Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 5 of 9   [ 168 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:38 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Daisy wrote:
TheJack wrote:
Daisy wrote:
You're nitpicking. "Practicing Buddhism helps people to live a better life" is a proposition. You say I cannot believe in that proposition to some extent, you say I either believe it or I don't. I say I believe it to some extent. I certainly believe that practicing Buddhism helps people to live a better life more than I believe the proposition that practicing getting drunk every day helps people to live a better life. But I do not practice Buddhism and I have no personal experience of Buddhism helping me to live a better life, there are many dedicated practicing Buddhists, monks, the Dali Lama, etc, who believe to a much greater extent than I do that practicing Buddhism helps people to live a better life.

If you accept that I believe the proposition that "Buddhism helps people to live a better life" more than I believe the proposition that practicing getting drunk everyday helps people to live a better life, then you must accept that I at least to some extent believe the propostion that practicing Buddhism helps people to live a better life. But that does not mean that I believe tbe proposition to the same extent as Buddhist monks believe the proposition that Buddhism helps people to live a better life.

How about the proposition that I will still be alive next week? You say I either believe that proposition or I don't. I have no life-threatening illnesses, I am still reasonably young, I have no reason to believe that I won't be alive next week, so yes of course I believe the proposition that I will be alive next week. If I didn't believe that I will still be alive next week, I wouldn't have wasted time buying a new pair of shoes today, my old shoes will last at least another week! So yes, of course I believe that I will still be alive next week. But I do not totally believe that I will be alive next week. I am aware that there is a possibility that I may not be alive next week. Therefore I have some doubt about it. I believe to some extent that I will be alive next week, but I do not have 100 per cent belief that I will be alive next week. Yet Jack you are asserting that I cannot believe it to some extent, you are saying that I either believe it without any doubt whatsoever or I don't believe it. That's not the reality. The reality is that I believe TO SOME EXTENT that I will be alive next week, otherwise I would not have bought new shoes, I believe it to a great extent, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WITHOUT DOUBT. You are saying that if I have any doubt then I don't believe it, but I have clearly shown that you are wrong about that.

I'm not nitpicking. You asked me a question, I answered you, and then you misrepresented my answer to offer a critique. "Buddhism" is not a proposition. Yes, the proposition "Buddhism helps some people live a better life" is a proposition. I wouldn't deny it. In fact, I believe it. But on the other hand, "Buddhism leads to everlasting life" is a proposition I do not believe. And there is no such thing as believing it to an extent or not. It's either true or not.

So what about your proposition that I'll be alive next week. The answer is that I do believe that is the case. But that doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong. "Hah!" you say. "So you admit you could be wrong. That's doubt!" But that's not the case at all. Admitting a logical possibility of something doesn't mean you give it any credence. It's logically possible that someone could have secretly deposited one hundred kajillion dollars in my account in the past five minutes. I don't believe for one second that is actually the case.

And so it is with Christ. Is it logically possible that He could have been wrong? Of course it is. Does that mean I doubt? Of course not. I believe it to be true completely, with no doubt whatsoever. Just so, I believe I will be alive next week, with no doubt whatsoever. And so it is with the Gospel. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." I believe that. I have zero doubts. If you have any doubts, then you don't believe it, which makes you an unbeliever. End of story.

It really is that simple, Daisy.

Jack I am not having any kind of existential "crisis". I regard that remark as an ad hominem.

The issue is not how much you personally believe, that's important to you but irrelevant to this discussion, the issue is to what extent you claim it is necessary to believe in order to have everlasting life.

You say that it's impossible to believe "to some extent", that you either fully believe or, if you have any doubts whatsoever, you are not a believer. But I have clearly shown that I believe that I will be alive next week, and yet I cannot be sure about it, I have some doubt about it, but nevertheless I believe in fact to a great extent that I will be alive next week. I also believe that I will be alive in ten years from now, but I don't believe it to the same extent that I believe I will be alive next week. Its absurd to say that I cannot believe the propostion that I will be alive next week to a greater extent than I believe the proposition that I will still be alive in ten years from now. I honestly believe that I will be alive in ten years from now, but I cannot say that I believe it without any doubt. I have some doubt but I nevertheless believe it, yet I do not believe it to the same extent that I believe I will still be alive next week. That should be clear enough to anyone.

So now the question is, Jack, to what extent do you need to believe in Christ to have everlasting life? If you believe it as much as you believe you will still be alive in ten years from now but you're not entirely sure, is that sufficient? Or does the tiniest little bit of doubt exclude you from having everlasting life? And how do you know the answer to that question? Where is it stated authoritatively?

