Discerning Scoffers Before They Make An Argument

[creationliberty]

DANIEL FROM SOUTH CAROLINA:
I don't usually give out my personal email on websites, but I figured I would do it this time.
I'm reading a lot of your articles online, I'm finding them to be great material...
I'd love to have a discussion with you / exchange...
...not in the spirit of debate, argument, pulling swords out, etc... but in sincere and genuine brotherly love of Christ indwelling in us...
Please feel free to email me when you have a chance.   
Okay. That seems a tad foreshadowing. I'm here. What would you like to discuss?
Easy brother, easy hehe...
Thank you for your reply.
I'll admit I haven't read your article that addresses free will and God's sovereignty, as all of your articles are pretty long, which isn't a bad thing... but I like that you use a lot of references and verses... like you, I've done a massive amount of reading (not trying to impress you) to find out more about the LORD Jehovah and His Son Jesus Christ...
I just finished reading your About Me section... I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation... you confuse me a bit because you say God grants repentence, but then shortly after, you state that man can ask for repentence... how can man in a state of being dead, realize he has to ask for repentence?
No, I'm not an Andersonite or whatever his name is, to put your mind at rest...
However, here is a brief portion of my question(s)... you used the verses about the jailer in Acts, when he asks what he must to do be saved.
In what context is he referring to, as asking for salvation?
I'm sure you are aware that save and salvation can refer to different things, and every time the word salvation is used in the Bible, doesn't necessarily denote that it's speaking about eternal salvation... right?
Sorry, meant to add this...
You also used the verses about God not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence...
Who is the all, referring to, in the context of the verse?
You don't have to answer tonight.
Daniel, let me clarify a few things because I don't want to waste your time.

I have teachings that answers all of those questions, one in particular for what you're asking:
Here's the article: Is Repentance Part of Salvation? (which is linked on the "About page)
Here's the audio playlist:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEI_H3QUb7Q&list=PLbY08k2vP8_nXQtC1izDN_p7lutKuX9OI&index=2&t=0s
(At least listen to part 1.)

The reason I wrote an article and made an audio teaching, is for the express purpose that if someone on the internet wants to know more about the matter, they can go over those as many times as they would like. It also gives them more clarity as to what I believe and teach, otherwise, I have to end up copying and pasting what I've already written and recorded to each individual person, and that just takes up far too much of my time, as well as yours. Therefore, if you take the time to go over those first, and then come back and say, "Okay, let's discuss a few things in that teaching," it makes a lot more sense because the context of your questions is about what I teach and believe, and that will save both of us a lot of time and hassle.

Now, there is the possibility that you have been over those, and you are in disagreement with me about something in particular that you're trying to argue. If that is not the case, then ignore this paragraph. If that is the case, then there's no need to beat around the bush; you can simply present your argument in full, and I can answer it.

That all being said, I should end by saying there are some strange things about your writing that did not make sense when I read it. I'll demonstrate what I mean:
I'll admit I haven't read your article that addresses free will and God's sovereignty
I cannot figure out how that thought connects to anything else you wrote, yet, you started your second letter with that context. That leaves me confused. What does that have to do with anything you asked?
Also, this:
I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation
I have never made that statement, and that's not what I teach. In fact, let me go check my "About" page... yeah, I double checked it just now, and I did not make that statement. So, in the end, that's a loaded question; meaning that I can't answer it because I never made that claim. This is confusing and strange to me, which leads me to believe that something else is going on. I can't tell if it's just that you don't understand or if you're doing this on purpose; I don't know enough yet to discern that. Normally, I wouldn't suspect something else is going on, but you are so oddly repeating yourself to say that nothing else is going on, it's making me more suspicious because people normally don't do that.
The suspicion increases even further when you say you've done a "massive amount of reading" to learn more about God, but you didn't read over the teaching I did on repentance before asking me questions about it? Or listen to it at least? I just don't have enough information to figure it out yet.

So I think before going forward, it would be best to do two things:
1. Go over the teaching I did on repentance, that way you understand what I teach and can ask the right questions.
2. State clearly the reasons you originally wrote me.
No need to beat around the bush with me; I like straight-forward folks.
The next letter was very confusing in the way he set it up with quoting me quoting him and responding to those, so I'll publish my next letter, which has his responses in it.
Daniel, let me clarify a few things because I don't want to waste your time. * I think that's your polite way of saying, "Daniel, don't waste my time." Right?
Wrong.
Just wanted to politely say / ask... I have read many of your articles online, and in turn, I would ask that you take the time to read my similarly-lengthy response to your email / articles. My responses will be in red, while excerpts from your "About Me" and other articles will be in blue...
I'm sighing to myself now because what you just said is actually the thing that's going to be wasting my time. If you want to accuse me of lying to you (which is what you just accused me of, whether you knew it or not) or putting on a false pretense, then just say so. When I said you would be wasting YOUR time, its because I didn't just want to send you a link to the repentance teaching and move on without saying anything else because you would not have considered that to be "polite." For you to keep writing me letters about questions which I've answered in the teachings, only to have me respond with a link, would, in fact, waste your time, not mine, as it would take me mere seconds to copy/paste a link, but the fact that I have to explain that to you is now wasting MY time, especially since I've been working all evening, up until about 9:00pm, and now I have to deal with winky faces from someone who believes he's deduced some special secret that doesn't exist.

I have teachings that answers all of those questions, one in particular for what you're asking:
Here's the article: Is Repentance Part of Salvation? (which is linked on the "About" page)
*I completed reading it a few days ago...
Here's the audio playlist:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEI_H3QUb7Q&list=PLbY08k2vP8_nXQtC1izDN_p7lutKuX9OI&index=2&t=0s
(At least listen to part 1.)
since I read, I don't know if I will listen. I may, in the car, on the road this evening.
If you read it, that's fine; you don't have to listen. Most people listen instead of read, so I tend to suggest both just in case. If you completed reading it, did that answer your questions?

