Billy Birch:
I hate regrets. But as much I hate regrets, I also learn from them. For example, I think back over this year and remember how poorly I acted at times in debate toward other Christian brothers with whom I have disagreed. That has got to change. I cannot complain about others who act ungodly toward other Christians with whom they disagree and then behave in the same manner. I hate depravity.
As far as this blog is concerned for 2010, I intend on being more gracious with those who oppose my ideas and exegesis of Scripture...
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/2009-and-still-learning.html
Billy Birch:
JAMES WHITE: THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
Calvinist James White lies...Typical of White, he gave his spin on a philosophical notion of what Caner said...White actually posted Caner's words for everyone else to catch White in his lie. Honestly, given White's track record, we have come to expect no better of him.
White's tactics remind me of the far left political liberals. He has mastered spin tactics.
His perpetual rant of "Jesus 'actually' saves people in Calvinism" bit is so tired and worn out - to say nothing of silly.
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/02/james-white-pot-calling-kettle-black.html
Since Billy is having such a hard time keeping his New Year’s resolution, perhaps some tech savvy Christian could record his resolution and email it to him in a downloadable format for his iPod.
Of course, it’s always possible that he’s a graduate of the Dave Armstrong School of Oaths, Vows, and Resolutions.
So, pointing out White's absurd and inaccurate statement is somehow not in keeping with my New Year's resolution? Interesting assessment, Steve. How is what I wrote in any sense ungodly?
ReplyDeleteIs the Dave Armstrong School of Oaths, Vows, and Resolutions the sister campus of the Tim Enloe School of Oaths, Vows, Resolutions, and Apologies?
ReplyDeleteIf I may humbly offer:
ReplyDeleteI prefer to think of theological opponents as "mistaken" or "in error" rather than "lying." Lying means that White knows the truth but nonetheless deliberately states falsehoods. Is this what you mean? And how can you know this for a fact? You can read his mind, know his heart? Can it not be that White's perception of Caner is wrong without being deliberately wrong?
I should think a resolution toward charity would keep one especially vigilant when choosing words. I humbly suggest that choosing to view opponents in the best possible light goes a long way to fulfilling the spirit of your resolution, regardless of how your opponents seem to behave. We are only responsible that we ourselves "do it right," not the other guy.
Comment has been blocked.
William Watson Birch said:
ReplyDeleteSo, pointing out White's absurd and inaccurate statement is somehow not in keeping with my New Year's resolution? Interesting assessment, Steve. How is what I wrote in any sense ungodly?
Well, you said White is a liar. You said White has a track record of lying so you don't expect better from him. You said he's mastered spin tactics. You said his tactics remind you of the far left political liberals. These are hardly gracious words.
If you had wanted to be gracious in keeping with your New Year's resolution, you could have said many things short of calling White a liar and a spin master akin to far left liberals. For example, you could've said White's words were poorly chosen. Or you could've said White made an illogical statement. Or you could've said White made a bad argument. Or you could've said maybe White misunderstood what Caner meant and so he inadvertently glossed Caner's position. Or you could've said maybe White had a slip of the tongue in this particular moment.
In other words, you could've said a number of different things short of calling White a constant liar who has mastered the art of spin and reminds you of far left political liberals. If you had, it would've been more gracious than what you did end up saying about White.
I did NOT say that White had a track record "of lying," you put those words in my mouth.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as "gracious words" are concerned, what does that say about the authors of Triablogue, Patrick? You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!
If what I've written about White is ungodly, then what does that say about the authors of Triablogue?
What does "track record" mean because it sure looks like you are implying that Dr. White has a track record of lying?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what the guys at Triablogue write is irrelevant to this since it was you who wrote the resolution. I refer you to Pilgrimsarbour's comment and ask if you think it true.
It seems that you should admit you went against your stated resolution and move on. Trying to play the "well you guys do it too" gambit seems weak and shallow.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteIt's more of the pot calling the kettle black. The authors of Triablogue are lecturing me on how to graciously respond to my theological opponents when they are not gracious to theirs.
Pilgrimsarbour writes:
Lying means that White knows the truth but nonetheless deliberately states falsehoods. Is this what you mean? And how can you know this for a fact? You can read his mind, know his heart?
White himself stated that Caner had lied, and then White said that Caner believes that "if you believe that Christ's death actually saves anyone, that view comes from the devil" (Youtube video, 29:57). But Caner never said that. White spun his own take on Caner's words and then claimed (lied) that Caner was implying that.
