Replies

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.

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.

Well, one can hardly object to these remarks and your consistent inclination toward urging charity and harmony among believers. I am in general agreement with the rest of your remarks and see no need to re-examine them line-by-line and will instead simply wish you a pleasant day.

At what point do you begin to reconcile with this?

(Note that this was his first "contribution" to this thread, "You and the_doc are false and evil teachers.", and it went downhill from there. It does me no good to proclaim that he was the furthest person from my mind while posting my latest on Heb 10:14, he is going to believe the worst anyway. Note also, in subsequent posts, that we have become hyper-Calvinists, something that he knows not to be true.)