The reason I wrote an article and made an audio teaching, is for the express purpose that if someone on the internet wants to know more about the matter, they can go over those as many times as they would like. *Yes, I'm very well aware =) It also gives them more clarity as to what I believe and teach, otherwise, I have to end up copying and pasting what I've already written and recorded to each individual person, and that just takes up far too much of my time, as well as yours. *Right, I totally understand. Perhaps my (I can admit it) mistake was that I had not read those first, as I had only recently come across your website ... but a few questioning "Hmmmm's..." went off in my head as I read your "About Me" section... Therefore, if you take the time to go over those first, *I did do that... and then come back and say, "Okay, let's discuss a few things in that teaching," *Yes, let's discuss... it makes a lot more sense because the context of your questions is about what I teach and believe, and that will save both of us a lot of time and hassle. *Agreed =)
Okay.

Now, there is the possibility that you have been over those, and you are in disagreement with me about something in particular that you're trying to argue. If that is not the case, then ignore this paragraph. If that is the case, then there's no need to beat around the bush; you can simply present your argument in full, and I can answer it. That all being said, I should end by saying there are some strange things *There's nothing strange about my writing / questions, Chris... about your writing that did not make sense when I read it. I'll demonstrate what I mean:
That actually demonstrates my point. Before addressing my arguments about what was strange, you came to the conclusion that there was nothing strange. That means you drew conclusions before looking at the facts. Yeah... that's strange; namely that someone with that type of mentality writes me questions--it shows me that you are not truly interested in the answers, so much as you are only interested in answers that are satisfying to you. My suspicious grows. So, I'll approach the rest of your letter with an above average amount of caution.

I'll admit I haven't read your article that addresses free will and God's sovereignty
I cannot figure out how that thought connects to anything else you wrote, *Up above, I simply stated that I hadn't read your article on that subject yet, to determine which direction you were going, as I was reading through your "About Me". It connects with the thought that I read HOW you believe you came to Christ, without having read your article on repentance, and free will and God's sovereignty... yet, you started your second letter with that context. That leaves me confused. What does that have to do with anything you asked? *It has to do with, "Is Chris unclear about what the Bible says, as in, is he promoting the fact that man has to do something before he can be saved? Where does the author, Chris, stand on election, and predestination, regeneration, conversion, being born again, etc.?"
Also, this:
I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation
I have never made that statement, and that's not what I teach. *You kind of do, actually =) You repeat that necessity several times...
"SALVATION: Salvation is only gained through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ alone."
"...in September of 2002, I had an afternoon of repentance towards God. To this day, I don't know what happened inside me, but I knew suddenly I was guilty of breaking the laws of God and that I had gone down a dark path, and could do nothing but cry for three straight hours, and though I tried to speak words when I looked up, I could say nothing but "I'm sorry for what I am." Finally knowing what it meant to "repent in dust and ashes," I sought the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness, and that was the day I was born-again,..."
"This will teach you the basics of the Gospel of repentance, and you'll see how it was the first thing that Jesus taught, the first thing His disciples taught, and the first thing the early church taught. It will help you understand how people are saved,..."
Okay, I'm going to walk you through this slowly, show you your false accusation, and then if you continue to do this again in your letter, I won't continue reading your letter any further. I don't have a problem discussing something, but I do have a problem continuing conversation with a false accuser who is not repentant of his wrongdoing.
Your statement: "I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation"
I have never taught that all one has to do is repent for salvation. I teach that one must come to repentance and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Specifically, as indicated in MANY teachings I give, one must be given grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing in their heart, as God gives men repentance (2Ti 2:25), and that they should believe that Jesus Christ paid for the sins of mankind with His blood, that He died and rose from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father. You accused me of taking a stance of only HALF of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I will say to you once more Daniel: I'm not going to answer a loaded question.
In addition, all this information is included in the About page, not just in statements of faith, but also in the section that says "How to Be Saved."
Now let's look at your examples, and demonstrate that, once again, you falsely accused me. You said:
"I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation"
"SALVATION: Salvation is only gained through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ alone."
You said I teach that all one has to do is repent, and when you quoted me, it says repentance and faith are necessary.
Finally knowing what it meant to "repent in dust and ashes," I sought the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness, and that was the day I was born-again,..."
I sought the Lord Jesus Christ; that's belief on Jesus.
"This will teach you the basics of the Gospel of repentance, and you'll see how it was the first thing that Jesus taught, the first thing His disciples taught, and the first thing the early church taught. It will help you understand how people are saved,..."
That is prefacing the teaching, to help people understand how they are saved. Nowhere did I say that repentance alone is salvation without faith.
So for the last time: If you ask an unloaded question, perhaps I can answer it for you. I can continue with your letter, so long as you don't keep doing that, but if you start deceiving, falsely accusing, and/or murmuring, then I'm done. Let's continue...

In fact, let me go check my "About" page... yeah, I double checked it just now, and I did not make that statement. So, in the end, that's a loaded question; meaning that I can't answer it because I never made that claim. This is confusing and strange to me, which leads me to believe that something else is going on. *No, not really. Don't overthink it. I am simply trying to determine what stance you / your website holds to, in regards to eternal salvation, etc...
I'll give you a pass on that one because it contextually had to do with the last paragraph.

I can't tell if it's just that you don't understand or if you're doing this on purpose; I don't know enough yet to discern that. Normally, I wouldn't suspect something else is going on, but you are so oddly repeating yourself to say that nothing else is going on, it's making me more suspicious because people normally don't do that. *Don't over think it =) The suspicion *What suspicion? =) increases even further when you say you've done a "massive amount of reading" to learn more about God, but you didn't read over the teaching *I simply said, "I hadn't read it yet." =) I did on repentance before asking me questions about it? *LOL I have recently come across your website, and read a few things I liked (for example, topics on marriage; rock music (which I absolutely hate, loathe, abhor, etc.; Christmas (sad to see that so many women (and men) can't let go of this pagan holiday, and the reason that so many courtships / discussions with women, have come to an end); Biblical understanding of prayer...). I just hadn't gotten to reading your "About Me" until a little later, after reading those articles... Currently reading through articles on Steve Anderson, Kent Hovind, and I might read some more articles... There should be nothing "suspicious" about me reading a massive amount of material to understand the Bible more Or listen to it at least? I just don't have enough information to figure it out yet.
Well, first of all, we're not buddies. I don't know if you're of Christ yet or not. Loads of people contact me and claim they're of Christ, but I find evidence to the contrary later down the road. Just because someone writes me a letter and calls me "brother," doesn't mean I automatically trust them. I'm glad you're open to reading, but again, I've met many people who are open to reading, but then curse me to hell as soon as they run into a doctrine they don't like. I'll be straight-forward with you, I'm still going into this letter very cautious, and I'm still quite suspicious, not having read anything yet that makes me believe otherwise. (We'll see.)

