Pilgrim, you repeatedly acuse me of lacking manly "character "and of “feebly” avoiding the “Main Issue.” But I’m afraid that I’m not seeing from that expression what it is that you want me to clarify. The issue to which I sought to respond was clarifying our guidelines and whether we should or should not temper disrespectful or “inflammatory” language, that I think encourages others to angrily feel that we misunderstand them, and thus hinders persuasive dialogue. I respect your opinion that inflicting ‘hurt’ is Christ-like and appropriately useful for our goals. But my own experience doesn’t convince me that it is a helpful agent of change, or that God seeks to encourage more of it. I may be wrong and am fine with our legitimate disagreement on this. I trust the site’s leaders to clarify their consensus.
I think you all need to cool down a bit. This conversation is going in circles. I suggest you have a general meeting of moderators and what not to figure out where the boundaries are and reaffirm them, rather than worrying about who offended who first or who compared what to what or what not.
I want to second Johnny’s recommendation of the link to Piper’s articles which debated Talbott on Calvinism. I found them very illuminating and especially significant to my transition from ECT to universalism.
Here’s the rule:
And here is what you said:
Now, assuming that you understand the English word ‘OR’ in the rule 3, you will be fully aware that you have just stated that we must not make negative comments about Calvinism.
It is there in black and white for all to see. Repeated efforts to deny the truth (as in your quote below) do you no service whatsoever.
Jason:
(and you are not quoting anyone here! You have added this latterly yourself talking in the third person about yourself! 
)
I have just given you the context and I have quoted you directly. I am not involved in any “oversimple versions” or “strawmen” as all can see.
Now I suggest you examine your consciences when you deny that you said that we should not make negative comments about Calvinism.
Your subsequent posts, obfuscations and denials are tantamount to suggesting that I have been bearing false witness against you.
Well I call on all readers and people of good conscience to consider who it is who has been bearing false witness.
“Repeatedly” eh? How many times is that? Three times? Twice? Well how about not even once?
Below is what I actually said (of course it was impossible for you to quote me):
What I actually said was that you had engaged in
And I encouraged you to
to either stand by your arguments or adjust them rather than apologising for fictitious hurts.
Your accusations are false.
Pilgrim,
When Jan. 26,27, you said I lacked “the decency to be a man,” and then “the strength of character” to adjust my view or even “to stand by my argument,” I inferred that you felt my failure to engage what you sought was simply my lack of character, rather than my inability to grasp what it was that you wanted addressed. You explain I falsely reached this inference. I can be dense, but sincerely felt I tried to fully present what I really think about what’s preferable for our site.
You repeat that I need stronger “character” “to stand by your arguments.” Could you specify which of my arguments or positions you want me to better stand up for, so that I’d stiffen my spine, and might better provide what you seek**?**
Grace be with you,
Bob
Bob
Here is what I said:
As you can see, I never said that you ‘lacked the decency to be a man’ and I note that, despite my request that you actually quote me in order to prove your point, you still failed to do this, and I have to assume that is because you are fully aware that you are bearing false witness.
All readers can see that I made a request that you demonstrate your decency in being a man, I actually believed that you HAD that decency not that you lacked that decency. However, I now leave it to all readers to decide precisely what both you and I have demonstrated in subsequent posts.
Finally, I will leave you and Jason to add as many varied comments and misquotes on this thread as you wish.** I will not reply to them any more** because, as Bird has said, it is now repetitious, and as Sonia has wisely asked (which has been shamefully ignored by myself and some of her co-workers) it would make sense to give time to staff to deal with these issues.
I for one, would be happy to submit to any decision made by Sonia and Alex in whom I still have faith and who are in a position to examine statements made by myself, Jason and yourself.
Bob:
I have been blessed by much of your work and contributions which I have put to good use in my life. I regard you extremely highly and (I say this with absolute sincerity) I regard you as twice the man I’ll ever be. We are all a mixed bag and I am sad to say that, on this occasion, I believe that you have born false witness more than once. No doubt I have many times. We are all sinners saved by grace and works in progress.
This will be my last post on this forum until this matter is sorted and unless Jason’s statement as Admin which I have plainly quoted in my post “Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:23 am” , which says that we cannot make negative comments about the school of thought called Calvinism, is retracted. If he does not retract it, then I hope that his Calvinists friends find this environment as comfortable as he wishes and actually post here because that seems to be his only concern, but it is certainly not a comfortable environment for the likes of me and I cannot believe that his pipe-dream of making his Calvinist friends his bedfellows will be realised.
