Tab Content
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Today, 11:44 AM
    I've used Karm but I've never looked up that particular heresy. That said now that I'm seeing the serpent thing I've probably seen that before and just didn't remember the name. oh well :)
    30 replies | 374 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:50 PM
    Well for one thing because the synergism accusation isn't actually true, anymore than the accusations against you being a hyper-calvinist are true. But second of all, what the heck does Deuteronomy 13 have to do with Rome? Joel McDurmon makes this same idiotic accusation and its not true. Third of all, I'm not totally convinced that soteriological errors deserve capital punishment in the same way Christological ones (worshipping a god with a different identity) do. I'd say outright pelagianism also deserves it in that Pelagianism essentially says "I am the Lord your God, but I didn't bring you out of Egypt, you brought yourselves out", but once people start granting that the cross did save them its a bit more complicated. I'm inclined to say that the civil magistrate can still punish the spreading of gross errors but "the punishment should fit the crime" so to speak. I definitely don't want to sound like the anabaptist/modern evangelical "The Reformed were just a bunch of murderers" because I know that's not true, but I really do think this is wrong, assuming anyone was actually killed just for preaching against paedobaptism (which I'm not sure if was actually the case.) You can make a decent case that credobaptists should be denied citizenship from Genesis 17 (which I believe is the standard covenanter position.... I don't claim certainty on this issue however) but to actually execute them for preaching the false doctrine on a non-primary matter I believe is excessive. I can't agree to that because I believe it goes against the OT law as well. The OT law perfectly fits the punishment to the crime. Preaching a false god (as Servetus did) deserves death. I don't think preaching against paedobaptism (though wrong) does. OK fair enough.
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:16 PM
    To be clear I'm not defending Phelps, but what capital crime has he committed according to Biblical law? To be clear, I am not familiar with the details of his teaching, I know he's a baptist (which is an error but I don't think would qualify as a capital crime), a Hyper-Calvinist (ditto) and extremely abrasive in how he conducts himself (ditto.) Servetus was teaching a different (non-trinitarian) God which certainly warrants "roasting" (I prefer stoning or firing squad ;) ) according to Deut 13, but I am not sure what capital crime you see Phelps as being guilty of (not disagreeing necessarily, and I do NOT defend Phelps.)
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:14 PM
    I have never heard of it.
    30 replies | 374 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:28 AM
    I, too, enjoy using the King James (Authorized Version) Bible, and it has been my main translation since I was a young boy. In fact, several years ago, I would have almost considered someone a heretic if he didn't use the KJV. However, as we become older and, hopefully, more mature in our faith, we come to realize that many of the theological positions we used to hold were wrong. The exclusivity of the KJV is one of those positions, for me. Though I believe it to be the premium version for English-speakers, I also recognize that its language can become a stumblingblock for many people. Therefore, other translations have to be used for understanding, memorizing, and citing of God's word. So, I am not a "KJV-Only" person. Having said that, I find that the ministry website of the Trinitarian Bible Society has some very good information and insights about why the KJV still ought to be used as the standard version for English-speaking Christians and churches.
    30 replies | 374 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:07 AM
    Call me "biased," but I still prefer Dr. Paul's videos. There's nothing like good ol' fashioned substance and truth in a video for a Presidential candidate, without all the bells and whistles (no pun intended). Case in point:
    6 replies | 235 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:50 AM
    That depends on your worldview, particularly as it relates to whether human beings have souls or not. From a Christian worldview, no, consent is not always the precondition for any behavior. In fact, if God did not give us new hearts by the Holy Spirit ("being born again") to trust and follow Him, then no one would consent to believing in Him. That's because we're all born in sin, and our natural selves don't want anything to do with God, due to that sin nature. But once again, if one rejects the Christian worldview about the nature of human beings, then that person has to justify why pedophilia is objectively wrong, given the assertion that human beings are just biological machines subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. And to insert the need for consent in sexual behavior goes way beyond biology, chemistry, or physics. Otherwise, consent becomes an impossibility, or, at best, just something that is dependent upon impersonal and random material forces which no human being can control unto himself.
    40 replies | 1286 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:27 AM
    This video is very relevant to the subject of the thread:
    7 replies | 194 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 10:52 AM
    We aren't forced against our will. I agree with that. The problem is you believe people are actually able to choose God of their own volition. But we won't. The only person who we could maybe say had a totally free choice (though even still, God put the tree there intending but not causing the Fall for his own good purpose) is Adam. That would even be speculative but you could maybe make that Biblical argument. Everyone else is born in slavery to sin. The Bible says we were dead in our tresspasses. God has to remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh so that you will believe. So you're right that its not "forced" but its not free will either.
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 01:41 AM
    The bold is what I'd dispute. Arminians teach pervenient grace, that God gives everyone enough grace to believe and then its in "their court" so to speak. Calvinists believe that God chose before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who wouldn't. That choice is manifested through belief but its not actually man's choice (in the ultimate sense) to believe. As Romans 9 explains very well.
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 01:17 AM
    Calvinists agree with that passage. The question is, what is the origin of belief?
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 01:16 AM
    I don't think its controversy for controversy sake. The dispute is at a minimum very important, and potentially has salvific implications given that denial of Calvinism can (though does not always) lead to self-trust for salvation. Plus the Bible is clear that seekers don't exist, so why you'd worry about "looking bad in front of them" I don't know :/