So I think before going forward, it would be best to do two things:
1. Go over the teaching I did on repentance, *Check that way you understand what I teach and can ask the right questions.
2. State clearly the reasons you originally wrote me. *Frankly, I wanted to ask more about the tenants you hold to, and at the same time, Biblically inform you that you err in several places.
No need to beat around the bush with me; I like straight-forward folks. *Hopefully the statement up above was straight-forward. =)
"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
-Theodore Roosevelt
*Love the quote up above.
Yet, Theodore Roosevelt was not of Christ. He didn't even believe in miracles. So when you're putting your best foot forward by quoting the wisdom of unbelieving men, it's not helping your case.
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
-1Co 2:4-5
In most cases, it's someone's first education that gets in the way of wisdom and understanding.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [lies], after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings]  of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8
Quoting Roosevelt didn't impress me; it made me more suspicious.

*To begin, I wanted to state that I appreciate your website, your holding to the KJV, you being humble by some of the statements you've made in your "About Me" section, etc. Like you, I have no "cemetery" degree; just a simple, fool, saved by God's unmerited grace. There should be nothing "suspicious" about me having read a massive amount of material (just like you) to better understand the Bible, understand questions from all different sides, the LORD, Jesus Christ, salvation, etc. The reason I have read a massive amount, just like you, is to have a ready answer for the reason as to why I believe what I do, am I the one of the few who believes what true believers believe?, etc.
Okay, that makes sense.

Since you have written a lot, in your "About Me" (which is appreciated), and I have read several LONG articles on your website, again, I would hope you would extend me the same courtesy in reading my replies to you, regarding some of your material. I am repeating myself here, because I want to drive the point home.
That's fair, so long as the questions aren't loaded.

The first thing that I would like to address (and I will do this in piece-by-piece fashion) is your "About Me" section
1. Teach the Gospel.
You used this verse: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
-Matthew 28:19-20
It's a great verse, nothing wrong with it... And like I've already mentioned before, your website is great, to teach more truth about God's law to mankind. But which mankind?... because there is a spiritual, and there is a natural mankind? One can understand spiritual things, and the other can't. Natural, carnal mankind doesn't even care about the Bible, so what good would the website be to them?
I'll answer you the same way Jesus answered the lawyer who tried to justify himself by questioning who specifically was his "neighbor." (i.e. The lawyer was attempting to redefine 'neighbor' to mean something else so he could skirt the issue at hand and give himself an excuse for his selfishness.)
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
-Luke 10:30-37
The fact that you asked the question shows that you don't understand what Jesus sent us to do. Whether they understand or not, whether they hate me or not, as long as they are listening and can be reasoned with in conversation, then I should...
Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2Ti 2:22-26

However, forgive me, not trying to be ungracious or rude or argumentative, but you did not include the text prior to the ones before the verses above.
I cannot give a full lesson on every chapter with every verse I quote. For that, you'd have to listen to the audio teachings on the website, where we walk through Scripture verse by verse. Or for reading:
http://creationliberty.com/articles.php#Commentary 

When you use the verses above, you are implicitly referring to a manmade term, "The Great Commission."
I don't believe I have ever used that term anywhere on my site. So to say that I am referring to that is called an "assumption," not evidence. You're starting to push the borders of a loaded question.

I believe in evangelism, but I do not believe that any single man, preacher, online website author, etc., can "save" any man's soul. You will notice I just used the word "save." In what context did I use that word? "Save eternally" or "save temporally"?
I don't care what context you used the word 'save'. Evangelism is, by definition, the furtherance of a gospel, and in Christianity, it is the furtherance of the doctrine of saving grace, which is the subject of this discussion. Therefore, I would say: Correct, only the Holy Spirit of God can save a man's soul. However, God appoints men to do His good will.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
-Roman 10:14-17
Therefore, we are sent to bring the people His Word, just as the prophets before us. (Mat 5:11-12)

I also asked your thoughts on the words "save" and "salvation" in another email, which you may have decided not to reply to, but that's okay. We'll get to it somewhere in this reply.
'Save' means different things in different contexts. Context is the key, and with all that reading you've done, you should know that by now. I've taught on that before, but I'll just let you make your points.

So, back to the verse you used up above. You apply it to Christian believers as if it is a NECESSITY for them to go out into all the world, into tribal civilizations never touched by mankind, in dark caves / holes of Africa, etc. Chris, I believe you have an incorrect application. Here are some thoughts about them, and the man-made term, "The Great Commission."
I don't care about your thoughts on a "Great Commission," but I can start to see the excuses you're making for yourself, thereby proving the point I originally was suspicious about; namely that you have an express purpose in writing me that you're not stating clearly. (And I don't appreciate that.)

What is commonly known as "The Great Commission" is the command that Jesus gave to his disciples just before He ascended up into heaven: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).
Many today believe that this command of our Lord's still awaits fulfillment. It is widely taught that this command was given to all believers, and that all Christians are responsible to carry the gospel to every man, woman, and child in the world.
But the Bible does not teach this false application of Jesus' words at all!
First, notice that Jesus gave this command only to the eleven disciples (v.14). (See also Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-8.) Nowhere in the Bible are New Testament believers taught that they must go into all the world and preach the gospel to every person.
Alright Daniel, I'm stopping your letter right here, and I'll tell you why: Unless you are the owner of LetGodBeTrue.com (which I can't tell because they have their name hidden behind PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC), then all you're doing is copying/pasting someone else's website to make your argument. (It was really easy to the see the discrepancy between writing styles.) That's why your letter is so long. I don't appreciate having my time wasted by someone who acts like he has enough Biblical understanding to make his own argument (by giving a false outward appearance in email), when in reality, he doesn't understand doctrine enough to be able to quote more than unbeliever Thomas Roosevelt.