It's not an ad hominem, Daisy. I said "if" on purpose. Other than that, I don't see the value in repeating myself any further. I've already said that there is no such thing as "how much" you believe. Belief is binary. Either you believe or you do not, and at this point, I'm not going to entertain you any further on this particular matter. I told you, I am 100% certain that I have eternal life. Absolute deductive certainty--the certainty of faith, which the highest kind that there is. And I am equally certain that if you do not have that same level of certainty, then you are not a believer in Jesus Christ. But what that means for you, for your salvation? That's between you and God. Not my place to judge. I'm just appealing to you to believe, and that's why I won't engage you any further. I won't give you any excuse not to believe, to ask questions to get away from the words of Jesus Christ Himself, God in the Flesh, as if His Words were not good enough. No, you deal with Him and not with me.

If you want to further study the matter, I refer you to a book titled Absolutely Free by Zane Hodges.

God bless


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:15 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:57 pm
Posts: 1573
Religion: Catholic
TheJack wrote:
Nathan M. wrote:
TheJack wrote:
So I go back to what I originally said: if you, Daisy, believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, then you have everlasting life. If you have ever believed that, then you have everlasting life. If you do not believe that, then you are not a believer. If you doubt that, then you are not a believer. If you have never believed that, then you do not have everlasting life. If you have always doubted that, then you do not have everlasting life. Again, it is very simple. You can either believe John 6:47 or not. Up to you. *shrug*



That is the most concise explanation of your theology that I've seen. It's how I understood it pretty much too. That's why I proposed the question- ignorantly, arrogantly, and perhaps illogically- with the creation of this thread. A sola fide type of Religion that gaurantees Heaven after a one time act of faith- completely divorced from discipleship, perseverance, and indeed any worship whatsoever (unless you consider the initial faith an act of worship.) If your authority is the Bible before the Church, then I suppose this is logical. I could argue against it using the Bible (very poorly) but I'm guessing all the proper defenses are already in place.

I suppose I can get my point across without writing a dissertation every once in awhile. ;)

I would only object to the phrase "your theology." It's perfectly fine and I claim it as "mine." But I think the phrase runs the risk of suggesting an unfair connotation. It's only "my" theology in the sense that I'm just affirming the actual words of Scripture. You would probably ask, as most do, why my understanding of Scripture ought to be regarded as what it actually says. And I would just point you back to Scripture itself and say very plainly, without apology, that's for you to decide. Does the Scripture mean what I say that it means? You've seen my case. I've laid it out as clearly as I know how. And now you have to decide if I'm right, and if I am, if you are going to believe Scripture; or you have to decide if I'm wrong, and if I am, where and why I'm wrong. You can, of course, say that I'm wrong because I contradict what your church says. And that's a perfectly valid argument. I would just highlight (and here for the apologetics forum, I think it's appropriate) what you're argument actually is. Such a position simply says that the words of Scripture as far as you can tell don't mean what they say but rather what your church says that they say. And in that case, I would charge (as politely as possible) that, in my assessment, you don't believe Scripture at all. Not because you disagree with me, mind you! I would say you don't believe Scripture because your own position implies it. You believe your church. And your church demonstrates (on this argument) that she is not bound to the actual words of the page. The words say so and so (i.e., that every single person who believes has everlasting life), and your church says that is not true and offers an interpretation of those words that actually violate the meaning of the words as written.

And let me be clear--that's okay! I just want to be clear and honest about what that means. The Bible isn't your authority. The church is, and the church uses the Bible to illustrate her beliefs. That's my assessment, and you are, of course, free to reject that as well. It's just the best that I can see.

But to be, again, as clear as I can--per your comments above, I put the Bible before the church. I do not regard the church as an authority at all. For me, the sole authority is the Words of Scripture, which mean just what they say. No more and no less. The Bible says it, and for me, that settles it. I'll leave it to God to parse out all the rest. And, you know what . . . if that means I'm condemned to an eternal hell because I doubt (which is to say, I do not believe) that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that He invested her with the authority to teach her dogmas, then that's fine, too. I'll be separated from Him for all of eternity, and He'll be just in condemning me. I'll go into eternal Hell having placed my faith in Jesus to save me for no other reason than the fact that He shed His blood on the Cross for me. Who am I to judge Him if I'm wrong and am thereby condemned? Like I said, I'll leave it to Him to figure all of that out. All I can do is try to understand His Word the best I can, and the best I can tell, His Word--His Son--says this: every single person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, has eternal life. And you know what? I've believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Therefore, I am absolutely persuaded, with no doubt whatsoever, that I have eternal life. :)


Fair enough. Someone may want to address these words, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:51 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:29 am
Posts: 486
Religion: Open to persuasion
TheJack wrote:
I am 100% convinced that I'll be alive tomorrow.