I don't think that calling someone's argument "silly" or "absurd" is ungodly. And if by Triablogue's standards it is ungodly, then they are themselves admitting to being ungodly, and have no right to instruct anyone else on how to be gracious. So, I don't think that I have violated my resolution, and will not just move on.
WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
ReplyDelete"It's more of the pot calling the kettle black. The authors of Triablogue are lecturing me on how to graciously respond to my theological opponents when they are not gracious to theirs."
We're merely holding you to your own standards.
"And if by Triablogue's standards it is ungodly, then they are themselves admitting to being ungodly, and have no right to instruct anyone else on how to be gracious."
I didn't endorse your standards. It wasn't my resolution.
And I don't think I've violated those standards.
ReplyDeleteWWB,
ReplyDeleteI was trying to get you to see what Pilgrimsarbour wrote in the second paragraph.
To my knowledge you are the one that openly posted this resolution and by doing it in such a public forum it encourages people to try to keep you to it. The claim that the guys at Triablogue act ungodly bears no relevance to the resolution you made. Also, I would offer up that the minute you made the public resolution you opened it up to have anyone and everyone hold you to it. The person pointing out the violation of your own resolution does not obligate them in any way to live up to or by the resolution that you gave yourself.
Again, let me point you to the second paragraph and ask if you would not agree with it
I should think a resolution toward charity would keep one especially vigilant when choosing words. I humbly suggest that choosing to view opponents in the best possible light goes a long way to fulfilling the spirit of your resolution, regardless of how your opponents seem to behave. We are only responsible that we ourselves "do it right," not the other guy.
WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
ReplyDelete"And I don't think I've violated those standards."
Naturally–since your standards amount to double standards. You're a typical Arminian publican who only likes those who like you.
"And as far as 'gracious words' are concerned, what does that say about the authors of Triablogue, Patrick? You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!"
You conveniently forget that you initiated all this when you launched an unprovoked attack on Tblog, which Victor Reppert plugged. And in that unprovoked attack you used very harsh language, to the point of questioning our salvation.
Then as now, I merely pointed out your double standards.
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete"All the garbage spouted by anti-Catholics that I am a vow and oath breaker are bald-faced lies. Bearing false witness is a very serious sin, as Pilgrimsarbour stated above."
Actually, these are easily documentable allegations.
"And we'll see if this comment gets censored, too, like several others of mine have been on this site recently."
Some of your comments from a previous thread were deleted because, true to form, you wanted to change the subject from substance to a never-ending discussion of your all-time favorite topic–Dave Armstrong.
However, the rest of us don't share your self-infatuation.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
I can't help noticing that Armstrong always "refutes" the charge of self-obsession by generating reams of self-obsessive denials.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Watson Birch said:
ReplyDeleteI did NOT say that White had a track record "of lying," you put those words in my mouth.
1. I'll just quote what you said: "Calvinist James White lies...Typical of White, he gave his spin on a philosophical notion of what Caner said...White actually posted Caner's words for everyone else to catch White in his lie. Honestly, given White's track record, we have come to expect no better of him."
2. But you said White is a liar. That alone is less gracious than other things you might've said about White short of calling him a liar.
And as far as "gracious words" are concerned, what does that say about the authors of Triablogue, Patrick? You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!
If what I've written about White is ungodly, then what does that say about the authors of Triablogue?
1. Even if this were true, it doesn't change the fact that you've been less than gracious toward White.
2. Also, I'm a Tblog member. But I believe this post contains only the second time I've ever directly commented on something you've said. In fact, the first time I commented on something you said I noted your graciousness toward another person (but lack of graciousness toward us). In fact, both of my comments toward you thus far (and this third comment too) haven't been ungracious toward you, but mainly pointing out how you could've been more gracious toward someone else (e.g. White). So when you say "You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!" I'm not quite sure it's true since I'm a Tblog member and I don't think I've ever said ungracious words toward you - unless you think it's ungracious to point out that you could've been more gracious toward another person (which would then stop things like constructive criticism).
Likewise, I don't think other Tblog members have necessarily taken the opportunity to comment on things you've said in the past either. For example, as far as I'm aware, I don't think Jason Engwer has ever commented on anything you've said. If that's true, then he hasn't taken the opportunity to be gracious or ungracious toward you.
3. That said, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to be ungracious toward someone. As Steve pointed out, this was your New Year's resolution, not mine or his or anyone else's.
