[Frumanchu]

Let's review here.

In post 97 you posted the following in response to the original article:

Ignoring scripture is the quickest path to bad theology.

Regarding King Saul and King David:

1Sa 13:14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him [to be] captain over his people, because thou hast not kept [that] which the LORD commanded thee.

The implication was pretty clear. You disagreed with the Reformed understanding of man's will as presented in the article on the basis of the Scripture you quoted. I sought clarification by asking the following question in post 99:

Do you believe it's reasonable or just for God to command men to do something and then graciously grant the obedience to that command to whom He chooses?

That question was not meant to be any sort of re-statement of your position in different terms. It was simply a relevant question given the Scripture you quoted and the implications ostensibly being drawn from it.

However, rather than make any attempt to either answer the question or even seek clarification, you come back swinging in post 111 (bolded for emphasis):

Why do YOU feel the NEED to twist things? Is that the way you are? You love someone so you COMMAND them to do something? Your mind is so twisted that you can't imagine someone loving you so much to die for you to save you from eternal damnation? You're clueless when it comes to perfect love. God doesn't COMMAND, He invites.

However, your employer WILL command you to do something - tell him/her that you don't think it's reasonable or just. Your 'love of a paycheck' will submit you to obedience.

Lastly, who do YOU think you are to question ANYTHING about The Almightly? You are merely a mortal man with a sinful nature. Fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

I replied in 115 by asking you to settle down and explaining that I was not making implication about what you said in your original post, only using the Socratic method in discussing it. Your response?

I answered your question first by telling you what you want a 'why or why not' to is not a true statement to begin with. It's as twisted as asking why or why not is snow red. Go back to your Socratic man-made methods because the things of God appear to be of no concern to you and, obviously, out of your reach of comprehension. Again, God doesn't command, He invites. Your best bet is to try your questioning on someone that's intrigued with man-made methods, such as yourself.

This led to my pointing out the fact that you don't seem interested at all in discussion, a fact further supported by your last response:

There is no doctrine - your question wasn't truthful - so rational discussion was not your intent. You can be firmly convinced in your mind but when it reaches your heart there would be no desire to make untruthful statements and expect an answer. ......you're anything other than an arrogant, prideful nuissance :) You make a deceitful statement, I call you on it, and I'm being arrogant, prideful nuisance ?? A typical childish response when one can't get their way. I won't play in our 'teaching by questioning' sandbox so you call me names and stomp your feet. Telling it like it is is not being prideful, it just an irritant to you.

It took reading through that whole rude invective twice to glean what appears to be your response to my original question; namely, that the premise of my question (that God commands things of men) is flawed because God does not command men, He only invites them.

Assuming that is indeed what your objection was, don't you think you could have found a more constructive, peaceful means of pointing out your disagreement with my question rather than immediately attacking me? I would have gladly discussed whether or not your criticism of the premise of my question withstood the test of Scripture and plain reason. But instead you respond abusively, condescendingly, and accusatively.

Now, we can proceed with a rational discussion, or not. The choice is yours. I am more than willing to do so without personal attacks if you agree to reciprocate.

What will it be?

[presently no screen name]

I would have gladly discussed whether or not your criticism of the premise of my question withstood the test of Scripture and plain reason.


Your question was deceitful. I don't need to test The Bible. Start applying the word to your life and you can 'test' the scriptures yourself so they just won't be 'words' or 'statements' to you - they will have personal meaning. You rather 'discuss' w/deceitful statements. That's your game, not mine. It is truly arrogant to question God.

Bye!