God bless you
An excellent point, Bird. And one that makes me very sad. How terrible that being a Christian should be a disincentive to have children!
Don’t know if you’re a Bob Dylan fan (his royal Bobness is right up there with George MacDonald in my book of heroes!), but I am reminded of a verse in his song Masters of War:
You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins.
Different context, obviously, but the sentiment is germane in my book.
Ironic, isn’t is davidbo, that these Reformed churchfolk were so frightened of doing anything - of thinking for themselves, as you say - that might cause them to lose their salvation, as under the ‘P’ bit of their TULIP theology (perseverance of the saints) it’s supposed to be impossible for one of the elect to lose their salvation.
All of which is very suggestive to me. It suggests that either, a) they don’t really believe their own theology; or b) they are afraid that their theology is true, but that they’re not actually one of the elect. And of course, under Calvinism, if you’re *not *one of the elect, there is nothing, nada, diddly squat you can do about *becoming *elect. Which is one reason why I’m amazed Calvinist apologists like John Piper and Mark Driscoll can talk with such aplomb and assurance about salvation. How do they know, 100% for sure, that they are elect?
And even if they *are * truly ‘elect’ - what if they hadn’t been?!
The fruits of Calvinism?
Shalom
Johnny
Pilgrim and all,
As we are all sinners saved by grace and works in process, this is an excellent opportunity to freely extend to others that same grace and forgiveness we have freely received. I think there has been a good bit of misunderstanding in this thread, and I’m not going to try to sort out who said what and what they meant by it and how others perceived their words etc, etc. 
Our Lord is the one who is able to judge hearts, so let us leave that to Him, let love cover any sin or perceived sin, forgive, and move on.
The wording of the rule seemed clear to us because we understood what we were trying to communicate, but obviously it was not clear enough and we need to use more specific words than “negative.” We’ll work on that. If anyone finds anything else in the rules unclear or confusing you are welcome to post a question or make a suggestion.
Thanks,
Sonia
Johnny,
You’re right, it’s very ironic.
MacArthur wrote a book about assurance. I didn’t read it, but when I was at the church we were taught that assurance was based on the fact that salvation is God’s work in us, you know that passage … “he who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it…”
However, the only way you can know you are elect is the fact that you made a decision to follow Christ and continue faithful until the end. 
So if you make a wrong choice and go astray, you were never elect and were never really saved…
Sonia
Johhny … you’ve changed.
Hi Fiery
If you’re referring to my switching my avatar picture to my namesake, Johnny Ramone, the late lamented lead guitarist of the world’s greatest rock and roll band, then yes, I have changed! 
I was feeling in a rather frivolous mood the other day, and figured people might have got tired of seeing my ugly mug (although I remain as proud as punch of my beautiful avatar ‘co-star’, my step granddaughter Gracie). But I now see that move as rather a foolish affectation, so I shall be switching back to my original avatar later.
If you’re referring to any other sort of change, my impassioned opposition to the doctrines of ECT and predestination to ECT hasn’t changed one iota! In fact, I am even now composing what I hope will be a fair but hard-hitting analysis of the illogicality and inconsistency of those doctrines, which I hope to post later this week.
Hope all is well with you, and you stuck to your guns with your pastor (see my Friday Jan 27 1:52pm post).
Shalom
Johnny
My fellow Pilgrim,
I appreciate your contributions and clarifying explanation. Thus I am especially sorry for what seems like a conflict arising from our two problematic styles of communication. I thought that I had “plainly said what my stance was on the new rule” (that prohibiting “negative comments” was wrong defined as ‘sharp critiques of a view as false,’ but right if defined as 'disrespectfully inflammatory" - admittedly still subjective terminology). So when you repeated your request for my decency to be a man, I wrongly assumed that you were communicating a perception that I “lacked” character. I really was bafflingly oblivious as to what you thought I had not “stood up for.”
I apologize that my reference to your appeal apparently misrepresents your meaning. I am sorry that my not posting your own full paragraph left your feeling that I “fully aware” wanted to bear false witness about you. I’m so technologically challenged that I’ve not been able to post these even in long dialogues with others. What I was indicating is what I actually thought was a legitimate interpretation of what your phrase sounded like to me. I too have loved your contributions on this site, usually resonating with your vantage point, including the perverse implications of Calvinism.
May every blessing be yours,
Bob
Stellar,
I appreciate your post about Mark Driscoll. I just found this to get a better idea of how he preaches on ‘hate’: youtube.com/watch?v=J7BIO7NoOww .
