinely
but the Devil is in a habit of accusing others of what he himself is guilty of.
Yes, he has
I've written tons. addressing all the arguments, the valid ones, the semi-valid ones, and even the totally retarded invalid ones.
Well, I agree on the first point.
when I told that maniac Little Schmo off?
Did you? Oh dear, I feel so chastised! How will I ever lift my head again from the shame of it all?
but to dogmatically say that eye paint was invented originally (check this out) FOR THE SOLE ORIGINAL PURPOSE originally for warding off spirits has no backing and solid evidence. even (and get this) if it was used later on with that in mind. was it originally invented for that express purpose? nay, the evidence is lacking for that.
Now apply that reasoning to Birthdays and tell me what you've got left. Gawd I love the way you continue to undermine your own arguments. Thankyou - you save me so much typing
the Bible says that Christ's true people would be "hated by all nations" and would be persecuted and lied about and dogged.
And I wonder who's doing the hating around here
most of my posts have been minus any "name-calling" or anything. did you really really read them all??
Statistics wasn't your strong point in school, was it? Or have you not got to that class yet?
People thought Noah and his family were arrogant and presumptous and annoying and "unlikable" and "cultic" too.
That's interesting. I never knew that. Could you provide a scripture for me, please? No side-stepping, now!
Oh, and btw thanks for the entertainment - I genuinely hope that one day you revisit what you've written here. I should write it up as a case study - compelling viewing, isn't it?