Without the Spirit of God in you, you won't have your understanding opened to see these things, but, not knowing the state of your soul, I'll quote it anyway, because that's what we're commanded to do. I'll make this real easy:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day [faith in Christ]: And that repentance [grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing] and remission [forgiveness/pardoning] of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:44-47
I'm not here to give you an expose on someone else's article, and that's deceitful because you pasted it right into that email as if you wrote it yourself. If you repent (i.e. have grief and sorrow) of all this nonsense (i.e. deceit and loaded questions and false accusations), then perhaps we can continue, but if not, I'm not going to waste my time. (Col 4:5) I've got other emails to answer before bed tonight, so I'm going to get back to work. Have a great day.
THE NEXT DAY:
You're kind of really bitter, Chris. It seeps through your writings.
Did I curse you to hell? You're very bitter...
When you write me deception and false accusation, did you think everything was going to be sunshine and rainbows? You're kind of really childish, Daniel. It seeps through your writings.
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1Co 14:20
You didn't curse me to hell; I was giving you an example to show you that things are not always what they appear on the surface, and you demonstrated that by writing me back to justify yourself instead of repent of your wrongdoing, and that indicates to me that our conversation is going to come to a close soon.

And if I quoted a GREAT quote by Theodore Roosevelt, what does it matter, if the words were true? If you quoted the devil in the Bible, would that make you unchristian? LOL
No, it wouldn't "make" me unchristian, but rather, if I quoted the Devil and called it a "GREAT quote" of wisdom, that would provide a piece of evidence that I was not of Christ. The reason is because I follow Jesus Christ, not the Devil, and Christ said:
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
-John 10:4-5
You haven't acknowledged hardly anything of what I've tried to show you from Scripture, and I'm starting to realize it's because you don't understand it, even though it's being explained. (i.e. That's why you turn to Roosevelt instead of God.) They didn't understand Jesus either, as it says in the next verse:
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
-John 10:6
You haven't written anything to me yet that has indicated to me that you're of Christ. I don't think you even realize it.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
-Mat 13:23

You're reference to the parable of the neighbor... didn't make any sense in the context of replying to my question about the difference in spiritual mankind vs. natural, carnal mankind. Sorry.
I know, and I figured you wouldn't understand it when I wrote it. You don't see that you're looking for the same excuse the lawyer was looking for, but I gave it my best shot anyway, as we Christians are instructed to do in 2Ti 2, which I quoted in the last letter.

Yeah, reading further on, you make even less sense...
You're not listening, either; you are merely replying:
If I'm not listening to you, then move on. You won't be able to make sense of what I'm saying without the Holy Spirit of God regenerating you and opening your understanding:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1Co 2:14

When you use the verses above, you are implicitly referring to a manmade term, "The Great Commission."
I don't believe I have ever used that term anywhere on my site. So to say that I am referring to that is called an "assumption," not evidence. You're starting to push the borders of a loaded question.When you use the verses above, you are implicitly referring to a manmade term, "The Great Commission."
I don't believe I have ever used that term anywhere on my site. So to say that I am referring to that is called an "assumption," not evidence. You're starting to push the borders of a loaded question.
Up above, I didn't state you used the term the Great Commission. What did I say? I said you are implicitly referring to...
Implicit = implied though not plainly expressed. 
Can you not see how that makes it worse? You are attempting to say, "You are not directly using the manmade term "Great Commission," and I know I haven't defined it at all in this conversation, but I know that's what you're referring to." That's called an "assumption," which I've already explained to you, and it's called "reading into" things, and even though that's not a single word, Merriam-Webster defines it:
read into (phrasal verb): to think of as having a meaning or importance that does not seem likely or reasonable
You could have just started out saying, "Chris, I want to talk about something called the 'Great Commission,' here's a definition of what I mean, and let's discuss that in Scripture." No, instead, you started reading into things I didn't say, and then implied that I said them, because the word "implicit" was partially formed out of the root word "imply."
imply (v): to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
That's what I was talking about when I said you had another agenda when you started writing me, and you were not making it clear. Let me be clear with you: the phrase "Great Commission" was never on my mind when I wrote those things on the "About" page. Does that help you? I'm getting worn out trying to explain these things to a man who cannot understand, so this is my last shot. On the "About" page, I said:
"This ministry exists to preach the truth of God's Law to all of mankind so they can know their guilt before the Holy God, repent (i.e. having grief and godly sorrow) of their sin, and seek the Lord Jesus Christ for Salvation by His grace through faith."
Men are converted by the hearing of the law. Paul wrote:
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
-Gal 3:24
What does that mean? Go to "How to Be Saved" on the "About" page, and you can read the explanation for yourself. If you cannot understand that, then it's more likely the case that you've never come to repentance, and I say that taking you at your word, that you have studied a lot. It's very suspicious that a man who has studied that much for that long would not understand the basics of the Gospel of Christ:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
False Converts vs Eternal Security
However, I cannot tell with you yet because, though you may not realize it, you haven't said enough about what it is you believe for me to draw any conclusions because I don't have enough evidence yet. (People often do that on purpose because they want to hide in darkness, rather than come to the light. John 3:19) On the other hand, I do have enough evidence to know that you follow the wisdom of the world over Scripture, which is evidenced by the fact that you don't use Scripture much in your speech (because you don't understand it), and that you love more the wisdom of men; that alone gives me strong evidence, but the true test is when a man attempts to use Scripture to support his speech, which you don't do, as someone who studies the Word of God would normally attempt to do.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
-1Co 1:17