God knows I'm not perfectly consistent in dealing with people, either online or in the real world. Anyone reading my blog would undoubtedly find somewhere an example of where I'm being unnecessarily offensive, rude or unfair to someone or about someone. And that goes for my real-world relationships as well, of course.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't change the fact that a standard has been adopted, and that is to be as charitable as possible. And the fact that I'm inconsistent (human=sinner) does not mean that the standard should be abandoned.
The standard is not to be abandoned because the guy I'm talking to isn't living up to it. Again, I repeat, I am only responsible for myself to live up to any standard I set for myself. And praise be to God that He is the one who sets the standards for our living as disciples of Christ.
We must not put ourselves in the position of justifying our sin because the other guy has sinned against us. It's just an excuse to abandon a standard we may find difficult or even odious. After all, we must not be an "enabler" to someone who lies. I know. I think about these things. Should I follow Christ, apologise to someone for my bad behaviour? Or should I think about the psychology of it and not apologise so as to keep from being an enabler of someone else's bad behaviour?
Praise God, this is His, and by default as His disciples it becomes our own, standard:
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all (Romans 12:17).
See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone (1 Thessalonians 5:15).
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).
Interesting that we find this three times in the Bible, if not more (cf. Proverbs 20:22). God is, as Sproul points out, Holy, Holy, Holy. This is the only attribute that has this heightened emphasis in the Scriptures. We should consider how His instructions to us not to revile in return when we are reviled are, in fact, a reflection of, indeed the very essence of, His holy nature and character.
It appears Dave Armstrong has a significantly different view of what constitutes an oath than what Jesus and James did.
ReplyDeleteLet's play semantics. Suppose we agree that Armstrong's only vow he ever made was to his wife (note he has apparently never made a vow to God). He still repeatedly claims to be done with anti-Catholics and promises to never interact with them again because it's a waste of time, etc. I see that Steve Hays is on Dave Armstrong's page of Anti-Catholics (and somehow even *I* got there). Thus, Armstrong has said he would not interact with either Steve or me (amongst many others). Which makes it highly ironic that he's complaining that we deleted his comments. (How did we delete that which wasn't there to begin with?)
In any case, Armstrong is here now, which also disproves his promise to be done with Anti-Catholics.
Liar liar, pants on fire.
ReplyDeleteWhat's a fireman to do?
Let's be fair, you guys! Dr. White did use the "l" word and did say he lied!
But, let's also remember, those open minded, that he went ahead and proved he lied and established, at least from where I sit, "he lied".
Now, if he lied, which it seems clear he did basis Dr. White's evidences, then what am I to make of that?
Was that less than a gracious observation?
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Well,
ReplyDeletebecause I take offense at Dave Armstrong smearing my intelligence, my IQ is just a smidgen above that of a pencil eraser, I thought I would count just how many times in this thread Dave Armstrong made reference or makes reference or implies something about or alludes something to "himself".
Just before his last post I quit counting because I can't count that high and there were by then over 60 times he did so.
Hmmmmmm, Dave, maybe Steve has a point to saying this about you:::>
Steve:
Some of your comments from a previous thread were deleted because, true to form, you wanted to change the subject from substance to a never-ending discussion of your all-time favorite topic–Dave Armstrong.
However, the rest of us don't share your self-infatuation.
Me again:
But, the biting irony of it is this paragraph, Dave:::>
DM:
You say I have made what you and Steve describe as a "vow" or an "oath" of a particular nature. Okay; where is it? Please produce this for me. 2559 papers online. 19 books: many of which are heavily excerpted online or can be accessed by Google Reader.
Me again:
Is not that a direct, "look at me and my accomplishments" statement about yourself, of course, distinguishing yourself as someone far more important than Steve or Patrick?
Isn't it, Dave?
Now, go back and see every comment Steve has made in here. Count how many times he makes reference to himself, if you will? What amazes me most is rarely is he creating a situation about himself. Instead he is moving a reasonable argument forward based on someone else's position, that gives sight to us dumb folk in here with an IQ of about a smidgen over that of a pencil eraser!
Oh, what is a pencil eraser suppose to be used for anyway?
Comment has been blocked.
Almost two years ago (February 23, 2008) I called it: [Dave had written] "I'll be ignoring you and other anti-Catholics (barring exceptional circumstances; particularly if it involves defending someone else from anti-Catholic smear campaigns)."