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 12:44 AM
    Actually Sola is correct, at least doctrinally speaking. I'd suggest taking the tone a bit less personally (whatever you may think of it) and seriously consider the very important doctrinal point being made.
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-01-2016, 06:47 AM
    That doesn't answer my question.
    25 replies | 491 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-01-2016, 03:15 AM
    I want Trump supporters to explain this latest pick to Trump's administration to me and how it will work towards shrinking the role of the federal government in the economy, please.
    25 replies | 491 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-01-2016, 01:40 AM
    Shame on me for posting while tired :p
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-01-2016, 01:13 AM
    Honestly TER I'll be honest, I find the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Hell petty philosophically fascinating. its not Biblical though. The Biblical view of Hell is that its outer darkness, separated from all of God but his wrath. So I don't see anything about your view as Biblical. That said, I wouldn't say your view of Hell is a concern in terms of your soul, though I do think its an error. What I'm more concerned about is that you actually seem to think non-Christians can earn their way into heaven such that God would actually be malicious if he did not let them in. This is the elephant in the room that I'm honestly surprised and confused as to why Hells_Unicorn is not harder on. It seems like Steelites are the only branch of Presbyterianism that sees Eastern Orthodox as having much merit and the rest see EOs as not really any more Christian than Rome. I do want to hear HUs perspective on this but the more I read of you, the more I agree with those other Presbyterians. Not because you are not a nice or gracious person, to be clear, but what you teach is at odds with the scriptures even at the core level of the gospel.
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-30-2016, 09:10 PM
    LOL! I know. I believe Christmas actually offends Christ but unless someone has the necessary theological background to understand why (Which probably requires being at least Reformed Baptist or a trinitarian Christian who's fairly understanding of theological paradigms other than their own) I'd probably just silently shake my head at it.
    34 replies | 486 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-30-2016, 08:28 PM
    I'm in agreement with the anti-Christmas people. Christmas is unbiblical and wrong. That said I probably wouldn't make an issue out of it with somebody unless they said they were Reformed.
    34 replies | 486 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-30-2016, 07:15 PM
    I understand that those things are not the gospel. I am NOT one of those theonomists who tries to make every good thing the gospel itself. Nevertheless Hebrews does talk about refusing to move on from the elementary. There are issues that are NOT essential to being saved (and thus, do not entirely break unity and fellowship among brethren) that are nevertheless very important and do create barriers to fellowship and unity.
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    11-30-2016, 02:34 AM
    Don't you know? Trump is playing (726+8x)^6-y=z Chess, while the rest of us are arguing over checker boards.
    36 replies | 798 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-29-2016, 08:41 PM
    He's talking about people who just take the 5 points and don't go any deeper than that, ignoring things like the RPW, covenant theology/covenant baptism, the sabbath, the law of God, Biblical ecclesiology, etc.
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-29-2016, 12:06 AM
    That isn't saying that people can be saved without Jesus Christ. The point of that passage is that even without the written law one still has enough by natural revelation alone to know he is a sinner and in need of salvation from outside of himself. The problem is that your presupposition is nonsensical. What person can keep the beatitudes? To be clear, here I do not mean the ethical obligation of the believer, which he is continually sanctified toward, but rather the idea that someone could actually keep the beatitudes to a sufficient degree to atone for himself. I'm guessing this isn't actually what you mean, but at face value that's what you're saying, that people can either be saved through faith in Christ, or by doing what he commanded yet without faith. But really that renders the cross worthless. If you are even asking the question of how a loving God could send X person to Hell, I fear for your soul, because you don't even understand the justice of God, the holy wrath which all people are under save Christ's righteousness imputed to their behalf.
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-29-2016, 12:00 AM
    I am not accepting of Eastern Orthodoxy. I did, however, want to be clear about what exactly he was saying. I've also never claimed either of those labels.
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-28-2016, 09:32 PM
    I'd say its an error to conflate individual responsibility with human ability. The Bible teaches that none seeks after God, God must choose to change someone's heart before they would ever believe. Yet man is still responsible to believe in spite of his hardened heart.
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-28-2016, 09:31 PM
    As written, I'm concerned about this. Also I'm not sure if Hells_Unicorn is on this particular thread, but if he is I'd be curious to hear from him what he thinks of this statement in terms of basic Christian orthodoxy. First of all, the Bible never says anything suggesting that someone can be saved without knowing Christ. instead it is very clear that "he who does not believe is condemned already" (John 3:18.) Furthermore, there is nothing in scripture that hints at the idea that our own works can justify us before God, just the opposite. Our salvation is by the cross and what Christ did for us, not by anything you can do. It is true (as James says) that true faith will always have works, but those works cannot earn us our right standing before God. Do you really believe any human being can actually keep those two commandments in the fullness of what they require? And if you do, where do you derive this idea?
    181 replies | 2200 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    11-28-2016, 11:51 AM
    So should it be that complicated? Biblically speaking? (just asking the question, not saying I know the answer.) OK, fair enough. But should we divide from everyone over this, rather than trying to reform from within? (I know there are some disagreements among those who call themselves Covenanters over whether the SL + C binds America, though I think they'd all say it binds the UK.) That would be confusing :p
    299 replies | 3811 view(s)
More Activity

