Just for you. Even though, I think the rule is simply another Calvinist ploy, I will submit to it.

Under one condition. You are going to have to convince SA to remove the ban and give me equal rights to posts surveys.

The Devastating truth can be presented in one post just as easy as it can be presented in multiple posts.

Really, deleting the comment is useless.

If you trully want to secure that Calvinism is the dominant voice, then the best solution would be to have the comments approved before they are posted. I know of several atheistic sites that make good use of such ploy.

There are a million plus IP addresses out there, will you now go on a mission to delete every one of it.

1. You are not able to at all provide any formidable proof that I have violated the policy of personal attacks. Every time you have banned me, it was solely based on the Calvinist getting red-hot mad. Not on my violation of personal attacks. I also find it quite suspicious that you give no reason when you do ban.

2. Your policy of consecutive posts was implemented after my membership due to the complain of (yes again) the Calvinists. Apparently, you are trying to give me more technological hurdles since your ban is not working.

3. I understand that you are in your perfect right to place rules as you please, whether or not it is based on a theological bent. But this should be made in the beginning, not make it up as you go. It is apparent, that when the debate gets heated, the Calvinists stay, and everyone else goes.

1. Repentance
2. Faith

All you have to do is go crazy with the abuse button and Sermon Audio will create a rule that Catholics are not allowed to post.

The small print reads: you must be a Calvinist.

Interestingly, I came around in the days when Walt was the self-proclaimed pope of SA as an honest inquirer and frustrated with my fellow fundamentalists.

Though I was an honest inquirer, I was not by any means a gullible one. I was not long chastized for not accepting Calvinism and insisting on certain objections to be answered. After that red flag, my faith has been increased and my studies in Scripture has deepened. Now I can say that I can never be a Calvinist.

My understanding of Scripture does not allow me to do otherwise.

Whether one is saved or not, I decide on a personal basis. And I do believe that Calvinism can be pulled to the extreme of heresy. But when I speak to Calvinist like CBCpreacher, I find it hard to actually place such labels on him. Though I would not had been so gracious in the past, the Holy Spirit is teaching me to not succumb to the same error and think that anyone who is not a fundamentalist is not saved.

If, as you had admitted, you do not even know who provided the quote, it certainly is frivolous at best and carries no weight at all.

It seems that your intellectual dishonesty lies in the fact that:

1. You categorize D.A. Waite in the same camp as Riplinger and Ruckman.

2. You praise James White, who has no background in biblical texts, and label D.A. Waite as an obscurantist when he does have background in bilbical texts.

3. You use quotes that cannot be determined whether they are valid or not to create a smokescreen.

That's why I was curious to know of Seaton. If he attended a college that is Reformed then I would say that he did not start with the Bible as much as he would not like to admit. It also would be interesting to know what church he attended befor Bible college.

We are all effected by the church we attended. As new babes in Christ, we will accept the teachings of those that led us to the Lord. Their is nothing essentially wrong with that. But rarely does one really start with the Bible.

Intellectual honesty?

I think it is definitely lacking.

If it makes you feel better, since I did not realize that you were the self-proclaimed English referee, and since you are now acting like you have no idea of what I said, I can repost it for you.

"You praise James White, who has no background in textual criticism, and you label one who does, D.A. Waite, as an obscurist placing him in the same camp as fanatics like Riplinger and Ruckman."

You asked me which part I disagreed and I told you all with the exception of the last statement.

You praise James Waite, who has no background in textual criticism, and you label one who does, James Waite, as an obscurist place him in the same camp as fanatics like Riplinger and Ruckman.

So much for intellectual honesty.

If you are speaking about the faith that we find in the Bible, then you are right, faith is a gift of God. Faith coming by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

"We are simply trying to bring you to the Truth, by teaching Biblical doctrines such as the Doctrines of Grace."

I am sorry to break it to you Seaton but you covering your ears and proclaiming the above statement as many times as possible will not be able to convince the serious student of the Word of God.