WBC

[Canuckster1127]

Here's the thread where Calvinism appears to be on trial, J. I'm saying those who wish to charge the Calvinist's God of being some moral deviant leave themselves open to the same charge. Of course I'd rather not see my God subjected to such a kangaroo court as this.

God's not on trial. Calvinism is. Trying to switch the point being made that Calvinism presents God as the author of evil is a very different point from stating that God is the author of evil. It's an emotional appeal and it misrepresents the argument by representing that God moral character depends upon Calvinism being true or not.

Ultimately there is no system of thought that I am aware of, Calvinism included, which categorically solves all questions and all challenges to the issue of why evil exists in a system over which an omnipotent, omniscient God presides. If you want to argue that Calvinism presents the best answer to this situation that's your perogative, but unless you wish to claim a degree of certainty and unassailability, it's probably best (in my opinion, which you're free to take or leave) to allow for some degree of mystery or some degree of humility on your part as to the claims you make.

It's a red herring, frankly, to claim that any other system other than Calvinism be it Arminianism or any other system (assuming your world view and underlying framework allows you to see it in any context than the leading manner in which Calvinism frames the questions) inadequately answers this question, when the point being made is that Calvinism inadequately answers it. Asserting the inadequacies of other systems, doesn't prove Calvinism.

[DannyM]

God's not on trial. Calvinism is. Trying to switch the point being made that Calvinism presents God as the author of evil is a very different point from stating that God is the author of evil. It's an emotional appeal and it misrepresents the argument by representing that God moral character depends upon Calvinism being true or not.

Oh really? If God be the God of Calvinism then God most certainly is on trial. You can spin it whichever way you want to, Bart, but you ain’t getting out of it that easily. You’re the one laying the charge, and you are yet to substantiate that charge.

Ultimately there is no system of thought that I am aware of, Calvinism included, which categorically solves all questions and all challenges to the issue of why evil exists in a system over which an omnipotent, omniscient God presides. If you want to argue that Calvinism presents the best answer to this situation that's your perogative, but unless you wish to claim a degree of certainty and unassailability, it's probably best (in my opinion, which you're free to take or leave) to allow for some degree of mystery or some degree of humility on your part as to the claims you make.

As far as I’m aware I’m defending Calvinism against woolly misrepresentations. No one’s saying Calvinism solves all questions, and no one’s denying mystery. Yet more misrepresentations…

It's a red herring, frankly, to claim that any other system other than Calvinism be it Arminianism or any other system (assuming your world view and underlying framework allows you to see it in any context than the leading manner in which Calvinism frames the questions) inadequately answers this question, when the point being made is that Calvinism inadequately answers it. Asserting the inadequacies of other systems, doesn't prove Calvinism.

What’s a red herring? Have you actually made some cogent argument against Calvinism that I’ve missed? There’s nothing to defend. By laying some bogus charge (without substance) at Calvinism you have opened yourself right up to the same charge. Of course, I am holding that there is no charge (and you are yet to show there is), and so you are left defending your own bogus charge. You’ve made nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. I’ve just turned your own ludicrous charge back at you. The only difference is I am not guilty of a double standard.

[Canuckster1127]

Oh really? If God be the God of Calvinism then God most certainly is on trial. You can spin it whichever way you want to, Bart, but you ain’t getting out of it that easily. You’re the one laying the charge, and you are yet to substantiate that charge.

Danny, with all due respect, you do realize that prefacing your argument with "If' means that it's your responsibility to demonstrate the claim? You're the one making a positive assertion here that Calvinism represents the reality of God. So, go ahead. Demonstrate it.

As far as I’m aware I’m defending Calvinism against woolly misrepresentations. No one’s saying Calvinism solves all questions, and no one’s denying mystery. Yet more misrepresentations…

No Danny, you've been given direct, historic and documented references to specific instances in which John Calvin put people to death and exiled people all on the basis of the values and priniciples upon which he based his system of theology. Your response as I recall was to tell me that you had a book (which you didn't name) that explained all these difficult challenges and then stated it was your opinion that this validated you in your rejecting these challenges. That's your perogative of course, and you're as entitled to your opinion as I am or anyone else. The fact is Danny, I can pretty much find a book if I want to put forth any opinion that is contrary to what I don't want to believe in the first place. Like it or not, if you wish to argue for the merit of Calvinism you really need to take a look at these issues, the historical documentation or at least, which intererstingly enough, some Calvinists do, admit that John Calvin was an imperfect person and may have had some character flaws and defects that are valid to consider in examining his theology even if in the end you accept the basic premises of his system.

