Why don't Calvinist believe the Gospel?

[Homework]

Thanks for answering. However, I used the word "biblical" in the sense of grounding our opinions upon God's truth; as such, you failed to understand intent of the question or the determinism I was addressing.

It’s not me. We need to totally drop this conversation, because you’re talking only about your specific Baptist church theology, and I’m talking only specifically about a national federal government department that makes sure athletics are fair.

Your theology is more something you are using far judicial branch arguments; casinos and pool both pertain to sports and scoring track and field.

 

[Homework]

Unfortunately, I can only be online for a little bit longer. I don't really concern myself with guilt by association tactics and hybrid-genetic fallacies. However, I would love to discuss the biblical grounds for what I believe. If you could keep on topic biblically, keeping the discussion on the biblical text for why people believe what they believe, then I would gladly participate in the discussion. Otherwise, I just simply see chasing irrelevant rabbit trails as pointless (US, Charles Stewart, republican, etc.) Wouldn't you agree that what God has to say on the subject is of higher value and importance than historical and political digressions?

What I have to say is that you belong to a British tradition of people who resemble Jeff Davis and started a civil war in the late 1500s by murdering Charles Stewart while William was away settling up habius corpus for the dead body of ye original English language Bible translation in Tuscany.

I already know what baptists think. I don’t want to talk about English history with you, and I can tell that you’re probable interest in amendments six through eight of the Bill of Rights aren’t there for me, so I’ll just apologize for stumbling in on your closed door first and fourth amendment club meet.

 

[Arial]

It’s not me. We need to totally drop this conversation, because you’re talking only about your specific Baptist church theology, and I’m talking only specifically about a national federal government department that makes sure athletics are fair.

Your theology is more something you are using far judicial branch arguments; casinos and pool both pertain to sports and scoring track and field.

Mod Hat: Well, that is completely off topic of the OP and that is against the rules. Stick to the topic and address the content of posts you respond to.

 

[David Lamb]

What I have to say is that you belong to a British tradition of people who resemble Jeff Davis and started a civil war in the late 1500s by murdering Charles Stewart while William was away settling up habius corpus for the dead body of ye original English language Bible translation in Tuscany.

I already know what baptists think. I don’t want to talk about English history with you, and I can tell that you’re probable interest in amendments six through eight of the Bill of Rights aren’t there for me, so I’ll just apologize for stumbling in on your closed door first and fourth amendment club meet.

I don't know who Jeff Davis is, but I do know that the Civil War here took place between 1642 and 1651, not the late 1500s. I don't know who you mean by William who was, according to you, setting up habeas corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act was set up under Charles II, in 1679.

 

[His clay]

It’s not me. We need to totally drop this conversation, because you’re talking only about your specific Baptist church theology, and I’m talking only specifically about a national federal government department that makes sure athletics are fair.

Your theology is more something you are using far judicial branch arguments; casinos and pool both pertain to sports and scoring track and field.

What I have to say is that you belong to a British tradition of people who resemble Jeff Davis and started a civil war in the late 1500s by murdering Charles Stewart while William was away settling up habius corpus for the dead body of ye original English language Bible translation in Tuscany.

I already know what baptists think. I don’t want to talk about English history with you, and I can tell that you’re probable interest in amendments six through eight of the Bill of Rights aren’t there for me, so I’ll just apologize for stumbling in on your closed door first and fourth amendment club meet.

As always, I'm amazed at the creative ingenuity of some people's thinking. It genuinely amazes me. But you may actually want to try to not address people by projecting your ideas into them. I just want to get back to the topic and scripture. Is this really so hard to comprehend?

 

[His clay]

Mod Hat: Well, that is completely off topic of the OP and that is against the rules. Stick to the topic and address the content of posts you respond to.

What I am often left thinking is why the obvious diversionary tactic? Was there something the other poster wanted to cover up? I really do often wonder about the blatant red herring. What is the purpose?

Was it to shift away from the blatant failure to properly define determinism? An inderterminist ramification was given to define determinism, which was rather . . . well . . . I'm trying to be nice. (see post #60)

 

[His clay]

What I am often left thinking is why the obvious diversionary tactic? Was there something the other poster wanted to cover up? I really do often wonder about the blatant red herring. What is the purpose?

Was it to shift away from the blatant failure to properly define determinism? An inderterminist ramification was given to define determinism, which was rather . . . well . . . I'm trying to be nice. (see post #60)

Well, I can't edit my post past the time. Apparently, the post no longer exists. Of course, this is not a problem at all, since it was just a mountain of misinformation. Plenty of people critiqued the post. I almost chimed in, but it just wasn't all that needed. A unanimous Calvinistic response was that the post was confusing things, and it presented a straw man. It is sad when the best one can do for an argument is present straw men.

One thing I am thankful for is the testimony of church history. William Carey, Adoniram Judson, and George Mueller come to mind. A powerful missions, gospel, and prayer witness is given by them, and at the back of it was a strong Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty. The critics utterly fail to understand the basics of how the gospel gets off the ground and how people are empowered to live radically God-centered lives by means of the solid foundation of a loving trust in the good sovereignty of God over all things.