...I just encourage you to place your faith in Christ, Daisy...

...I'm praying for you, Daisy. Please know that I mean that. I'm truly praying for you.

Presumably Jack you are praying that I will "see the light" and place my faith in Christ (and not something such as praying that I will win the lottery next week).

You can pray for me if you want, Jack, but I doubt that your prayers will have the affect that you are praying for?

Jack, do you believe that praying for me will have the affect you are praying for? Or do you have some doubt about it? You must believe at least to some extent that praying for me will have the affect that you are praying for, otherwise it would be pointless for you to pray for me, your prayers for me would be meaningless. But you say it's impossible to believe to some extent, that you either believe with complete certainty or you don't believe at all. So in praying for me, do you believe with complete certainty that praying for me will have the affect that you are praying for, or do you have some doubt that your prayers for me will have the affect you are praying for?

If you don't believe that praying for me will have the affect you are praying for, why are you praying for me?

If you believe that praying for me will have the affect you are praying for, then according to you, you must believe it with complete certainty. Do you honestly believe WITH COMPLETE CERTAINTY that your prayers for me will have the affect that you are praying for?

TheJack wrote:
I'll call it doubt when that is what it is, Daisy--when I have reason to doubt. Now, I'm sorry if you are having some sort of existential crisis, but don't project. I am 100% convinced that I'll be alive tomorrow.

Jack it's absurd for you to say that you are 100% convinced that you'll be alive tomorrow. I can easily show that it is absurd, though it's obvious anyway:

If you are 100% convinced that you'll be alive tomorrow, are you 100% convinced that you'll be alive the next day? If you are 100% convinced that you'll be alive tomorrow and the next day, are you 100% convinced that you'll be alive in three days from now? Are you 100% convinced that you'll be alive in a week from now? Are you 100% convinced that you'll be alive in a month from now? Are you 100% convinced that you'll be alive in a year from now?

At some point you have to say that you are not 100% convinced that you'll be alive. I'm not asking you to state when precisely that point is, but I am asking you to state WHY YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR COMPLETE CERTAINTY AT THAT PRECISE POINT and not at the point of the previous day, or the previous week, or the previous hour, etc? What would change at some point to take away your complete certainty?

I don't expect you to have a good answer to that question, and if you don't want to engage any further in this discussion that's entirely up to you, nobody is going to try to force you. But that doesn't mean that I cannot continue to express my opinion. I am asking that question to highlight the absurdity of your belief that you are 100% convinced that you'll be alive tomorrow, and the absurdity of your "black or white", all or nothing, total certainty or no belief whatsoever conception of belief.

To say that you are 100 per cent certain about something, but that you could be wrong is plainly a contradiction.

You seem to be so afraid of doubt that you are in denial about it. Doubt is nothing to be afraid of. It's part of being human to have doubt. Doubt can helps us to be honest with ourselves and think more deeply and thereby become closer to God. We cannot become closer to God by refusing to be honest with ourselves.


I also think that you don't quite understand what is meant in the bible by the word "believe". What does the Greek word mean in other contexts?

For example, you said: "every single person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, has eternal life." What exactly does "believe" mean in that context. A person could intellectually believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" but at the same time believe that it's nececessary, for example, to follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church to have everlasting life, but because he has failed and continues to be unable to follow all the teachings of the Church, he believes that he will not have everlasting life, and yet he believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, but he just doesn't trust that Jesus will save bad Catholics like himself. Or maybe he's not a Catholic but he's just a pessimist with very low self esteem and does not believe that he is one of the "elect"! So does that person who "believes" have everlasting life, if he believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, even though he does not trust that Jesus will save HIM from everlasting damnation. In other words, what exactly is meant by the word "believe" by which people who believe have everlasting life?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:58 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
There's not much I can address in your post that I haven't already, Daisy, without continuing to engage in material we've already discussed. You say things like, "To say that you are 100 per cent certain about something, but that you could be wrong is plainly a contradiction." I already talked about that explicitly. You ask me about when I won't be certain that I'll still be alive. I've already addressed that. And so it's like I said to CC, you're just being disrespectful at this point. If you aren't going to interact with what I've already written, why should I think you'll be honest enough, and why should I take any further time, to continue this with you?