But I don’t think we need to attribute this to any possible personal issues he is having; It arises naturally from his theology (that being Calvinism). In fact, in the above video I appreciate him for not trying to dodge the issue, as many Calvinist pastors do.
Sonia,
I remember reading MacArthur’s writings on assurance many years ago. It basically amounted to :
(i) salvation by grace through faith alone
(ii) assurance by works
So if you are elect, God knows you are saved, and will be saved, but you may only surmise it by evaluating your works. In the final analysis you have no more assurance than the person who believes he is saved by works. The “good news”, under MacArthur’s reasoning, is really no more comforting than the “gospel” of Catholicism that Luther was trying to free us from.
Johnny,
Yeah, my “you’ve changed” comment was in reference to your new (now old) pic … but I wasn’t complaining. It looked kinda cool. I thought it might be your alter ego playing a gig on a Saturday night. But alas, it was the other rockstar Johnny … which is cool too. In any case, I think Gracie has you both beat. 
Thank you for your comments on my earlier post and for taking the time to understand where I am ‘coming from’ (although apparently we both are approaching this topic similarly).
You raise an interesting point about how my pastor or other Calvinists would feel if hypothetically “the glory of God” (which they are quick to remind us is their greatest concern) meant they themselves must be damned. Would they be so accepting of these terms as they were when it “merely” meant their children might be damned? I actually posed this question to my pastor in a previous talk. He responded “Well that’s not the gospel. I don’t play mental games.” I will resist the temptation to comment further at this time.
BTW I had to postpone my talk with my pastor until tomorrow due to job related issues. Thank you for the encouragement. I will update you afterwards.
Also I am definitely looking forward to your upcoming “analysis of the illogicality and inconsistency” of Reformed doctrines.
Fired,
I watched that Driscoll video. Around the 1:30 mark he says that the wrath of God is mentioned, OT and NT, more than 600 times. The tragedy to me isn’t that he’s willing to talk about the wrath of God; clearly God is willing to talk about His wrath. The tragedy, as I see it, is that he’s apparently read over 600 passages of Scripture about God’s wrath and still does not understand it. How can anyone read, for instance, Zephaniah 3:8-10, which describes the kind of wrath God exercises (resulting in “pure lips” and renewed worship), or any of the manifold passages that express the essential transience of God’s wrath and its purpose of ultimate restoration, and believe what he does about it?
Ugh.
Around the beginning he disparages scholars that might understand God’s wrath differently than he does (mockingly saying that they “say wrath really means lollipops”). Around the seven minute mark, he does it again with, “You can find a Christian on the run when they start doing word studies.” Excuse me? Now word studies don’t illuminate Scripture? Is exegesis not a thing we ought to be doing? Did the Bible just drop out of Heaven in 21st century English with your name already engraved on the cover? The man has got to be joking.
I’m right with ya snitzelhoff.
To be clear , when I expressed my appreciation that Driscoll does not dodge the issue, the exact issue I had in mind is that when Calvinism is followed consistently it leads to the idea that God hates some people, which Driscoll is quite willing to affirm, despite the fact that other Reformed preachers try to squirm out of this.
Great observation about the “600 times” remark. It always bothers me when ANY preacher mentions how many times a word or concept is mentioned. It only gets worse when they compare it to how many times an alternate word or concept is mentioned. And then they look at you as if they just proved something. “Really? Are you going to insult my intelligence that badly. Like I’m gonna roll over and say ‘You got me there.’”
Counting words or concepts proves nothing … NOTHING. You have to look at the context of each occurrence, which you pointed out so well concerning Zephaniah 3:8-10.
If I was with Driscoll I would say something like: “Thats’ really great how you counted up all those passages in your concordance. Did you have a chance to actually read any of 'em?”
I almost forgot the “lollipops” and “word studies” remarks. The sentiment of your comments is spot on. How can he be taken seriously when he derides people for analyzing biblical words … for basically doing their job as a student of the word? When he made those remarks I almost had to stop and play it again while incredulously asking: “Did he just say what I think he said?!” Thanks for confirming to me that, he did.
Exactly. Sometimes I wonder if the refusal to engage in any kind of depth of exegesis betrays insecurity with one’s theological position. After all, if his position is right, then a closer examination of such pertinent issues is only going to lend it more credence. I’ve always seen that kind of aversion to original language studies and so forth as tantamount to the old, “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts!” line.