Hmmm... didn't even have the guts to finish reading the email, regardless if parts were used (and no, I'm not the owner of the website) But there is DEFINITELY a lot more truth on that website than there is on yours. 
I gave you a condition; you deceived me. I am not baited into discussion by men full of strife, which is what you're trying to do.
strife: exertion or contention for superiority; contest of emulation, either by intellectual or physical efforts
Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.
-Pro 22:10
You won't confess your false accusations and your deceit, you try to bait me in by falsely accusing me of being a coward when you're trying to waste my time, and then say there's a lot more truth on that other site... Then go follow that other site and leave us be.
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/pdf/repentance.pdf

Sighh... found another one without much desire for truth and wisdom.
Much success to you "and your home church."
That's a lie, because you and I both know you don't really want us to be "successful" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and then you mock our church. That's what the Bible calls "flattering lips" and a "double heart."
Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psalm 12:1-2
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Mat 15:8
And that's because you're what the Bible calls a scoffer and a railer.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1Co 5:11-13
Yet, I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless you are your family with all your needs throughout the coming week, and that He would show you mercy, as He has shown our family mercy.
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1Pe 3:9
You can read and study all you want, but until you have been born again, you will never understand.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2Ti 3:7
If you were paying close attention, you will notice there was a point where he claimed that I was teaching that we had to "do something" to earn our salvation, which I do not teach. He goes on to say that the other website he was copying/pasting from had far better materials than what I had, and I very subtly added in a link to that site, which you may have noticed. That link is to that sight's teaching on repentance, in which they teach that repentance means grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing, and Daniel is blind to this, and I could see a bit of evidence of his flattering lips and double heart from the first letter he sent me, but he refuses to see or acknowledge that I could have seen through him that quickly because he is ignorant of God's doctrine.

[Jeanne]

He also said that some of what you teach is in error, but he never described what that

[Kenneth Winslow]

He also said that some of what you teach is in error, but he never described what that

Say again?

[Jeanne]

He also said that some of what you teach is in error, but he never described what that was.

What is so difficult about 'This is what you said, and I disagree with you because...'? Are people that incapable of asking a direct question or making a clear argument?

[Kenneth Winslow]

He also said that some of what you teach is in error, but he never described what that was.

What is so difficult about 'This is what you said, and I disagree with you because...'? Are people that incapable of asking a direct question or making a clear argument?

Direct questions and clear arguments aren't expedient when attempting to deceive someone.

[Reed Scott]

Well I just had to go over there ( link the e-mailer posted ) and look around.  Lots of good stuff actually.  But they are extreme Calvinists.  I am always wary of hard line Calvinists.  Yes the Bible teaches predestination but it shows us free will as well.  How men come down hard on one side or the other of this issue eludes me.  I am reminded of Chris' teaching on God's fore-knowledge,  being outside of time, God knows which of us will respond and calls us to Himself.  ( paraphrased ) This does not mean God creates men who have no chance to repent and be saved.  Such would be brutes.  Not even really human. 

As to Chris' patience and dedication in spending time with e-mailers like this:  Don't fret about it Chris.  Many of these wild e-mails are quite helpful and instructive to those who have ears to hear on CLF.   

[creationliberty]

He wrote me a bunch more stuff afterwards, and I mostly ignored it because he's unrepentant of his wrongdoing and he refuses to confess it. If anyone requests it, I can post the rest of his letters, and you're welcome to go through it yourself on here if that's your desire or conviction.

[Daniel]

Are "scoffers" allowed to reply to the accusations?

Thought I would be bold and unafraid to address the forum post...

So I'm a scoffer, Chris, because you didn't understand my letter(s)/email(s) to you, and simply perhaps, because they were "confusing"? Perhaps you didn't understand the depth of questions that were being asked? I'm a scoffer because I called you out on a few things, but you choose to disregard responding to them? One of my first questions was "how one is saved eternally?" but you didn't have the courage/knowledge to fully answer? Yes, yes, I know you've stated in your website articles MANY times, that one has to repent (i.e., have grief and godly sorrow)...

...but Chris, what you failed to answer is, HOW IS ONE ABLE TO REPENT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The first question I asked you, which appears you never answered, is, "How can a man in a state of being dead, realize he has to ask for repentance?"

If you do not understand this question, or cannot answer it, it means that you do not understand man's TOTAL DEPRAVITY...something I did not come across ONCE on your website. So yes, I can definitely see how I come off as "strange" or "confusing."

Total depravity, to explain in brief, is the fact that EVERY human being is born spiritually dead, at enmity with God (too many verses to include right now, and no, that's not a cop out)... But God told Adam that in the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die. How would Adam (and Eve) die?

You never addressed this.

Adam and Eve didn't die, on the spot, in that moment, did they? They didn't die intellectually, and become brain-dead / mentally retarded, in that day, did they? They did physically at some point in the long distant future die... but God said, KJV "17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This means that they died in their spiritual connection & affection for the LORD. Hence, the reason every human being, though born alive and breathing, is born spiritually-dead... in need of regeneration, salvation, to be born-again (because they are dead)...

But you never addressed this. You simply stated that you "cried for three hours, and were born again that day."

And thus, I asked you, how is one saved eternally? One has to be born again, based on the conversation between Jesus Christ and Nicodemus, but you never ONCE addressed that point. You kept pointing back to repentance, which again, is great, and I never disagreed with you on, but you didn't explain how one gets to the point of being able to do that, because we both agree that natural man cannot repent, he has no reason to, he doesn't see it, he is in the dark, he doesn't care for it, he is dead spiritually, preaching of the Cross / Gospel is foolishness unto him...

...so yes, I guess I'm a scoffer, because my deep questions to you, you really have no idea how to answer (you pointed me back to "How To Be Saved," and "How To Gain Eternal Salvation" - which I called you out on) and you didn't address these points, and others...

You also did not address my question, and I'll quote it again, "In what context is he (the jailer) referring to, in regards to asking for salvation?"

You never addressed this point, either.

You somehow believe the jailer is asking for eternal security and salvation, BUT NOT ONCE IS THERE A MENTION OF THIS, IN THE PASSAGE! How can you with 100% certainty believe it's referring to eternal salvation?

