Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: First covenant

Expand Messages
  • benhartmail
    gmw, Let me clarify. Perhaps it is the fact that this is a web forum and standard cues that you d get if you saw a person face to face are absent that might
    Message 1 of 34 , Feb 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      Let me clarify. Perhaps it is the fact that this is a web forum and
      standard cues that you'd get if you saw a person face to face are
      absent that might otherwise show a charitable spirit. But as I see
      this thread, it's another example of a guy who is getting it wrong
      about some doctrine, and a bunch of better-informed people sticking it
      to him. He's wrong, the Reformed guys are right (about the doctrine),
      but there appears to be an implicit *screw you, buddy, you had better
      get this figured out before you come around these parts!* in the way
      he's been dealt with.

      So what if what he's saying is wrong? So what if it was put out in a
      sort of combative spirit? He's misguided--give him a break and take
      it easy as you deal with him. We're all in this together as
      Christians and people get things wrong and espouse them in an immature
      way some times.

      That, at least, is the way it seems. So to make it plain, there was a
      good deal of sarcasm in my original post.

      If that is not how this exchange was intended, so be it. I will
      gladly be corrected.

      In the interest of peace and unity,

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
      <ragingcalvinist@...> wrote:
      > I'm not sure I understand you here, Ben.
      > gmw.
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "benhartmail"
      > <benjamin.hart1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > It's threads like this that make me proud to be a Christian, a member
      > > of the body of Christ--the body that is grounded on Christ's
      > > undeserved love for the sinful people he's redeemed.
      > >
      > > May the drum beat continue...along with the edification.
      > >
      > > -Ben
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "jozinky"
      > > <jamesjay@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hello;
      > > >
      > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
      > > > <ragingcalvinist@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > If you do not believe in Covenant Theology, why are you posting to
      > > > > this (Reformed) group?
      > > > >
      > > > > gmw.
      > > > .
      > > > First I myself am "reformed" in that I hold the doctrines of TULIP.
      > > >
      > > > Second, I didn't know that belief in covenant theology was
      > > > to post.
      > > >
      > > > Third, if CT is Biblical then those who hold it have nothing to
      > > >
      > > > Fourth, if it is not then those who hold it might want to reconsider
      > > > and repent.
      > > >
      > > > James Kirby
      > > >
      > >
    • Brian Mericle
      Thanks Charles. I was not aware of that. I only caught some of this comments and went to the web site someone indicated that was his blog. I can see and do
      Message 34 of 34 , Mar 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Charles. I was not aware of that. I only caught some of this comments and went to the web site someone indicated that was his blog. I can see and do believe that he was wrong but did not realize that he was not even adhering to basic Calvinistic Soteriology although possibly dis pen. I understand with what y'all are saying in other posts now, especially if someone is so far removed form basic orthodoxy, which I did not realize at the time that he thought all Puritan & Reformed thought was wrong. Thank you. Brian


        From: Charles Barden <cbarden@...>
        To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:19:32 PM
        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: First covenant


        It is my understanding that he subscribes to New Covenant Theology which as you know is anti-nomian. It is also my understanding that he is perhaps Freewill/General/ Arminian Baptist but not sure.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Brian Mericle" <mericle.brian@ yahoo.com>
        To: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
        Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:13:12 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: First covenant

        I would be interested so as to more fully understand what & how you address these issues effectively although I strongly disagree with his premise and conclusions as they seem very deviant from tradtional orthodoxy as I understand it. The accusations on his web site are incredible and a bit venumois.

        I would recommend keeping a close monitor as he seems very argumentative with fixed ideas without a real willingness to really dialogue & learn. From his website I could not determine what church or denomination he is affliliated.

        Pardon my spelling as i have found the functionaility of the spell checker on my phone.

        Best regards,
        Brian Mericle

        Sent from my iPhone

        On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:43 AM, "gmw" < ragingcalvinist@ verizon.net > wrote:

        If you guys want to debate him, I'll let his posts through for now...

        If you don't, I'll just boot him.

        I'll leave it up to the active membership for now. So, let me know
        yea or nay.

        From the posts I'm holding on to, he wants to take on Larry about
        logic, me about my believing there is such a thing as "the Lord's
        Day," and Edgar about Covenant Theology being a heresy.


        --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com , "Ic Neltococayotl"
        <puritanpresbyteria n@...> wrote:
        > James-
        > For one who seeks to promote truth, why would you not want anyone to
        > find your site? I see a few things on your site that clash with
        > Reformed doctrines.
        > I am sure that CT would not be the only thing you will challenge on
        > forum, if given the opportunity.
        > By the way to call Covenant Theology heresy takes lots of, well,
        guts to
        > state. Heresy is usually set aside for those doctrines that are
        > damnable.
        > You may be a bit sloppy here in your classification bud. For
        example, I
        > believe my Baptist brothers are in ERROR when they deny Infant
        > but I would not say that their position is heretical. They are in
        > but not in heresy.
        > -Edgar
        > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com , James J
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi;
        > >
        > > gmw wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Ben,
        > > >
        > > > Here's what he writes: http://home . paonline.. com/jamesjay/
        > > > < http://home .paonline.com/ jamesjay/ >
        > > >
        > > > I suspect he's here to promote that. But he already has a place
        > > > promote that. So, I asked him why he's posting this stuff here.
        > > > That's all.
        > > >
        > > > gmw.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > .
        > > Could I ask how you found my site please. It's not listed with
        any of
        > > the search engines like Google etc.
        > >
        > > Thanks;
        > > James Kirby
        > >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.