ReplyDeleteWhen he breaks his near-promise to ignore his opponents, I expect him first to rely on the "exceptional circumstances" portion of his statement, and then later deny that this was ever a promise in the first place. Let's see what time will tell.
(my report)
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Ah, Steve, Patrick, Jason, could one of you guys forward your playbook to me so I can play in the game with you according to it?
ReplyDeleteDave,
hmmmm, what can I say? Well, the internet is an unusually user friendly usurper.
For instance, take Titus's instructions instructed by Paul to him:::>
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Weighing carefully my exchanges with you in here and at other blogs, yours too, which have been few, taking counsel from Paul or Titus, I would have to agree that you are self-condemned?
In my Church family and fellowship, you would have been ejected long ago.
And might I say, having visited with Cardinal McCormick at the Washington D.C. Vatican, in the manner and comity of spirit of our visit together, I suppose, if he or any of his sort there were privy to you and your antics hereon this blog, they might send missives immediately to your parish Priest and ask them to practice Paul's admonition to Titus and eject you outright, or at a minimum censure you, seeing it is just a disgrace how you carry on in here? It is appalling!
What don't you think about that?
Comment has been blocked.
There's no pleasing Dave.
ReplyDeleteDave then: "Still waiting for the documentation of the charge."
Dave now: "TAO wants to cite an old post of mine?"
Dave put it this way "there is no hope for any intelligent discourse" and perhaps we ought to leave it at that.
Comment has been blocked.
Jesus said, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (Mt 5:37).
ReplyDeleteArmstrong said: "Let your 'yes' be maybe or maybe not."
But, I hasten to point out, that, it just must be may be not or not be maybe but it is not just not! I wish it would be, but, maybe it will be, maybe, maybe not?
ReplyDeleteI think you should just think about the Elect Angel; they know what they are doing!
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete“And for a second time I ask: how does this thing you cite prove that I broke a VOW? Recall that the insinuation in this instance and many times through the years is that I have broken a VOW, not just a promise or a resolution.”
I see that literacy isn’t your strong suit. This is what I actually said (verbatim), in the very post you presume to comment on:
“…the Dave Armstrong School of Oaths, Vows, and Resolutions.”
Then there’s the title of my post (Hint! Hint!).
Of course I realize that you like to compartmentalize the obligation to keep your word into different, airtight categories with various escape-hatches.
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete“It's always double standards with you guys.”
“This is an ethical discussion, and an exposure of the almost non-existent NT ethics of anti-Catholics, where it comes to treating others, even fellow Protestants (Reiss, Birch et al; White's treatment of Caner, Craig, etc.; just about anyone who has a principled disagreement with him).”
So if we apply the very same standard to fellow Protestants, then that’s a double standard?
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Methinks I am now really dumb and confused by the last few posts.
ReplyDeleteDidn't DA say he wasn't going to do theology debates?
What is this:::>
"....E.g., right now in documenting how you guys lie in order to supposedly further your goals, I'm "dealing" with you. But I am not debating theology. And that is what I decided to stop doing in October 2007. This is an ethical discussion, and an exposure of the almost non-existent NT ethics of anti-Catholics, where it comes to treating others, even fellow Protestants (Reiss, Birch et al; White's treatment of Caner, Craig, etc.; just about anyone who has a principled disagreement with him)."
Ok, fair enough and clear enough, no equivocation here, right? No maybes about it or am I just plain wrong?
Then a few comments later, this:::>
"....Jesus was not simply about law and legalism (that was the Pharisees' thing); He was about intelligent application of law in conjunction with justice and mercy and love of God and neighbor: the "weightier elements" of the Law. hence, like I said, He recognized that there can be exceptions to the rule(s): rescuing a sheep on the Sabbath if necessary; eating the showbread, like David did, even though only the priests were technically allowed to do so.".
Honestly, have I lost my mind?
So, Dave, you can put out this theological position in here above and call that "not debating"?
Hmmmmmm?
I am wondering if these Words have any significance in here?
ReplyDeleteJob 11:1 Then Zophar the Naamathite answered and said:
Job 11:2 "Should a multitude of words go unanswered, and a man full of talk be judged right?
Job 11:3 Should your babble silence men, and when you mock, shall no one shame you?
and
Pro 10:18 The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.
Pro 10:19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.
Pro 10:20 The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth.
Pro 10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many, but fools die for lack of sense.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
It seems to me that there is no meeting of the minds between Dave and the Triabloguers as to the precise definitions of vows, oaths, resolutions and promises.
