I can understand locking a thread because of too many foodfights.
But — locking a thread after a doctrine has been expressed denotes the orientation of this Web site.
So, is Martin's opinion the official stance of Tentmaker on the issue of man's free will?
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 03, 2009, 12:42:38 AM
I can understand locking a thread because of too many foodfights.
But — locking a thread after a doctrine has been expressed denotes the orientation of this Web site.
So, is Martin's opinion the official stance of Tentmaker on the issue of man's free will?
Beloved,
I addressed this with the moderator via a PM and will await his response. I'm not wanting to start any "food-fights" here or anywhere. If you'd like to discuss the subject further, perhaps you'd consider a PM to me?
Lee
I see now that jabcat has seized his "brief window of opportunity."
We now have two different opinions from the same house divided.
Who of you speak the Truth?
I don't claim to have all truth. I have my understanding of things, my point of view, and I personally appreciate when people share that way.
Maybe you don't, but if you have an axe to grind with me personally, please just say so directly and we'll talk it out. Perhaps I shouldn't have "seized my window of opportunity" and just shut it down without comment other than to ask Martin (as the admin) to review it and make a decision on it. Ahhh...we're all human.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 03, 2009, 01:06:59 AM
I see now that jabcat has seized his "brief window of opportunity."
We now have two different opinions from the same house divided.
Who of you speak the Truth?
So far, I have given almost no Biblical evidence for my posts. That is my fault, and I apologize for it. I will endeavor to do better to back up any statements with Scriptures.
Without "Rightly Dividing" the Word, we may as well stop looking to the Bible for any peace or understanding. God will judge me on my works, then I'll get to see if I'm all wood, hay, and stubble. I've made a commitment not to post any new threads until jabcat has clarified what is "taboo" on this website.
Lee
I probably deserve this for commenting :punish:. But Martin and I can talk and even disagree, but still treat each other respectfully. If there's any "official stance", it's Gary Amirault's, as TM is his site. I'd say NONE of us totally agree or have all truth. My :2c:. As Lee said, God reveals as suits His purposes. And IMO, sometimes our ignorance leads to His revelation. :thumbsup:
Jabcat, my reply was merely an observation, not a commentary.
I love you, man. And an axe would never fit my hand.
Step back and read what has been posted as if it were not your own.
You will see.
It's cool. I just thought I may have offended you somehow...and then I did :laughing7:.
Sorry, as I said to Lee, we all have our vulnerabilities. And seriously, we can talk things out, even if you did have something bugging you about me or a decision I've made. We're brothers and don't need a lawyer :bigGrin:.
As far as "stepping back...as if it's not my own"...do you mean my illicit "window of opportunity" post, or my post to you?
I've got a meeting to go to...I be bock.
I simply meant what i said.
You and Martin both officially represent Tentmaker.
You both expressed opinions on a locked thread.
So, I asked if Martins was correct or yours.
Nothing more, nothing less.
And I loathe confrontation, you will never get that from me.
If the Spirit is not there, I flee.
No need to flee. I (perhaps inappropriately) expressed my opinion/understanding on that thread, really thinking it was probably somewhere in the middle. Not the first time I probably should have kept my mouth shut.
However, Martin is the administrator, and I would never publically battle with him...express an opinion perhaps, but then if there's anything more than that, it would need to be behind closed doors, as far as I'm concerned. I see him as my "superior" on the boards, so even though I may make mistakes, I attempt to not disrespect him, and he has the final decision on things; he deals with Gary directly, unless he were to ask me to do so for some specific reason. I also know Martin's not an arguer. He too will express an opinion, then tends to move on.
Bottom line, again, what I have is my personal understanding...it's probably even somewhat in flux, and I could be wrong...about many things. So what I said in the thread was my opinion, and I would "officially" publically defer to Martin and Gary. Nothing here we can't live with or keep working together with. God is love, Jesus is the Savior.
I also think it's so hard sometimes to "read" what others may be feeling or meaning in black and white forum posts...as far as I'm concerned, questions asked, opinions stated and clarified, and let's just move on to other things. I'm sorry if I was offensive.
Martin will decide what he wants to do with the thread. :thumbsup:
We need to read the scriptures with the Author.
Otherwise, it is a dead letter that Adam will interpret with his mind.
Alone, it is a wonderful book, but confounds the mind of man.
Read with the breath of God, it brings wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
:cloud9: AMEN, Beloved Servant......... :thumbsup: Blessings....
I didn't know free will was an outlawed discussion option xD
Why would a topic not be open to debate? As long as the debate is rational and civilized? I can't imagine Jesus saying lock that topic when someone believes contrarywise.
To me, one of the best documents I have read on the subject of freewill is this one:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm
I'm not a Roman Catholic and believe very contrary to their views but this document to me is "on the point" very well.
