Spammers wasteland
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
GM seeks to review your testimony
GM seeks to review your testimony
Rather than setting yourself up as our regula fidei, you could follow the church militant's practice of hearing a testimony of a church member candidate before the congregation votes on said membership. Accordingly, a member in good standing in the local church need not be subjected to your call for testimony. I assume you are a formal member of a local visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride, so that is sufficient for me. You?
Of course, the above would immediately place you at odds with some of your crew, who think sipping coffee at McDonald's or Starbuck's constitutes church membership. Be careful what you wish for, sir. You may just get it. :AMR:
AMR
GM seeks to review your testimony
You made similar charges in my direction, despite having been pointed to correctives on several occasions. Maybe we need a thread for member testimonies to avoid these frequent claims of yours taken to be shibboleths of something you feel is important as a litmus test. Then again, you would likely begin to dissect said testimonies in the thread according to some rules for "a true testimony" you have devised. :AMR:
Rather than setting yourself up as our regula fidei, you could follow the church militant's practice of hearing a testimony of a church member candidate before the congregation votes on said membership. Accordingly, a member in good standing in the local church need not be subjected to your call for testimony. I assume you are a formal member of a local visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride, so that is sufficient for me. You?
Of course, the above would immediately place you at odds with some of your crew, who think sipping coffee at McDonald's or Starbuck's constitutes church membership. Be careful what you wish for, sir. You may just get it. :AMR:
AMR
musterion
Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Brother, better to let these personal slights go un-responded to. Take the high road and deliver that which you hold dear and leave the determination of what you have to say to the discerning person reading your posts. I believe the average TOL member is gifted by God to discern what has merit and what does not. TOL is not defined by the top 50 posters, highest reps, or thanks. These statistics speak to but a microcosm of the population herein. It is to the reticent and the discerning to whom we should be speaking for therein lies the silent majority of TOL's readership.
Those that revel in posting whatever pops into their noggins at the time are not among this population of which I speak. Why grant them more credibility than they deserve by responding to their every stream of consciousness? They already have their reward of being seen and toadying to the mob. Do not unwittingly heap upon them more than they deserve; it dishonors He whom we live to give glory to as our life's meaning. The most important thing one can do is to ignore those that cavil against you, for how it accuses them is shown in the evidence of their posts, wherein they gnash their teeth (grinding teeth, fisted raised upward).
Be a good steward of the time God has granted you to spend in these discussion sites. Before each post test that stewardship as to whether it adds to your own sense of self-worth or to that alien righteousness (that of Another) the faithful possess.
AMR
AMR's dissertation was indeed, awe-inspiring. I began to feel a strange sensation running up and down my spine as I continued to read such words of wisdom. Especially, when AMR can't be certain that PPS is a true member of the Body of Christ, considering he (PPS) refuses to give a testimony of his faith in Christ and the Grace Gospel that the ascended Christ gave to the Apostle Paul. I question AMR's discernment at this time?
musterion
Well-known member
AMR,
I'm curious about something.
Laying aside the fleshly broadsides that have been exchanged in this thread, PPS has repeatedly written off every single dispensationalist here as unregenerate and unsaved. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that he's done this, but I do find something very odd.
I, for one, extend the possibility that he is saved according to his claiming to believe the Gospel of the grace of God, as we dispensationalists do. I have told him this. I've also asked him to reciprocate. However, he has thus far refused to do so. Rather, he still categorically insists we're all lost no matter what we say we believe. Okay, fine, whatever.
My question for you: despite whatever problems he perceives us to have, does his refusal to allow that MAYBE we are saved just as he claims to be, and by the same means, also earn him your gentle rebuke?
I'm curious about something.
Laying aside the fleshly broadsides that have been exchanged in this thread, PPS has repeatedly written off every single dispensationalist here as unregenerate and unsaved. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that he's done this, but I do find something very odd.
I, for one, extend the possibility that he is saved according to his claiming to believe the Gospel of the grace of God, as we dispensationalists do. I have told him this. I've also asked him to reciprocate. However, he has thus far refused to do so. Rather, he still categorically insists we're all lost no matter what we say we believe. Okay, fine, whatever.
My question for you: despite whatever problems he perceives us to have, does his refusal to allow that MAYBE we are saved just as he claims to be, and by the same means, also earn him your gentle rebuke?
