That's got a lot easier now that OB gets fewer than 10 new posts a day, and often just two or three. Who remembers when the busiest sections--'lounge' and 'news'--would each have a whole page of new topics/posts every day? Forums come and go, but I've never one bounce back after dropping to just a handful of active users, where OB is at now. I think the Holy Spirit has very much been at work here over the years, and I've enjoyed fellowship, teaching and some really edifying stuff, so it'll always have a little place in my heart.
You don't need to defend your liking Covenantor's posts to me, GP. I think people certainly should 'Amen' word by others that they agree with. I know I do it. The person who is attacking such a practice is not me but you. You accuse Alan of "Brother Scott worship" because he often comes out vocally in support of Pastor Markle's posts. What I'm saying is, if we take the lens you apply to Alan and direct it back at yourself, we can just as easily accuse you of 'Covenanter Worship' because of your habit of following Cov around and liking all his posts. Here are your words again: "I wish someone could clean up all the pure maple syrup coming out of Alan's 'brother scott worship' that he keeps installing in every discussion on OB where Bro. Scott opens his keyboard and posts, usually some long drawn out post that puts me to sleep before he gets to the point."
Yeah, I feel ok about it. You were obviously trying to stick the boot in with your references to 'maple syrup' and 'worshipping'--hardly a kind way to talk about another's contributions--so I thought why not place your own posting habits under the same lens. If you think Alan's being sucky, what do you call liking someone's posts about 50 times a week?
You must be reading about a different massacre, Invicta. At Hungerford, several times policemen saw the guy and fled for fear of getting shot. One officer got away by driving over the village green, stopping on the way to warn picnicers that the guy was in pursuit.
On the other hand, something like the Hungerford massacre would never have happened in the USA. Guy goes on a casual killing spree for about an hour because neither the local constabulary nor anyone else has any guns and the nearest armed officers are 40 miles away.
One more thing, to do with the question you ask above, Mikado. First, I just want to make it clear that I don't believe reformed doctrine and that's because I think it directly contradicts too many clear scriptures and because it disagrees with a lot of the Biblical narrative more generally. However I'll also say that personally I've found that delving deeply into the logic of either Calvinism or 'free will' brings up philosophical/logical problems for both and your question above is an example of one I think both systems struggle to answer. Like I say, I disagree with Calvinism for direct scriptural reasons rather than indirect logical inferences; I assume that any logical problems I have with what I do believe can indeed be answered--just not by me. Just putting that out there...
Good points John. Actually the idea reminds me of an image of salvation I hear a lot, which is that by wiping away our sins, Jesus' work on the cross causes God to 'perceive' us as sinless. I appreciate people are being figurative, but some really go to town on this idea to the extent that they seem to be saying that Jesus hoodwinks God the Father into thinking he's seeing copies of Jesus Christ rather than saved sinners. Not encountered this kind of talk on here, but I've encountered it.
Like John and youself, 282Mikado, I don't suscribe to Rob's "lottery bowl" idea and I think even most Calvinists would disagree with it, saying instead that God chooses the elect based on reasons he hasn't revealed. But what I disagree with even more is Rob's suggestion that there is conflict between the wills of God the Son and God the Father: that Jesus wants all to be saved but God the Father doesn't. So Rob's system is that Jesus' death on the cross was sufficient to pay for the sins of all (standard Calvinist view, I think) and that Jesus actually wants all to be saved, but he is constrained by the will of the Father to selecting a few, and in turn those few are selected at random. I'm no expert on reformed theology, but I've never before encountered the view that God the Father and God the Son are in conflict over salvation or that the elect are chosen at random. I think Rob's views might be atypical even among reformed teachings. Ditto for Rob's views about God's love for people: It's worth a quick mention that Rob doesn't appear to be participating on the forum anymore. Most of this thread happened back in May.
John cited some verses in scripture and then made a point based on them. So if you think he's making a particular point it would follow that you think he believes those verses support that point. Anyway, I think we're talking too far past each other to have a meaningful exchange so I'm gonna leave it there.
Ok, John said some stuff and brought up some verses of scripture at the same time. You responded with this: I chimed in and said that I wasn't sure that John was saying what you (tentatively) suggested he was saying, but that in any case you argued against the supposed position (the position that God would create a man just to send him to hell) without making reference to any of the scriptures that John mentioned--the ones you presumably thought he was using to support that position. Then you got back to me and offered to give your thoughts on those verses, so I'm saying yes, I'd appreciate your take on those verses.
Like I said earlier, I think John was actually asking a series of rhetorical questions so as to argue that we may not always fully understand God's will, rather than arguing that God creates people to send them to hell. However, if you want to argue against that position anyway, sure why not.
Firstly, resurrecting a two-month-old thread is nothing--there was a guy here recently who was posting on threads from 6 years ago and asking questions of people who have long since stopped posting on the forum lol. Secondly, I don't think John was saying anything as emphatic as that God is justified in creating people to send them to hell. I think all he was saying was that there are difficult passages in scripture and we have the freedom to be tentative in our interpretation of them and accept some of them speak to actions or plans on the part of God that we don't fully understand. But I note that while you have disagreed with what you think John was saying (and maybe you are right and I am wrong), and you have provided scripture to make your own case, you haven't referred to or attempted to explain a single one of the scriptures that John brought up.