Sattler College Turmoil

[brothereicher]

Once again you obscure what is a simple question. Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no.
Refusing to answer simply means that you are trying to hide your position. Are you doing this to continue to appeal to people who reject your position?

Only cults try to hide their views, Judas Maccabeas.

Of course, I speak as a fool, to make a point. I'd be ashamed to be seen unironically using these dishonest tactics in what's supposed to be a Christian discussion.

If this line of questioning feels unfair to you, I suggest you owe brothereicher a public apology for bullying him in exactly the same way, page after page.

This isn't a one-off incident, it's your modus operandi any time someone seriously challenges you. It isn't remotely Christian behavior, and you should expect other Christians to rebuke you when you do it.

In the interest of clarity, here's just one egregious example of what I'm talking about:



To imply that brothereicher "refused to answer" your question is a blatantly false accusation and underlines your bad faith throughout this discussion.

Brothereicher answered your question over and over, with far more patience, detail, and clarity than your peevish and domineering demands warranted (and more graciously than you did when you felt your own views were being misrepresented).

What really happened is that you repeatedly asked a "gotcha" question that required explanation to address intelligently, then demanded that brothereicher limit his reply to a single word so you could make him look silly.

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

That is over the top. You might be able to frustrate me, you have far better rhetoric skills than I, and you use them effectively,

My apologies for any offense I have caused.

My opinion of the whole Boston scene has not, however, changed. I still cannot comprehend how you could call me “reformed.”

The simple answer is no, not now not ever.

Thanks, JM. I accept your apology.

And I also accept that your views on Boston are unlikely to change, and that's fine, too. People are allowed to have different perspectives of things, for sure.

One thing we disagree on, it seems is our adamant rejection of Reformed theology.

This was intended to say one thing we don't disagree on.

I am also decidedly not Reformed.

[RZehr]

One thing we disagree on, it seems is our adamant rejection of Reformed theology.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Once again you obscure what is a simple question. Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no.
Refusing to answer simply means that you are trying to hide your position. Are you doing this to continue to appeal to people who reject your position?

Only cults try to hide their views, Judas Maccabeas.

Of course, I speak as a fool, to make a point. I'd be ashamed to be seen unironically using these dishonest tactics in what's supposed to be a Christian discussion.

If this line of questioning feels unfair to you, I suggest you owe brothereicher a public apology for bullying him in exactly the same way, page after page.

This isn't a one-off incident, it's your modus operandi any time someone seriously challenges you. It isn't remotely Christian behavior, and you should expect other Christians to rebuke you when you do it.

In the interest of clarity, here's just one egregious example of what I'm talking about:



To imply that brothereicher "refused to answer" your question is a blatantly false accusation and underlines your bad faith throughout this discussion.

Brothereicher answered your question over and over, with far more patience, detail, and clarity than your peevish and domineering demands warranted (and more graciously than you did when you felt your own views were being misrepresented).

What really happened is that you repeatedly asked a "gotcha" question that required explanation to address intelligently, then demanded that brothereicher limit his reply to a single word so you could make him look silly.

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

That is over the top. You might be able to frustrate me, you have far better rhetoric skills than I, and you use them effectively,

My apologies for any offense I have caused.

My opinion of the whole Boston scene has not, however, changed. I still cannot comprehend how you could call me “reformed.”

The simple answer is no, not now not ever.

Thanks, JM. I accept your apology.

And I also accept that your views on Boston are unlikely to change, and that's fine, too. People are allowed to have different perspectives of things, for sure.

One thing we disagree on, it seems is our adamant rejection of Reformed theology.

Did you miss it? I reject all of the major theological formulations of reformed theology. The major reformed student organization flat out refused to work with an organization unless they got rid of me and a few others who were not reformed. I am most certainly not reformed . I do not know how to make it more clear,

A book burning of Grudem’s systematic theology maybe?

[ken_sylvania]

">

[brothereicher]

That is over the top. You might be able to frustrate me, you have far better rhetoric skills than I, and you use them effectively,

My apologies for any offense I have caused.

My opinion of the whole Boston scene has not, however, changed. I still cannot comprehend how you could call me “reformed.”

The simple answer is no, not now not ever.

Thanks, JM. I accept your apology.

And I also accept that your views on Boston are unlikely to change, and that's fine, too. People are allowed to have different perspectives of things, for sure.

One thing we disagree on, it seems is our adamant rejection of Reformed theology.

Did you miss it? I reject all of the major theological formulations of reformed theology. The major reformed student organization flat out refused to work with an organization unless they got rid of me and a few others who were not reformed. I am most certainly not reformed . I do not know how to make it more clear,

A book burning of Grudem’s systematic theology maybe?

I didn't miss it.

I mis-typed it.

I meant to say that I also reject Reformed theology.
I'd be glad to join your book burning, though.

[Soloist]

">

Looks like New Orleans after Katrina

[brothereicher]

">

Looks like New Orleans after Katrina

My fat fingers are partially to blame.

[ohio jones]

I am most certainly not reformed . I do not know how to make it more clear,

A book burning of Grudem’s systematic theology maybe?

Yet you associate with people who teach Reformed doctrines (perhaps not all five points), print Reformed articles, and use Reformed language. It should not be entirely surprising when a bit of guilt by association comes your way.

[Josh]

Ok. I'm gonna ask for the receipts.

Where is the documentation of this "well documented smear campaign"?

Private message it. Share it here. Post it in a Google drive. Whatever you'd like.

But please, share your documentation.

As one of the "handful of Sattler apologists and FOTW apologists," I've never seen any evidence of a smear campaign as you claim.

I've lived in Boston and had a ringside seat to the upheaval for the past two years, and I've heard lots and lots of accusations against Finny, but the idea that he ran a smear campaign or deprived someone of a place to live has never once been among those accusations, so this is a new one for me.

But since this accusation is WELL-DOCUMENTED, I'm sure I'll soon be enlightened.

Send me a PM with your email and phone number and I’ll be glad to share.

[Soloist]

I am most certainly not reformed . I do not know how to make it more clear,

A book burning of Grudem’s systematic theology maybe?

Yet you associate with people who teach Reformed doctrines (perhaps not all five points), print Reformed articles, and use Reformed language. It should not be entirely surprising when a bit of guilt by association comes your way.

He is trying to reform them.