Paul
We used to have like twice as many or two and a half times as many boards as we do now, including a board specifically for debates, and like February or March of last year Gary started expressing the desire to simplify things around here and stay generally in the UR area with general fellowship besides. So, a whole bunch of stuff got pulled and perhaps we lost a few folks from this forum as a result. But it's basically been Gary (i.e. site owner) that's wanted to avoid letting things get heated up around here. I would have blatantly refused being admin had that not been the case anyway, and I have a feeling one or two folks already knew that about me, but that's a long story for perhaps another time.
I personally agree with that because of many things in St. Paul's writings like 2Timothy 2 where it says that a servant of God must not be in strife. Isaiah 58 talks about the pointing of the finger and striking with the fist of wickedness and in that condition telling you to absolutely totally and completely forget about your voice being heard at God's Throne. Lots of things like in Mark 4 where those that get offended have forfeited the Word in their hearts to Satan and are choked of baring any fruit. The drastic situation between Moses and Miriam where she came down with Leprosy as a result of criticizing his having married an Ethiopian (sp?) woman. God evidently regards strife as spiritual leprosy.
People are too quick to cite the situation of St. Paul's confrontation of Peter in Galatians or Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees in Matthew 23 as though that were the true spirit of the Gospel and of Christ when St. Paul said that God has called us to peace. The Apostle John that is much more of a total teddy bear and a lot more tearful than Jeremiah, Jesus, or St. Paul even had a similar situation in 3John 9-10 -- yet people completely miss the tearful aspect of how they conducted themselves in their prophecies of correction, and that they weren't doing it with a spirit of self satisfaction or with being just in their own eyes. It was from a heart of love. If I read John's Gospel correctly, based on the rest of the New Testament, then strife is essentially Satan, himself. So, I think it was a very wise move to pull the debate board.
I can see the place of the sovereignty and issue of our choices as being a part of the discussion on how God accomplishes all of His purposes, and the means by which He separates the wheat from the garbage in our souls after first exposing them, but when one side is chosen to the villification of the other side, totally ignoring the fact that there are UR believers that believe in the Free Will issue, such as the UR author Thomas Talbott and others, then I fully understand Jabcat having locked that thread.
Tentmaker is simply not the place to divide UR folks on this and to polarize them on the issue to where feelings get hurt and you wind up having people that were in the middle of the subject sorta seeing both sides all too suddenly picking a side to the villification of the other and the exclusion of their brethren in Christ who are likewise UR believers who happen to believe the other side of the issue. I have zero problems with hatred being cultivated at L. Ray Smith's forum and at quite a few others online that really give me nausea. Just not here.
However, if it can be discussed within the framework of not villifying those who would see it differently, but merely as approaching your understanding of how God would accomplish all of His purposes of grace, judgment, and restoration to where neither a Calvinistic UR nor an Arminian UR would be viewed as automatically, inherently superior to the other perspective to where all of the rest of us simply need to get in line and follow the one playing their flute down the bridge, then I have absolutely no problems with it being discussed on this forum. It's the manner in which the subject is approached that becomes the problem rather than necessarily the subjects that are related to it, if that makes any sense. I know of absolutely no one that's a Christian -- whether UR or not -- that believes in "free will" that doesn't also believe in God's Sovereignty and Providential Rule over history.
However, I too often see the absolute sovereignty folks with the spirit of it being their way or the highway, and that's pretty distasteful and not in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel. It's not only not in keeping with the Gospel, but even in a natural fallen world, it's not even Gentlemanly, Lady-like, or good Sportsman-like conduct. And it is the #1 reason why UR folks are not the least bit welcome at CARM any more and I fully understand Matt Slick's reasoning on that because I was there at the time when UR folks were allowed there and I saw the constant onslaught of absolute vicious hatred on the part of Universalists for any perspective that was not their own. And unfortunately, I was young enough in UR at the time and overly zealous to where I got in a few choice licks as well, particularly at Matt personally, for which I've repented.
Thank-you for that eloquent explaination. It's easy to write something down with a certain "inflection" in your heart that doen't translate at all when it's in black and white(let alone black and blue :laughing7:)
Please remove the post in question. I'll be much more thoughtful in any future posts that touch on that subject.
To quote an old polititian, "I see a kinder, gentler" forum ahead for us. :winkgrin:
Lee
Thanks for the explanation Martin.
Paul
You have to remember too, that many come to this site by Googling for answers on the internet. (That's now I found Ray Smith and ultimiatly U.R..) U.R. can be exciting and scary all at the same time for people newly exposed for the first time. Gary wanted to give these seekers a forum mainly focused on U.R. Debates on the Trinity, who created Evil, and a host of other topics only confused, the newbies already struggling with U.R.. The reality was new seekers were being scared away and Gary was getting hate e-mail on topics he knew nothing about. So the decision was made to refocus the forum on U.R. and try to stay away from topics that might confuse or limit someones search into U.R.
Think of it as Gary's personal calling, one that he does not want to get lost on non U.R. debates. He just wants to stay true to his calling... Just my :2c:
Paul