It appears that you don't know the definition of ad hominem. Pointing out the words of someone is not an "attack." I didn't make this up out of whole cloth. His accusation of "arrogance" is appalling in light of the fact that he openly wished for the death of others' children who support our war effort. You've yet to denounce this, but you don't have any problem calling me out even though I've not engaged in such unChristian behavior.
Interesting.
Hank's talking theology, and you attack him over a comment on another thread about his sentiments against any war with Iraq.
"You attack him..." Bill Clinton, is that you?
Look it. Did he or did he not come off with the initial accusation of arrogance against Calvinists, and, was my initial response to him in this thread about that accusation?
Yes or no?
Also, was the accusation of his against Calvinists ad hominem?
The only purpose that could have would be to cast Hank's theological views into doubt because of his out-of-step views on any war on Iraq.
Don't even try it. This is not about his views being "out-of-step" on the war effort. It IS about what he SAID about hoping others' children would die. You're now spinning like a CD or a 78 RPM record. No matter how you look at it, this was WRONG. Saying you're against the war is one thing, but openly wishing for others to die is unacceptable. PERIOD. Yet you've still not denounced it.
Interesting.
But your wild-eyed assertion that you've somehow shown a context that proves salvation isn't for everyone is just that, and silly to boot.
You've engaged in nothing but silliness. You won't answer a question straight using the Word. When you've been proven wrong, you then engage in other tactics that skirt the subject.
You, of all people, can't tell me squat. You're not qualified.
Salvation is not for everyone. The Word of God proves this time and time again. It's not my opinion. I state what the Word states in its proper context which is something you are loathe to do. So back up. Your emperor has no clothes.
It's this kind of inability to deal with the facts of scripture that led you to a personal attack against Hank instead of a refutation of his ideas. You couldn't do that; so you attacked him instead.
Pot. Kettle. Black. And now you're a bald-faced liar as well. I haven't "attacked" anyone.
I respect your service for the nation. But you know better about integrity than to resort to such tactics.
I do. Apparently you don't.
Words of Rdb3 from post #133.
That's the most straight-forward admission of this Calvinist belief that I've ever seen. I appreciate his clarity and will remember this statement.
This is the WHOLE point of the calvinist/arminian debate. The Bible says its freely offered to all; the Institutes of Calvin says it's offered only to the preselected.