You do not frighten me AMR. I do not run for the hills, get out of Dodge or hide in a cave every time you speak. Your Shakespearean rants do not strike fear within the confines of my mortal being. I realize your educational background proceeds you. Yet still, I do not bow to your feelings of superiority over others.
By the way, Why don't you start a thread on "Testimonies of faith?" You have a good idea, do something with it.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is a reasonable question and I will answer.
I have often stated herein that I do not consider those that the Arminian view means these persons who profess such a view are unregenerate or reprobate. I consider professing Arminians brothers and sisters in Our Lord, albeit confused brothers and sisters.
Dispensationalists I view as also confused about the covenantalism of Holy Writ, but I would never declare in a general manner that professing dispensationalists are unregenerate or reprobate. Unfortunately, this courtesy is not often extended to us Reformed folk. Sigh.
I think we have no issue and plenty of Scriptural warrant to declare a specific person as unregenerate after all the public evidence is in view. That said, the declaration should be made with much hesitancy, prayer, and long-suffering patience.
In my entire lifetime there have been only two occasions wherein I became quite convinced a person was indeed reprobate. This was after quite a bit of public evidence and following much study and prayer. Even so, who am I to know the secret will of God? Accordingly, declaring a specific person in public to be reprobate is something we should not do. I am grieved that I in fact made this a public declaration in one of the two cases I described above. That was wrong for me to do and I have repented of it.
Our Lord alone possesses this power and knowledge of the final destination of all He has created. For example, no one should dispute that Judas was reprobate. Our Lord made this clear.
For example, we may, given proper evidence, treat specific others as unregenerate, even so far as separating them from our church's communion via excommunication and for sifting by the devil. If these persons return to us, they were regenerate. Further, we have warrant from Scripture to declare those that deny the Triune Godhead as unregenerate (and possibly reprobate).
In summary, I take a dim view of declaring an entire group of professing Triune believers as being reprobates or unregenerate. Said determinations are the stuff of individual assessments.
AMR
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Then they should not speak. And if corrected 582 dozen times with lexical excerpts, etc., one is without excuse.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, it was a reference to the overall quality of TOL if he is an "asset".
Inspect much, Cain?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
A sobering reminder. And I mean for me.
So.... I recant having referred to anyone as a reprobate to whom this applies. It doesn't change my concern for the integrity of the Gospel and the confessional nature that must be one's public belief; but I'm too quick to assign egregious doctrinal error as reprobation, especially to those who have many areas of false doctrine.
I except Third Wave Charismaticists and New Apostolic Reformationists, which must be taken on a more individual basis because of false Christology and false Pneumatology (and therefore, false Paterology).
Thank you, AMR.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Wisdom and prudence. I will take heed, by God's grace. Thank you for the correction, Brother.
You will in no wise take heed, you can't control your obsessions
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I receive HIS rebuke in this matter of correction.
If you are part of an established and functioning local Body of Believers who professes the core of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I will generally and collectively consider you as according to your own confession/profession.
Individually, I am concerned for any Dispensationalist, Arminian, Open Theist, or Kenoticist (and many others) based upon adding TO the Gospel which subtracts FROM the Gospel.
I don't know what to do with Tambora in this light, since she has obviously maintained a rigorous adamance regarding synergy for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is clearly Tritheistic, among several other concerns that equate to blasphemy.
But since I'm not her Master and to her own Master she stands or falls, I'll just leave that alone and deal with the subject matter itself in a less personal manner.
I think being "in fellowship" definitely has multiple radii for a periphery. I'll make my best efforts to abstain from overt personal assessments rather than doctrinal assessments.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I receive this reproof for my overzealous personalization of doctrinal assessment. Thank you.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You might want to consider yourself in this and every other regard.
musterion
Well-known member
Thank you for your reply. One small point.
Just for those who may not know: I have NEVER said any Calvinist is unsaved simply because he/she is a Calvinist. I have invariably said that as abominable as I find Reformed theology to be (so we reciprocate there, too), the Gospel of grace is the power of God unto salvation that ANY may believe, and I know many Calvinists who say that is the Gospel they do believe. So if someone says they've believed it -- as you have -- then I have no authority to doubt it but rather must accept it.
Second point edited. I see he's already accepted your rebuke.
Thanks again for your reply!
musterion
Well-known member
Then perhaps you should leave, if the quality is not up to your standards. If you have people driving hundreds of miles to sit at your feet, it's a lead pipe cinch that you can find another board to more fruitfully occupy your time.
- Status