Again, I asked you to give me some feedback on Paul's MUCH BETTER explanation of the five phases of salvation (regardless whether I wrote it or I copied it from another website, and BY THE WAY, THE AUTHOR / PASTOR OF THE ARTICLE HAS STATED THAT ALLLLL MATERIAL ON THE WEBSITE CAN BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED, SHARED, ETC. WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT TO THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT. THAT SPEAKS VERY HIGHLY IN MY OPINION), and I asked you, once again, does "save" and "salvation" mean "eternally saved" in every instance the word(s) up above are used?

You never answered this, either.

You didn't explain who the "all" is referring to in the verse you used / posted on your website that states that God wants "all" to come to repentance. Does "all" mean every single man, woman, and child, in every context? Again, you choose to ignore answering this, BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.

I then informed you that I read your articles, and you still erred on many things...

...You made it seem that one has to "cry for several hours in repentance" and THAT IS THE DAY THEY ARE BORN AGAIN.

WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS THAT METHOD EVEN MENTIONED, TO BE BORN AGAIN? Which of the apostles tried this method to be "saved eternally"?

Again, go back to the conversation Christ had with Nicodemus... oh wait, you never did address or answer that discussion?...

See, you want your audience to believe "I'm confusing" because you didn't understand my letters / email / questions, but yet... you didn't address a lot of the points, and cut out some of the discussion because you simply couldn't answer, so "I'm a scoffer," and "confusing." Right.

The next letter was very confusing in the way he set it up with quoting me quoting him and responding to those, so I'll publish my next letter, which has his responses in it.
 
What is so confusing about me answering you in a quote - by - quote fashion? Usually people read an email, then they respond in a line-by-line fashion, hopefully to address the points in succession. Does my writing here, seem to confuse anyone, or am I that illiterate? Aren't you doing the exact same thing that I did, responding in line-by-line fashion? Can we say, "Hypocrite"?

Christ: Daniel, let me clarify a few things because I don't want to waste your time. Daniel: * I think that's your polite way of saying, "Daniel, don't waste my time." Right?  

You obviously do not have any sense of humor, as was indicated by the wink face, in my letter to you. I was poking fun at you but you "assumed" that you thought I was lying to you. So you're guilty of the same thing you accuse me of? Hypocrite.

You paint me as "confusing," a "scoffer," and an-almost-"reprobate" because I used one quote by Teddy Roosevelt, which IS VERY TRUE: "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college degree." and oh, no! Suddenly my discussion is not valid to read / listen to anymore... You are not someone I am trying to impress, guy. Who cares who said them, if the content of the statement is true?! A thorough knowledge of the Bible (which you seem NOT to have) is worth not one, but many college degrees! TRUE, or not!?

The first thing that I would like to address (and I will do this in piece-by-piece fashion) is your "About Me" section
1. Teach the Gospel.
You used this verse: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
-Matthew 28:19-20
It's a great verse, nothing wrong with it... And like I've already mentioned before, your website is great, to teach more truth about God's law to mankind. But which mankind?... because there is a spiritual, and there is a natural mankind? One can understand spiritual things, and the other can't. Natural, carnal mankind doesn't even care about the Bible, so what good would the website be to them?
I'll answer you the same way Jesus answered the lawyer who tried to justify himself by questioning who specifically was his "neighbor." (i.e. The lawyer was attempting to redefine 'neighbor' to mean something else so he could skirt the issue at hand and give himself an excuse for his selfishness.) 

Chris! You skirted the question! You mentioned that your reason in answering the way you did was to give an excuse for selfishiness... I WANTED YOU TO ANSWER, "WHO DID CHRIST GIVE THIS COMMANDMENT TO?!" You didn't answer, what mankind are we talking about here? IT'S BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND REGENERATION, BORN-AGAIN, CONVERSION, etc.!

Chris: The fact that you asked the question shows that you don't understand what Jesus sent us to do. 

The fact that YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED, SHOWS YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOD'S WORD! YOU DIDN'T EVEN REFER TO THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN NICODEMUS AND CHRIST! HELLOOOO?? CHRIST SAID YOU HAVE TO BE BORN AGAIN. HOW? CHRIS'S RESPONSE IS THAT YOU HAVE TO REPENT. CHRIST'S ANSWER IS THAT A MAN HAS TO BE BORN AGAIN, REGENERATED BY GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT, AND BY GOD'S WILL, HIS CHOICE, NOT MANS (JOHN 1:12-13).

YOU NEVER ADDRESSED THIS CHRIS! But I'm the one who is confusing and a scoffer? Get real.

You stated that you cannot give a full lesson on every chapter, on every verse you quote... here's the thing, guy... YOU DON'T HAVE A COMMENTARY ON PETER, from where you ripped the verse out of context. This verse: "...and not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." This is a cop out, because I asked you to define who "ALL" in this context was referring to, and I told you that Peter was talking to a very specific group of people, "...to us-ward...", not the entire human world! But you never addressed that point, again, because you do not understand that "ALL" does not mean every single man, woman, and child" in the world. I gave you SEVERAL Bible verses that used the word "ALL" yet you didn't even have the courage to address them...

Chris: I don't care what context you used the word 'save'. 

If you do not care of the context of the word "saved," you are truly ignorant. "If they be ignorant, let them be ignorant." Rings true for you. How did Paul use the word "save" 5 different times to refer to his own salvation? Did PAUL EVER SAY HE CRIED, AND WAS SAVED ON A SPECIFIC DAY? WHY DO YOU NOT FOLLOW THE BIBLE, RATHER THAN YOUR OWN HEART, MIND, OWN IMAGINATIONS?

Chris: 'Save' means different things in different contexts. Context is the key, and with all that reading you've done, you should know that by now. 

YES! But you never addressed which "save" is being referred to! This is of such critical importance!