I make no apologies for my opinions with regard to Calvinism. I grew up with it. I've read the entire 2 volume set of the Institutes. I've worked in churches where it was either directly or indirectly the source of many theological platforms. I've read Wesley extensively for that matter. I've read and consulted multitudes of systematic theologies for, against and indifferent to it. I've read patristic fathers as well as reformation time based treatises on issues touched on by Calvinism and identified in my mind how it connects to Greek Philosophical determinism and Aristotilian logic as well as Roman Law dialectical development.

I don't say that to assert my authority or superiority on the issue opposed to you or to anyone else. I'm as entitled to my opinion and anyone else is and I'm comfortable in saying that I've examined it as closely as I feel the need to and reject many of its tenets and believe that it leads logically to conclusions that most Calvinists (to their credit I might add) would not ultimately accept. Rather than going to all the trouble of defending it and going through endless lines of cognative dissonance and contradictions, I'm comfortable simply coming to the conclusion that it uses scripture but it based upon thought and premises that ultimately are outside of scripture and on that basis I reject it as a satifactory explanation for the questions it seeks to answer.

It's obviously an issue of some importance and I respect that you disagree with me. I'm fine with that actually. To be honest, I'd disagree with me along many of the same lines you're asserting if I were to go back in time and assume the thinking and opinions I had as recently as 10 years. It's possible I may change my mind or adjust, but honestly, it's not all that likely as I've pretty much given Calvinism all the time and effort I feel it's due.

So, there you go. If you want to continue it with me, you're welcome to, but you'll need to be prepared that I'm not going to accept your arguments here (even though I accept you as a friend and sincere) when I see them as inconsistent and poorly based. It's one thing to simply disagree on the truths that underlie a system. It's another thing when the logic built upon those premises are logically inconsistent or make appeals that are fallacious.

I love God. I believe Calvinism grossly misrepresents God and His character. As I see Calvinism based upon things other than Scripture and also introducing elements to it's theology that were not present in the church in come cases for 1000 to 1500 years, I'm pretty comfortable in relegating it to the position I have while at the same time being willing to concede that it does in places reflect some things accurately. That's as far as I'll go.

[DannyM]

Bart, with all due respect, you're bringing up a separate conversation we had, and again you've misrepresented the whole thing. I did name the book (go and check the thread) as being Five Leading Reformers by Christopher Catherwood, and gave you a page number. Now since we're talking about a complete other discussion (still waiting for you to substantiate your earlier assertions in this thread), let's remind ourselves that you provided a link telling us of Calvin's evils; I gave you a book refuting this. You called my book's author's credentials into question; I countered with the rather obvious retort that must my book be lacking in historical credentials and your link not? I mean, seriously, brother, if you want to divert the thread by bringing in elements outside of the thread which no one else has seen, then at least get that right.

Ultimately you want to claim belief in Calvin's God must logically lead to an "us" and "them" attitude. I've asked you to explain how the Calvinist is to identify the "us" and "them" and you are yet to address this. So you come back to this thread having addressed nothing, and then bring some separate, off-board discussion to the thread, which no ignorant onlooker will be able to make head nor tale of.

Brother, I'm struggling to work out exactly what it is we are discussing now.

[RickD]

Hi Danny.

RickD wrote:Danny, I certainly don't expect you to agree with me. But, I would hope that you would at least make an effort to listen to what I'm saying, before you disagree. I know at times, I don't properly convey my thoughts. But, in this case, I think I was perfectly clear, on where I stand. God doesn't have an eternal relationship with all people, because some people choose to reject God's provision, for eternal life. Again, forced love, is not true love.



Whoever said anything about forced love, Rick?

Danny, in this thread, I did. My point was that if there's no choice by man, then it's not real love.

Okay. So God has offered salvation to all and been rejected by the many?

I agree, as long as "all" means something different than the elect, as laid out here:

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

RickD wrote:Who says God doesn't draw everyone? The bible certainly doesn't say that.
Danny, I know how fond you are of quoting Jesus' words. So pay attention to what our Lord says here in John 12:32:
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
That's Jesus' own words, Danny.



Rick, the burden is on you to show that this means ALL men head for head. Our Lord say this:

Danny, I've never argued that "all" means all mean head for head. I've just tried to show what I believe "all" doesn't mean. See above.

John 6:37-39
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.



John 6:44
No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.



Christ says that out of all those whom God draws, He will lose none. Now since we know that not all men are saved, this tells us in no uncertain terms that God does not draw all men.

Danny, you forgot John 6:40

40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Anyone who believes, will have eternal life. We agree on all of this, Danny. what I said before, is I think the disagreement begins, in how you and I see the nature of God.

But taking your interpretation of foreknowledge and predestination (even though I think it is completely inadequate): before the foundation of the world, God knew that you would make a free decision to come to Christ, agreed?

Close. It depends on what definition of "free" we are using. Absolute, libertarian free? Then, no. Free will, in as much as God grants us the ability to choose? Then, yes.

God knew of your free decision long before you were even born. Your decision to come to Christ was thus inevitable. Why was it inevitable?

It was inevitable, IMO, because God has foreknowledge of the decision He enabled us to make. And, obviously, to me, If God knows something will happen, then it is inevitable.

Was it down to your free will, even though you had not yet been born?

Yes, it was partly due to my choice that God enabled me to make. In this instance, "free will", isn't the best way to communicate this.

See, this is where “middle knowledge” refutes itself by its total dependence on God’s foreknowledge and creation.

No, Danny. I have no idea what "middle knowledge" even is. jlay was the one who mentioned that.

For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God.

And, this gets back to the heart of why I disagree with Calvinism. The sentence:"For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God." Will get no disagreement from me. But, when we get into what Calvinism really means by "total depravity", and "prior Quickening", then I disagree with Calvinism.

That's why I asked you, and August to define what these terms mean in Calvinism, so I can show you why I disagree with Calvinism's definition, and show you why I disagree with the foundation of Calvinism.

So, please lay out what Calvinism means by total depravity, and according to Calvinism, what exactly God does to quicken someone. Then we can proceed, and I can say why I disagree with Calvinism's interpretation, of terms that I don't necessarily disagree with, under other interpretations. You see, Danny. I don't disagree with the bible verses that you quote. I just disagree with how they are interpreted in light of Calvinism, in certain, but certainly not all, instances. Like I said before, there are parts of Calvinism that I agree with. Because I look at Calvinism and Arminianism, from outside both, I don't have to study Arminianism, through Calvinist lenses. And I don't have to analyze Calvinism, through Arminian glasses. You, by saying you hold to Calvinism, have to look at Arminianism(or something you may perceive as Arminianism), on how it disagrees with Calvinism. You have "locked yourself" into viewing all theology, by the light of Calvinism. I know you believe 5 point Calvinism is biblical. But it is still an interpretation of what's biblical. Do you see my point?

[DannyM]

Danny, in this thread, I did. My point was that if there's no choice by man, then it's not real love.

Then you need to show that there is no real choice by man. I haven’t seen that demonstrated, so have no idea why you are saying it.

I agree, as long as "all" means something different than the elect, as laid out here:

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

That’s very non-specific, brother. That doctrine laid out above is so biblical it hurts. If you disagree with this biblical truth then I really don’t know what to say to you. Apart from could you please expand on this “all” you are using without definition.

Danny, I've never argued that "all" means all mean head for head. I've just tried to show what I believe "all" doesn't mean.

Sorry, Rick, but that’s not good enough. If it doesn’t mean one thing then it must mean another. So what does it mean?

Danny, you forgot John 6:40

40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Not forgotten, Rick.

Anyone who believes, will have eternal life. We agree on all of this, Danny. what I said before, is I think the disagreement begins, in how you and I see the nature of God.

I’m not sure I’ve given you my views on the nature of God, Rick, so I don’t know how we can disagree.

It was inevitable, IMO, because God has foreknowledge of the decision He enabled us to make. And, obviously, to me, If God knows something will happen, then it is inevitable.

If God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, and if He knows this via a foreseen choice, then who could claim God is attempting to save more than He knows is possible? Is God engaging in futile attempts to change the unchangeable?

For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God.

And, this gets back to the heart of why I disagree with Calvinism. The sentence:” For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God." Will get no disagreement from me. But, when we get into what Calvinism really means by "total depravity", and "prior Quickening", then I disagree with Calvinism.

What does it really mean, bro?

That's why I asked you, and August to define what these terms mean in Calvinism, so I can show you why I disagree with Calvinism's definition, and show you why I disagree with the foundation of Calvinism.

It seems like you already know you are going to disagree, so why not just lay it out, brother?

So, please lay out what Calvinism means by total depravity, and according to Calvinism, what exactly God does to quicken someone. Then we can proceed, and I can say why I disagree with Calvinism's interpretation, of terms that I don't necessarily disagree with, under other interpretations.

Here’s a short synopsis of Total Depravity:

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
(Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-10)

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link ... Calvinism/

So what do you object to here, my brother?

You see, Danny. I don't disagree with the bible verses that you quote. I just disagree with how they are interpreted in light of Calvinism, in certain, but certainly not all, instances. Like I said before, there are parts of Calvinism that I agree with. Because I look at Calvinism and Arminianism, from outside both, I don't have to study Arminianism, through Calvinist lenses. And I don't have to analyze Calvinism, through Arminian glasses. You, by saying you hold to Calvinism, have to look at Arminianism(or something you may perceive as Arminianism), on how it disagrees with Calvinism. You have "locked yourself" into viewing all theology, by the light of Calvinism. I know you believe 5 point Calvinism is biblical. But it is still an interpretation of what's biblical. Do you see my point?

Rick, I’m locked into nothing. Calvinism doesn’t have all the answers, and Calvinism isn’t just about the five points. I’ve used bible verses, not Calvin verses. All I’m attempting to do here is answer what I see as invalid objections to Calvinism. I could say that you're locked into an anti-Calvinism, but without giving any good reason why.

Calvin didn’t invent John 6:37-39, John 6:44, John 6:64-65, John 8:47, John 10:15, John 10:26 and so on.

In my view Arminianism is unbiblical, not merely uncalvinist, Rick. That’s the important thing.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Danny, in this thread, I did. My point was that if there's no choice by man, then it's not real love.



Then you need to show that there is no real choice by man. I haven’t seen that demonstrated, so have no idea why you are saying it.

Danny, this is getting redundant. Calvinism says this:

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

This says, that Calvinism's interpretation of what the bible calls election, states that" God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation" . That means man's choice plays no part, in election, according to Calvinism. Hence, man has no choice, then, according to Calvinism, those whom God chooses, MUST love Him. That's forced love.

RickD wrote:Anyone who believes, will have eternal life. We agree on all of this, Danny. what I said before, is I think the disagreement begins, in how you and I see the nature of God.



I’m not sure I’ve given you my views on the nature of God, Rick, so I don’t know how we can disagree.

Danny, what I'm saying, is that Calvinism's view of the nature of God, is where my disagreement lies. Calvinism stresses God's sovereignty. As Bart said earlier, how each of us views God's nature, shows our disagreement, and your agreement, with Calvinism.

RickD wrote:It was inevitable, IMO, because God has foreknowledge of the decision He enabled us to make. And, obviously, to me, If God knows something will happen, then it is inevitable.



If God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, and if He knows this via a foreseen choice, then who could claim God is attempting to save more than He knows is possible? Is God engaging in futile attempts to change the unchangeable?

Sorry, Danny. You lost me on this. I don't understand what you're saying here.

For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God.



RickD wrote:And, this gets back to the heart of why I disagree with Calvinism. The sentence:” For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God." Will get no disagreement from me. But, when we get into what Calvinism really means by "total depravity", and "prior Quickening", then I disagree with Calvinism.



What does it really mean, bro?

It means, that if you can show me Calvinism's view, the one you hold to, about total depravity, AND specifically how God quickens man, so he can believe, I think that will be a key to where the disagreement comes. I think Calvinism's views, are, in some cases, very subtle differences, to what I believe. That's why it took me a few times reading the site that August linked, for me to see that I actually disagree, with Calvinism as a whole system. While I can agree with parts of Calvinism, if not taken as part of the whole.

Here’s a short synopsis of Total Depravity:

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

Now, this is half of what I need from you or August, so I can show you where I disagree. All I need now, is how Calvinism believes God quickens someone, so he can believe.

Rick, I’m locked into nothing. Calvinism doesn’t have all the answers, and Calvinism isn’t just about the five points. I’ve used bible verses, not Calvin verses.

Danny, you've said what you believe, according to your Calvinistic view, as your interpretation of the verses you use. So, as I said before, I don't disagree with the bible verses you quote. I just disagree sometimes , with the way the verses are interpreted, under Calvinism.

Calvin didn’t invent John 6:37-39, John 6:44, John 6:64-65, John 8:47, John 10:15, John 10:26 and so on.

Exactly, but Calvinism interprets those verses, to fit into Calvinism, as a whole system.

In my view Arminianism is unbiblical, not merely uncalvinist, Rick. That’s the important thing.

That's fine, Danny. As I said before, I believe there's a lot in Arminianism that's unbiblical too. Perhaps that's for a different thread, if you want to disprove Arminianism.

[jlay]

Danny,

First you need to understand that an argument against 5 point Calvanism is not an argument for Armenianism. I feel confident in saying that neither myself, Bart or Rick are Armenianists. For example, I reject point 5 in Armenian teaching, which states there can be a 'fall from grace.'
I can't recall how many times Calvans and Arms try to say you are either one or the other.

[Canuckster1127]

A lot of people for some reason believe Calvinism and Arminianism are opposite extremes that are mutually exclusive and in terms of their basic tenets people must fall into one "camp" or the other. The reality is that Calvinism and Arminianism are both "reformed" and they have many of the same presuppositions undergirding them but answer a few key questions differently. For that matter, there's a lot of Universalist (Ultimate Reconciliationists for example) who have almost identicle dogma to Calvinism but interpret a few key passages in a slightly different applicational context and then the outputs change out the other side, but the logical construction is nearly identical.

There's a whole world outside of both them. If you don't lock yourself into Aristotilian Dualism and/or a Roman Law dialectic in your approach and interpretation (something that wasn't really introduced into Christian Theology until Augustine, Aquinas and then solidified under Calvin and many of the Reformers) then it's a reflection not of Scripture, but your hermeneutic in approaching Scripture that is determinative.

My opinion anyway.

Danny, I'm not avoiding your response earlier. I don't have time to respond in detail until the weekend so I'll respond later. I will say however, that I'm sorry I recollected our previous thread incorrectly with regard to the book in question. My general opinion as to the substance of that conversation hasn't changed, but I should have rechecked the details before I responded and for that I'm sorry.

Most of the other elements of what I had to say, I stand by, but I'll address your response in more detail when I can get to it, after work and more importantly tonight, after the Hockey Game .... (Washington Capitals and Toronto Maple Leafs!).

[domokunrox]

Danny, again. Would love a response here.

Total depravity (total inability) and Isaiah 1

Can you please explain Total depravity when God calls the sinful and unregenerate man to reason with him and asks for their consent to obey him in Isaiah 1?

Thank you

Also, charging the discussing of biblical doctrine into the Tu quoque fallacy doesn't excuse you from explaining the Calvin system of TULIP from being a good representation of God's nature.

In fact, I would charge that if it is that complicated and you need to resort to that to hold your position then its not very solid ground you're standing on. You're merely asserting that you're standing on the same ground I am and others who oppose you are. I strongly disagree.

[DannyM]

Danny, again. Would love a response here.

Total depravity (total inability) and Isaiah 1

Can you please explain Total depravity when God calls the sinful and unregenerate man to reason with him and asks for their consent to obey him in Isaiah 1?

Thank you

Also, charging the discussing of biblical doctrine into the Tu quoque fallacy doesn't excuse you from explaining the Calvin system of TULIP from being a good representation of God's nature.

