[George W. Bush]

I'll ask that any responses directed to those points be sent me by Private FReepMail.

Then why didn't you send me the post via FReepmail if you wanted it to be private? Obviously, those to whom you addressed the public post are all familiar enough with the facts, having been here the entire time except that two of them did not receive all the FRmail that was passed behind the scenes. In the future, if you want to conduct discussion of a personal matter via FRmail, you should initiate the discussion by FRmail.

Frankly, I've seen too much of some others' nasty FRmail tricks to get involved in FRmail discussions again. And I have stated that before as well. If your memory is good, you might recall that that is where it all actually started, not in the following dispute over Hebrews 10:14. Well, it's not as though the actual origin of the dispute means much to any party at this late date anyway.

There is no reason that you should be enthusiastic at the prospect, GWB; you are plainly out of fellowship with "the_doc" and "Jerry_M" at the moment, and no fooling.

I can't imagine that anyone was fooled. I repeatedly declared my separation from their tactics on public threads what, eight or nine months ago? I can't recall the exact post where I declared myself as separated from their tactics but I could find it. But my basic position has not changed.

I don't regard FR as a church. It's an internet political discussion forum whose owner is kind enough to tolerate some religious threads which he probably regards as not only off-topic but far more trouble than they're worth. Others can pretend FR is a church with binding membership and discipline if that what they wish for self-serving purposes. I don't think that JimRob or anyone outside this tiny circle actually considers FreeRepublic.com to be anything remotely resembling an ecclesiastical entity.

Nonetheless, if we were to judge one's spiritual status by the spiritual honesty implicit in this kind of statement: ...

I wan't being "spiritually honest". Just honest about what I've observed over a considerable period of time. If you somehow think that my remarks indicate that I am interested in reconciling with them, that is not the case. There could be no purpose. However, I refrain from stirring animosity needlessly and try not to exclude them. This does not mean I have a spiritual obligation to play the doormat if they consider it their "spiritual obligation" to backstab me without even flagging me.

It would be tempting (at least to me) to regard the speaker as Regenerate, no matter what doctrinal controversies and abrogations of fellowship have occurred. As such, it should be the conviction of all Regenerate parties to the disputations, to seek reconciliation if at all possible.

I'm not applying for church membership. FR is not a church. It is a little bizarre to have to point out something so obvious. Since you are obviously intelligent, I can regard such statements as mere rhetorical devices. There is a rather peculiar selectivity of discerning regeneration and salvation via IP packet-switched network within this circle. I'm afraid it's too advanced for my humble discernment. However, you might consider that if I am actually unregenerate as you suggest, that it is perhaps your Duty to Obey by Preaching in order to glorify God by increasing my presupposed Reprobation. It is a distinct possibility, well within the parameters of application of your earlier theological discussion. Of course, problems arise when various factions all determine that this is their Duty toward others.

I do not say this out of any desire to "get into the matter" now. In fact, I don't think this is the time or the place, and expect it would be folly to try at the moment. I only want to express my desire that reconciliation could possibly be effected at some point, and my continuing desire that it should be sought when possible.

But you did, in fact, "get into the matter" now and on a public thread, obviously spending enough time to consider the matter of public vs. private communication as you wrote it. Your decision is evident since only a rare typist could have composed your post in less than a minute. It's not of any great importance anyway. If the_doc and Jerry want to repent their harsh and unloving attitude toward so many people, that is their decision. Grudges actually have little purpose. Obviously, they harbor and nurse far more animosity toward me than I have for them. Of course, their story about why they are angry does keep evolving in interesting ways, doesn't it? In comparison, your own attitude and remarks have been absolutely consistent throughout.

There is a reason why Baptists are more fractious than traditional Protestant denominations. It is intrinsic to the organization and independent operation of Baptist churches. It is historically both a strength and a weakness. You must already know this.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Then why didn't you send me the post via FReepmail if you wanted it to be private? Obviously, those to whom you addressed the public post are all familiar enough with the facts, having been here the entire time except that two of them did not receive all the FRmail that was passed behind the scenes. In the future, if you want to conduct discussion of a personal matter via FRmail, you should initiate the discussion by FRmail.

The things I had to say, I wanted to be seen by all parties, and to this day I rarely use FReepMail for "circulars", but rather for one-on-one chats.

I could've sent it around one-at-a-time via FReepMail, just not my habit.

Frankly, I've seen too much of some others' nasty FRmail tricks to get involved in FRmail discussions again. And I have stated that before as well. If your memory is good, you might recall that that is where it all actually started, not in the following dispute over Hebrews 10:14. Well, it's not as though the actual origin of the dispute means much to any party at this late date anyway.

Okay. My intent was not to suggest a multi-party "FRmail discussion", and I would admit there have been some pretty messy rows over FRmail botch-ups and the like.

Nonetheless, if we were to judge one's spiritual status by the spiritual honesty implicit in this kind of statement: ... I wan't being "spiritually honest". Just honest about what I've observed over a considerable period of time.

No one, of course, can ever force you to accept a compliment. ;-)

I just meant that it is not atypical of unregenerate men in general to sacrifice truth on the altar of their animosities (i.e., to avoid saying anything charitable about their enemies, even if honesty would demand it); regenerate men ought not do this kind of thing.

If you somehow think that my remarks indicate that I am interested in reconciling with them, that is not the case. There could be no purpose.

Except that Christians should always seek reconciliation with their brethren. Just identifying an ethical duty.

However, I refrain from stirring animosity needlessly and try not to exclude them.

Yes, I acknowledge this.

This does not mean I have a spiritual obligation to play the doormat if they consider it their "spiritual obligation" to backstab me without even flagging me.

I did not see Jerry's latest as a "backstab", as he said nothing about you one way or the other, but made reference to the fact that a certain verse has become favored by many FR Calvinists for its eternal security implications. The fact that you are not among that group does not, in and of itself, make you the target of a back-stab. (It is, after all, possible for Jerry to talk about the verse itself, without intending to reference you in any way).

However, I also recognize that, absent any accompanying explanation, it was not unreasonable for you to suspect that Jerry was making you the target of his comments -- and so I cringed a little in expectation that such would occur. I was, however, pleased that at least it went no farther than it did.

I do not say this out of any desire to "get into the matter" now. In fact, I don't think this is the time or the place, and expect it would be folly to try at the moment. I only want to express my desire that reconciliation could possibly be effected at some point, and my continuing desire that it should be sought when possible. ~~ But you did, in fact, "get into the matter" now and on a public thread, obviously spending enough time to consider the matter of public vs. private communication as you wrote it. Your decision is evident since only a rare typist could have composed your post in less than a minute.

Allow me to re-phrase: It is not my desire to "get into the specific particulars of the matter" now but only to state, again, for the record that Reconciliation is to be considered a desired Good between Christians inside or outside of the strict confines of church membership accountability.

Consider my post to be me walking up to the podium in the public square, clearing my throat, and saying, "For the record, Reconciliation from disputes is a desirable Good between Christians. That is all". Because it is and continues to be a desirable Good, and I continue to maintain that it should be sought. And that, is all I'm really trying to say.