The only thing I see in your post worth addressing is my praying for you. And the short answer is that I am absolutely convinced--I have no doubt--as to the efficacy of my prayers. I have no belief (and therefore no doubt) as to what you will do with God's leading, but that's a rather unrelated matter (and it gets into more philosophical matters about efficacioius grace). I'll only add this, then: I believe (which means no doubt) that if God wills something, then it will be done. If God wills that through my prayers, you "see the light" (to use your words), then you will. And if He does not will it, then I believe (which means no doubt) that I am still meeting my Christian obligation to pray for you. Again, what you do with it is on you.

Also note that I'm not about to waste my time talking Greek with you. I'm just going to appeal to authority and leave it at that. I know Greek. I prepare all of my NT lessons out of Greek. I preach out of my Greek New Testament. I read stuff on Greek grammar for fun. You don't, and I am literally not going to waste my time trying to address this with you. I'll only say this: your English Bible renders the word "believe" for a reason. That is what it means. You don't need to talk about Greek. Your Vulgate uses the word credo (conjugated here credit). It just means "believe." Your Spanish Bible uses creo. It just means "believe." Your German Bible uses glauben. It just means "believe." All these translations just say "believe." Your own Catholic DR uses the word "believe." Now, if you're really going to try to say that all of those scholars are wrong and the word just has to mean something else, then talking to me isn't going to do you one bit of good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:44 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:57 pm
Posts: 1573
Religion: Catholic
Is Free Grace the same as Hyper Grace?

Even if you believe God will discipline those who simply believe, a person could utterly destroy the world to the point where God destroys him as punishment...but he'd still go to heaven. Correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:53 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
I've never heard the term "Hyper Grace." Sounds like a pejorative term that someone came up with for a position they disagree with. As to the second part of your question, "could" implies logical possibility, so the answer is, "yes, of course." There might be some underlying assumptions in the question that need clarified, but just for the sake of making sure that I don't sound like I'm trying to be difficult, I'm perfectly fine just answering in the affirmative.

edit:

According to this article, "hyper grace" and free grace are not the same thing. I certainly would not sign on to the position as detailed in that article, anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:59 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:57 pm
Posts: 1573
Religion: Catholic
...


EDIT: Nevermind, deleted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:28 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
TheJack wrote:
No thank you, let's not. I've already told you that I'm not interested in that game. It's dishonest.
No, it is not. I didn't say to read Mark into John. I said let's ignore John. My argument is as follows (in Mark 16:16, not John):
  1. Those who do not believe will be condemned.
  2. People who have stopped believing do not believe.
  3. Ergo, people who have stopped believing will be condemned.

Thus OSAS is disproved, by Mark 16:16 alone.

TheJack wrote:
And, again, that's a category error. Saying God "forces" something is meaningless. You might as well be talking about a four sided triangle.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

TheJack wrote:
Precisely. And unlike you, I've given sound reasoning and evidence for my positions, including the classification of your argument as being a category error at best and downright heretical at worst. So unless you would like to give an actual argument for your position rather than blind assertions, then right back at ya.
I seem to remember a self-righteous person state something earlier about ad hominems.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:08 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Closet Catholic wrote:
TheJack wrote:
No thank you, let's not. I've already told you that I'm not interested in that game. It's dishonest.
No, it is not. I didn't say to read Mark into John. I said let's ignore John. My argument is as follows (in Mark 16:16, not John):
  1. Those who do not believe will be condemned.
  2. People who have stopped believing do not believe.
  3. Ergo, people who have stopped believing will be condemned.

Thus OSAS is disproved, by Mark 16:16 alone.

And I understand your argument, and I'm not entertaining it for reasons I've already stated. You are moving the goalposts. You don't get to say, "Ok, forget the argument we were just having. Let's talk about this instead!" It's dishonest. What makes me think you won't do the same thing when I demonstrate how Mark 16:16 does not contradict OSAS? You won't even concede on John 3, so I'm not discussing other verses with you.

TheJack wrote:
Quote:
And, again, that's a category error. Saying God "forces" something is meaningless. You might as well be talking about a four sided triangle.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Back at ya.

TheJack wrote:
Quote:
Precisely. And unlike you, I've given sound reasoning and evidence for my positions, including the classification of your argument as being a category error at best and downright heretical at worst. So unless you would like to give an actual argument for your position rather than blind assertions, then right back at ya.
I seem to remember a self-righteous person state something earlier about ad hominems.

There's no personal attack in there at all. That's nothing more than a valid assessment. Your position on God "forcing" something is a category error. On the most generous assumptions, it is heretical because it is semipelagian. I've already explained why. (Your hand-waving doesn't constitute a rebutal, but I will take your refusal to interact with my argument as an inability to do so and thus as a concession.) You can, of course, claim that my assessment is wrong in that my reasons do not support by conclusion, but it isn't a personal attack.