58 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    For curiosity, have you been reading my theonomy posts?
  2. View Conversation
    Regarding the whole "only the radical libertarians" will enter the gate, a similar thing was brought up at Eric Peters Autos:

    http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/12/1...comment-544496

    "David" is my username. Moleman is coming close to arguing the position that only libertarians are Christians.
  3. View Conversation
    Just an FYI:

    1. My answer to my own poll question is probably "yes", though its an exceedingly reluctant "yes."

    2. The more reluctant someone is, the less quick I'm going to be to judge them. You, frankly, are not the type of person I was considering when I made my OP, even if you techncially qualify. You're against legal torture and you agree that its almost always wrong. There are a lot of people who support legal torture and who think at least some of what was in the Senate Report was morally permissible (At least at my school there are, admittedly, my school is pretty "conservative"). I much more had in mind the neoconservative who says "torture is always justified against terrorists if there's a chance to save even one life" than I am a generally peaceful person that reluctantly says they could justify torturing someone if it meant saving their family, or something like that.
  4. View Conversation
    OK, so in that situation you're almost dealing with Hiroshima and Nagisaki again (not as it actually occured, but what most people think of it as.) Fair enough...

    Still distressing.... I'm not sure what that says of those people who actually think these were all ticking time bomb situations.
  5. View Conversation
    Do you think it would ever be moral to let someone die of hypothermia in a cold cell? Do you ever think it would ever be moral to break someone's legs and force them to stand for hours or days? Do you ever think it would be moral to consecutively waterboard someone 183 times?

    Is your only issue with this the potential for abuse, or do you understand that there is something deeply immoral about this?
  6. View Conversation
    There's something sickening and inhumane about about what was described in the CIA report. Killing someone in self-defense when they are trying to shoot you isn't comparable to that.
  7. View Conversation
    Sorta, but there are plenty of people here who think it should be legal. So, where's the line where the form of torture becomes inhumane no matter what?
  8. View Conversation
    TC, I apologize for the neg rep. I was in a really bad mood today, both from seeing the CIA report and seeing people here at school defend it. I took it out on you. I deserved the neg rep you threw back. Sorry...
  9. View Conversation
    Am I also a hardcore extremist?
  10. View Conversation
    The same one you said you'd never be extreme enough in. The one about police.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 58
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
About Brett85

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
21,928
Posts Per Day
8.95
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
58
Most Recent Message
03-04-2015 02:22 PM
General Information
Last Activity
11-26-2016 11:28 PM
Join Date
03-21-2010
Referrals
0

10 Friends

  1. Christian Liberty
  2. compromise compromise is offline

    Banned

    compromise
  3. Coolidge/Dawes '24
  4. DonVolaric DonVolaric is offline

    Member

    DonVolaric
  5. MichaelDavis MichaelDavis is offline

    Banned

    MichaelDavis
  6. realtonygoodwin realtonygoodwin is offline

    Member

    realtonygoodwin
  7. Southron Southron is offline

    Member

    Southron
  8. Spoa Spoa is offline

    Member

    Spoa
  9. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
  10. Zatch Zatch is offline

    Member

    Zatch
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 10
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

11-20-2016


10-13-2016


10-12-2016


08-03-2016


07-30-2016


07-29-2016


07-13-2016


07-12-2016


07-10-2016


06-23-2016

  • 02:53 AM - Hidden

06-22-2016

  • 09:54 PM - Hidden
  • 09:53 PM - Hidden
  • 09:36 PM - Hidden
  • 08:13 PM - Hidden
  • 08:03 PM - Hidden
  • 07:32 PM - Hidden
  • 07:22 PM - Hidden

05-29-2016



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast