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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: First covenant

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bump
    ... My point was simply that his premise in no way implied the conclusion. If someone is so detached from basic reasoning skills as his post demonstrated,
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      benhartmail wrote:
      > FWIW, my dismay was a result of the conversation as a whole. James' intrusion along with the general response is pretty pathetic. (My "favorite" so far has been the comment that went something like this--"I bet you haven't taken a course in logic have you". The appropriate response is, of course, "oh yeah, well your mom's so fat...") No wonder the church is so splintered.
      >


      My point was simply that his premise in no way implied the conclusion.
      If someone is so detached from basic reasoning skills as his post
      demonstrated, normal discussion is not going to avail much.

      Sorry you didn't care for my tone, but his aggressive attack on basic
      theology really doesn't deserve more.
    • 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

        Brian:

        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.

        Charles

        ----- 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
        817.805.3317

        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.

        gmw.

        --- 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
        classic
        > Reformed doctrines.
        >
        > I am sure that CT would not be the only thing you will challenge on
        this
        > 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
        Baptism,
        > but I would not say that their position is heretical. They are in
        error
        > but not in heresy.
        >
        > -Edgar
        >
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com , James J
        <jamesjay@>
        > 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
        to
        > > > 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.