On the other hand, calling someone self-righteous is a personal attack. I'll be interested to see if I get the respect of an apology for that. I'm not holding my breath.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:28 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
TheJack wrote:
What makes me think you won't do the same thing when I demonstrate how Mark 16:16 does not contradict OSAS?
Well, you can't. The verse clearly states that those who do not believe will be condemned. And you have already conceded my second point, that people who have stopped believing do not believe. Then it follows logically that those who have stopped believing will be condemned, lest they start believing again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:38 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
u iz funnay


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:59 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
TheJack wrote:
u iz funnay
Translation: I have no arguments left.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:21 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
If it makes you feel better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:05 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
At least we know that you are willing to endorse logical contradictions to keep faith in that OSAS idol of yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
No, we just know that you're willing to lie about people's positions with whom you disagree. Very uncharitable. But hey, as I said, if it makes you feel better about your inability to answer my arguments, it doesn't affect me in the least. :wave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:52 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
TheJack wrote:
No, we just know that you're willing to lie about people's positions with whom you disagree.
Please do point out this alleged 'lie.'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:03 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Closet Catholic wrote:
TheJack wrote:
No, we just know that you're willing to lie about people's positions with whom you disagree.
Please do point out this alleged 'lie.'

Sure

Closet Catholic wrote:
At least we know that you are willing to endorse logical contradictions to keep faith in that OSAS idol of yours.

When I said,

I wrote:
And I understand your argument, and I'm not entertaining it for reasons I've already stated. You are moving the goalposts. You don't get to say, "Ok, forget the argument we were just having. Let's talk about this instead!" It's dishonest. What makes me think you won't do the same thing when I demonstrate how Mark 16:16 does not contradict OSAS? You won't even concede on John 3, so I'm not discussing other verses with you.

And before that

I wrote:
Now, if you want to concede my argument on John 3, then fine. But otherwise, you'll be talking about Mark 16:16 by yourself. And you should know me well enough to know it's not because I've no answer for it. Free grace theologians have commented on every single book in the Bible (there are Free Grace Commentaries on every book, and Mark is no exception). It's not hard to find such comments by going to faithalone.org, to use the sample site that we've been talking about. But I won't be getting into that.

To claim, then, that I am embracing contradictions requires that I concede your contradiction and embrace OSAS all the same. And yet I've stated multiple times that I do not accept your interpretation of Mark 16:16. I have chosen not to explain my rejection of your interpretation (but I have referred those interested to a place they can find such a refutation), and I've told you why I am not defending my rejection: because the entire enterprise rests on your moving the goal posts and not responding to arguments I've already made. All of that is just another form of dishonesty.

In short, you've intentionally misrepresented my position. To intentionally misrepresent my position is to lie, and ergo, you lied about my position. But you're also the same one who insists on moving goal posts, ignoring the work I have put in to respond to you, and attacked me personally by accusing me of being self-righteous. So your fallacies are stacking up and revealing what is hard not to interpret as a basically dishonest approach to discussion regardless. So what more should I expect from you?

As, then, I said before, I'll say again: if it makes you feel better to tell lies about what I believe so that you can burn down straw men, to refuse to respond to what I've actually said, and to personally attack me . . . if doing that helps you feel like you "won," then be my guest. Tell some more lies and throw in some more personal insults. We both know the truth, which is that I have more than a few responses to your "arguments" and you've simply decided not to respond to mine.

So go on. You quit making substantive remarks a while ago, so at this point, you may as well keep up the nonsense. :whistle:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:38 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
You are right. I misrepresented you. I didn't see the reference to faithalone.org. But I didn't intentionally do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:59 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
I appreciate that much of you, though ut I have to highlight that I explicitly said, "What makes me think you won't do the same thing when I demonstrate how Mark 16:16 does not contradict OSAS?" At absolute minimum, this tells you that I don't see Mark 16:16 as contradicting OSAS. Obviously YOU think it does. But I do not. And therefore, you cannot say that I'm willing to accept contradictions in order to embrace OSAS. The faithalone reference is helpful, but it was only included for people who are curious about how we interpret Mark 16:16. If you recall, I made a similar move when you raised Rom 1:5. I'm not hiding the interpretations. They are easy to find, but people who are not free grace might not know about them. I'm just not going to engage in a conversation with you about those verses right now because that is just allowing you to move the goal-posts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Free Grace Theology the logical end Protestantism?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6184
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
One problem with the reference is that when I search for Mark 16:16, they seem to assuming that baptism is what I'm there for.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 5 of 9   [ 168 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to:  
cron