You decided to take the easy way out when you said, "Alright, Daniel, I'm stopping your letter right here..." because a) you couldn't more fully fully my questions about the man-made term, "The Great Commission." Regardless if you stated you used it or not, you are stating that Christians' duty is go out and preach to the whole world... when clearly the commandment was given to the 11 (+ Paul). What's so confusing / scornful about telling you this? I did state that I believe in evangelism WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE COMMANDMENT / ORDER CHRIST GAVE TO HIS 11 APOSTLES (AGAIN, SOMETHING YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND) and b) you, again, took the easy way out because I used some material from another website, that didn't seem to have an author's name on it. Does it make a big difference? Is there not a named person / pastor, in the "About Us" section? Could it not be that it was this guy who wrote the articles? What a joke.

Chris: If you repent (i.e. have grief and sorrow) of all this nonsense (i.e. deceit and loaded questions and false accusations) 

What exactly is nonsense? That I'm asking you hard, deep questions, and you can't answer them, and therefore this is nonsense, and I need to repent? Of what? Did I call you an A**HOLE? Did I curse you to hell? Uh, no? I'm calling you to discussion about the half-truths you have posted on your website!

You only included parts of our email transaction in your forum post here, to paint yourself in the best light, and the other person as "confusing," "scornful," etc... Hmmm.

And yes, again, you state that people have to repent... BUT YOU DO NOT ADDRESS how one is able to do that first!

Chris: It's very suspicious that a man who has studied that much for that long would not understand the basics of the Gospel of Christ: 

Clearly, you do not, because you can't explain regeneration, how one is born again (not how to "gain eternal salvation"), conversion - these are all Bible words, guy, but you haven't ever addressed them in your writings / website.

By the way, That link is to that sight's teaching on repentance, in which they teach that repentance means grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing, and Daniel is blind to this,

...the word is "site" not "sight"...

... and... you must be illiterate, and blind, or something else, because didn't I state several times in agreement with you, that I AGREE that repentance means grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing?? I am stating it again, I agree that repentance means "grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing," so how am I blind? LOL

but he refuses to see or acknowledge that I could have seen through him that quickly because he is ignorant of God's doctrine.

Oh, Chris... ignorant of God's doctrine how? You clearly do not understand God's doctrine in His divine work in regeneration (another key word which you are not able to define), conversion, etc., and again, I ask you, but you still fail to answer, how is a dead man, spiritually dead, able to repent and have grief and godly sorry? HOW IS A REPROBATE, AN EVIL, WICKED PERSON, UNREGENERATED, UNSAVED, NOT BORN-GAIN MAN, capable of doing anything godly??! Don't we agree that there is not one that seeks God? What must first happen for that man to be BORN AGAIN, in order to do something towards God, to please God, to seek God? It is YOU that unfortunately does not understand doctrine.

To Jeanne the moderator: you stated: "He also said that some of what you teach is in error, but he never described what that"

...I asked how a man is able to repent, and how a man is born again, but he believe it is by "crying for several hours that he was born again on that day."

Then I told him that Paul wasn't saved on a particular day because he bawled his eyes out. Paul described his salvation in several different phases. If you want to find out more about the truth of God's word and doctrine, go to that website, LetGodBeTrue, (if Chris doesn't block this forum post), and look up the article "Five Phases." It will give you a lot more truth about salvation, the terms "save" "salvation" etc... than on this website.

I also asked several other things, like "What does "ALL" refer to in the verse Chris used," but Chris decided to conveniently not respond to it.

I also asked a whole lot more questions, but they were not included, because Chris didn't read the rest of my email, and he only posted what would make HIM look good, righteous, correct, etc.

Chris also believes drinking wine is a sin, when in fact, Christ Himself CREATED wine, and consumed it himself.

Chris also erroneously explains the rapture, tribulation, etc., not realizing that the Great Tribulation Christ spoke about had already come upon the nation of Israel for crucifying their Messiah. Chris erroneously states that the final week of the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is yet to be fulfilled, at some time in the future, with a 2000+ year gap in between, but obviously Chris can't cant from 69 to 70! There is plenty of material on other websites that shows the 70th week was fulfilled in Christ's time!

Reed Scott - yes, a lot of good stuff... unfortunately, you err. You stated: "This does not mean God creates men who have no chance to repent and be saved.  Such would be brutes.  Not even really human."

Have you not read your Bible? What does God say?

Proverbs 16:4 - The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Romans 9: 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,...

What does the above mean? It means God created some vessels (human beings) to fulfill His secret will, by their evil deeds, and they are "fitted for destruction" meaning their ultimate end is in the lake of fire. How can you say that "This does not mean God creates men who have no chance to repent and be saved"?

Furthermore, what does God say in the day of judgement?

Matthew 7: 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

What? God never knew someone, that He created? Impossible. Is it not omnipotent and omniscient? God knows EVERY SINGLE DETAIL ABOUT EVERY SINGLE CELL AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO EVER LIVED... For God to say that He never knew someone, is to say that He never loved them, He never bestowed his specific grace unto them to regenerate them, to cause them to be born again... What is so difficult about this?

Ultimately, Chris, what am I unrepentant of? Because I called you out on some of your error on doctrine? Because I didn't agree with you on many things?

Anyone is free to email me, or send me a message, or reply to this response, there is nothing to hide!

Daniel

[Daniel]

A few corrections to my own post so I don’t come across as illiterate:

“Christ: Daniel, let me clarify a few things because I don't want to waste your time. Daniel: * I think that's your polite way of saying, "Daniel, don't waste my time." Right? ”
I meant to say “Chris” not “Christ”
And please don’t accuse me of winking maliciously, because of a simple wink, to confer a bit of humor / poking. Get over it.
“You decided to take the easy way out when you said, "Alright, Daniel, I'm stopping your letter right here..." because a) you couldn't more fully fully…”
Did not mean to insert two “fully”s up above.
“HOW IS A REPROBATE, AN EVIL, WICKED PERSON, UNREGENERATED, UNSAVED, NOT BORN-GAIN MAN,…”
Obviously, I meant: “BORN-AGAIN” not “-GAIN…”
“but obviously Chris can't cant from 69 to 70!”
I meant to say, “…obviously Chris can’t COUNT from 69 to 70!”

[Kenneth Winslow]

Daniel,
with prideful and sarcastic comments like this:

Again, go back to the conversation Christ had with Nicodemus... oh wait, you never did address or answer that discussion?...

most people here aren't going to interact with you, because comments like that show that your questions don't come from an honest heart of genuine inquiry.