In fact, I would charge that if it is that complicated and you need to resort to that to hold your position then its not very solid ground you're standing on. You're merely asserting that you're standing on the same ground I am and others who oppose you are. I strongly disagree.

Dom, what are you going on about? You really are away with the fairies. Please, for the love of God, can you formulate proper questions, perhaps in point form, and stop running away with yourself.

[domokunrox]

You have got to be joking.

Danny,

Read Isaiah 1.
Pay close attention to the words "Call", "Reason", "Consent", and "Obey"
Who is God talking to?
Look at the tenet of T in TULIP

It does not compute.

Abort, retry, fail?

Respond.

Thank you

Tu quoque fallacy
Not a proper apologetic in discussing Christian doctrine to other Christian doctrines.
Don't do it.
Shows weakness of your doctrine.
Recommend you answer properly.

[DannyM]

You have got to be joking.

Danny,

Read Isaiah 1.
Pay close attention to the words "Call", "Reason", "Consent", and "Obey"
Who is God talking to?
Look at the tenet of T in TULIP

It does not compute.

Abort, retry, fail?

Respond.

Thank you

Tu quoque fallacy
Not a proper apologetic in discussing Christian doctrine to other Christian doctrines.
Don't do it.
Shows weakness of your doctrine.
Recommend you answer properly.

Recommend you make a concise point. What's reasoning got to do with anything? I’m sure you think you’ve made a super-duper point, Dom, but, alas, you have not.

And what on earth has the Tu Quoque Fallacy got to do with anything? Methinks you’ve picked up on Echo’s earlier point and ran like Forrest Gump with it. You’ve repeated somebody else’s observation and added nothing to it. This is very weak. If you were paying attention to the detail you would have noted that there is no tu quoque since I am disputing the ‘point’ to begin with and merely reversing [the ‘point’] and showing its absurdity. Unsubstantiated assertions appear to ‘do it’ for you, Dom. I’m holding out for a little more than this.

Now, if you’d care to “show weakness” in my doctrine, then please just go ahead. But let’s dispense with the imitation arguments.

[domokunrox]

No Danny, its pretty simple.

Read Isaiah 1
Read and make sense of the 4 words that God has truly spoken
Who is he talking to?

God has CALL SOMEONE to REASON....TOGETHER WITH HIM
Who does he call?
God asks for CONSENT for SOMEONE to OBEY HIM
who does he ask to obey him?

It is very simple, Danny.


Also, the Tu quoque fallacy I picked up because Echoside did indeed pick up on it previously. This was brought to my attention. Mainly because
1. I noticed I give slack to someone who believes in supposedly the same God I do. This is an error in discussion because we all need our own answer.
2. We are not immune to fallacious arguments on that principal.
3. Its dishonest
4. Canuckster deserves an honest answer to his inquiry. Even if your answer is "I am not sure".

So, yes Danny. Go ahead.

[DannyM]

No Danny, its pretty simple.

Read Isaiah 1
Read and make sense of the 4 words that God has truly spoken
Who is he talking to?

God has CALL SOMEONE to REASON....TOGETHER WITH HIM
Who does he call?
God asks for CONSENT for SOMEONE to OBEY HIM
who does he ask to obey him?

It is very simple, Danny.


Also, the Tu quoque fallacy I picked up because Echoside did indeed pick up on it previously. This was brought to my attention. Mainly because
1. I noticed I give slack to someone who believes in supposedly the same God I do. This is an error in discussion because we all need our own answer.
2. We are not immune to fallacious arguments on that principal.
3. Its dishonest
4. Canuckster deserves an honest answer to his inquiry. Even if your answer is "I am not sure".

So, yes Danny. Go ahead.

Dom, stop the cartoon philosophy and make a point, for crying out loud. I'll say it again:

1. What has reasoning got to do with anything? How does this negate total depravity? I mean good grief, if it's that simple then just spell it out for us lesser mortals.

2. I've expalined there is no tu quoque. Go and read the thread.

And please expalin what you mean by "this was brought to my attention" and "I noticed I gave slack to someone who believes in supposedly the same God as I do"... Who on God's earth do you think you are? You don't even understand epistemology, Dom. Am I really supposed to take your inane posts seriously?

Now, stop the preening and get on with making a point, please.