Personally, I'm not impressed with your attempted snow job of Calvinistic presuppositions.  It shows me that you are trying to avoid any real discussion, but only trying to cast doubt and disbelief.

[Daniel]

Daniel,
with prideful and sarcastic comments like this:

Again, go back to the conversation Christ had with Nicodemus... oh wait, you never did address or answer that discussion?...

Hi Kenneth... first of all, it is irritating that I addressed a lot of the above to Chris, yet it never got a response, and I was simply stating a fact, that it was INDEED not addressed or answered. What's wrong with calling him out on it?

most people here aren't going to interact with you, because comments like that show that your questions don't come from an honest heart of genuine inquiry.

Actually they did (come from an honest heart of genuine inquiry), but all I got in return was a few labels of "strange" "confusing" etc... But that's okay, because truth isn't much liked these days. And personally, I really don't care for people to come back and interact, IF they don't want to seek the truth, but rather their own vain imaginations. What does the Bible say? "Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?" Seems like Chris, and perhaps a few others in here, are his followers (of half truths = misguided misinformation)... 26 "But ye/they believe not, because ye/they are not of [His] sheep, as I said unto you."

Personally, I'm not impressed with your attempted snow job of Calvinistic presuppositions.  It shows me that you are trying to avoid any real discussion, but only trying to cast doubt and disbelief.

I personally don't care, if you are not impressed, because clearly you do not understand the depth of the questions asked... because you haven't even attempted to address the points above, either. "...my Calvinistic presuppositions"? Great. Thank you so much for clearly skinning yourself to show the wolf beneath. Saves me a lot of trouble from having to discuss with you any further. Calvin didn't introduce something new. Election, predestination, choosing, foreordination, etc., are spoken about in the Bible more than anything else. And I'm avoiding discussion? Do you not see the lengthy response I poste up above? Get serious.

[creationliberty]

Daniel, when you registered, you signed the electronic agreement, and it's obvious you didn't read it.
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=20.0
This forum has rules. If you don't want to abide by those rules, then you can leave. All new members need to post in the "Introduce Yourself" section of the forum, but be forewarned, this is a place for discussion and fellowship, not a place for you to practice strife and massage your pride. If you're going to claim to be of Christ (as you labeled your belief "Christian") and continue acting in the embarrassing way you're acting, then you either need to be more honest and claim a different religious belief, or you'll be shown the door.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2Ti 2:24-25

[Daniel]

I'll get to filling out a profile, just haven't had time. I know I read that part.

[Timothy]

Well I just banned him right as he posted that. With his attitude he is not going to listen to anything we say. Sorry if I pulled the trigger too early.

[creationliberty]

I'll get to filling out a profile, just haven't had time. I know I read that part.

There's lie #1 already. You had time to write that lengthy post, so you had time to write an introduction.
Lie #2 is that you read it, but you ignored it because of strife in your heart. You had more desire to fight than you had to get along with the Christians here. You're not going to last long on this forum, I can already tell because we've seen this pattern from hateful men many times before, and I knew there was a problem with you from the flattering lips of your very first emails.

As I stated in my letters to you: You're a liar Daniel, and until you confess your lies and repent, you're not going to get along with anyone here because we follow Christ, and Christ hates lies:
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Pro 6:16-19

[creationliberty]

Well I just banned him right as he posted that. With his attitude he is not going to listen to anything we say. Sorry if I pulled the trigger too early.

No, it's okay, I trust your discernment. I tend to give people too many chances anyway because I don't trust myself and I want as much evidence as possible so I can be certain. We all already knew what the outcome would have been. I hope you IP banned him too because he didn't come here to fellowship with anyone, and he lied about it.

[Kenneth Winslow]

Well I just banned him right as he posted that. With his attitude he is not going to listen to anything we say. Sorry if I pulled the trigger too early.

Thank you Timothy.
I was just fixin' to waste a bunch of time on him anyway. I have better things to do.

[creationliberty]

Kenneth, before I quote this, I just wanted to note that you have started using the "Scripture" button to quote people, which is matching the font style as if it is Scripture. You might want to watch out for that.

Daniel,
with prideful and sarcastic comments like this:
Again, go back to the conversation Christ had with Nicodemus... oh wait, you never did address or answer that discussion?...
most people here aren't going to interact with you, because comments like that show that your questions don't come from an honest heart of genuine inquiry.

Kenneth really hit the main point of why I stopped talking with him over email. I pointed these things out to him, along with his lies, and he wouldn't confess any wrongdoing.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-1Jo 1:8-10
I understand these verses are speaking generally, but if we sin and say that we have not, how can the truth of God be in us when we lie? That makes no sense. It's not the topic of discussion that was Daniel's problem; it was the fake approach, like the flattering lips, double heart, and scoffing attitude when he didn't get his way. Furthermore, it's not what the Bible calls "meek."
meek: mild of temper; soft; gentle; not easily provoked or irritated; yielding; given to forbearance under injuries
I posted his letters for the benefit of the church, let it go, and got back to work. He dwelt on it, and became bitter, being easily provoked and irritated. I'm not saying I'm perfect in meekness, and certainly I need to check myself, but he shows no meekness in spirit.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
-Gal 5:22-23

But Galatians also says that the works of the flesh is strife:
strife: exertion or contention for superiority; contest of emulation, either by intellectual or physical efforts
So, I would say to all Christians who read this, look for yourself in conversation and judge the matter. I haven't read Daniel's long post, but if someone else wants to go through it and respond to it, that might be a good exercise of discernment.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Heb 5:14

[anvilhauler]

Well I just banned him right as he posted that. With his attitude he is not going to listen to anything we say. Sorry if I pulled the trigger too early.

Good job.  I could see he was "just another one of those" and I wasn't looking forward to having to read through such a long posting.

[Kenneth Winslow]

Kenneth, before I quote this, I just wanted to note that you have started using the "Scripture" button to quote people, which is matching the font style as if it is Scripture. You might want to watch out for that.

Got it.