ReplyDeleteSee what Thesaurus.com* has to say about the word "vow." I have put in bold the various words in question that have come up in the combox:
Main Entry: vow
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: promise
Synonyms: affiance, assertion, asseveration, oath, pledge, profession, troth, word of honor
Antonyms:
breach, break
Main Entry: vow
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: make a solemn promise
Synonyms:
affirm, assure, consecrate, covenant, cross one's heart, declare, dedicate, devote, give word of honor, pledge, plight, promise, swear, swear up and down, testify, undertake solemnly, vouch, warrant
Antonyms:
disavow
The words vow, oath, promise all seem to carry the same meaning. The only word I don't see here is resolution which upon further study doesn't connect any of the three words above to it, but carries the meaning declaration, determination, intention.
While I think Dave's precise delineations of the three words are overwrought in relation to modern English usage, it seems to me likely that he had previously made a resolution (determination, intention) to not interact with "anti-Catholics" (unless by stated exception necessity) but not a promise, oath or vow.
* Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Copyright © 2010 by the Philip Lief Group.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
"I did NOT say that White had a track record "of lying," you put those words in my mouth."
ReplyDeleteWhat you wrote was: "Typical of White, he gave his spin on a philosophical notion of what Caner said, turned it completely around and claimed that, therefore, Caner claimed that if one believes that Christ's death actually saves anyone, that view comes from the devil. What is odd is that White actually posted Caner's words for everyone else to catch White in his lie. Honestly, given White's track record, we have come to expect no better of him."
Since Uncle Dave likes numbers so much...
ReplyDeletePeter's word count (pre-this-comment): 146.
Steve's word count: 522.
Dave's word count (pre-the-customary-"This post has been deleted by its author"-rampage): 6,265.
Seriously, Dave. They make medication for this type of thing.
Note too that for all his wasted words, Dave actually does get around to admitting everything that Steve and I have said about him, not just in this thread but in many other posts.
Also, personal note for Dave: does your priest know that you wrote 1/10th of a novel on Triablogue comments during the course of a single day? I just wonder if you might consider telling him, so he can help you with your vow/promise/oath/resolution/suggestion/ideal/hypothesis/perhaps-yes-perhaps-no "I'm never gonna interact with anti-Catholics" pledge/affirmation/creed/hope/statement thing. After all, if you had put that much energy into Hail Mary's and Our Fathers, your Purgatory sentence could have been reduced to only several thousand years. But now you've squandered that time and it's forever irredeemable.
Comment has been blocked.
Dave's memory:
ReplyDelete(2/16/2010 5:23 PM)"TAO wants to cite an old post of mine?"
(2/17/2010 10:01 AM)"It's remarkable that after all this, the supposed "proof" that I ever made a vow or oath about anti-Catholics and broke it remains nowhere to be seen. There is altogether good reasons for that. It doesn't exist. Not even anti-Catholic myth-making and revisionist history can pretend that it does."
Notwithstanding our confusion over definitions, it seems clear to me that Steve's argument stands: online blogging resolutions get made and are broken. Whether it is necessary to point out the possible hypocrisy of others to others is a reasonable question for debate, and it depends upon circumstances, contexts and motives. Hypocrisy is something of which the Christian should be ever mindful, but mainly his own rather than others.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I've learned from this experience in the combox:
1) "You guys are nasty to me" is not a rational response to the question of whether a resolution has been broken or not. If we fail, we should "man up" to it.
2) I don't quite understand all the hubbub over whether a vow, oath or resolution was made, since some kind of statement of intent to do so and so can be clearly demonstrated and shown to have been violated, for whatever reason, legitimate or not.
3) My advice--don't make "statements of intent" of any kind on your blogs. Just pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to do what is pleasing and honouring in His sight, and that He grants you the grace and strength to follow through as consistently as possible.
By the way, I meant to point this out:
ReplyDeletePatrick said, in speaking to Mr.
Birch...
If you had wanted to be gracious in keeping with your New Year's resolution, you could have said many things short of calling White a liar and a spin master akin to far left liberals. For example, you could've said White's words were poorly chosen. Or you could've said White made an illogical statement. Or you could've said White made a bad argument. Or you could've said maybe White misunderstood what Caner meant and so he inadvertently glossed Caner's position. Or you could've said maybe White had a slip of the tongue in this particular moment.
That was excellent. Well said and reflecting my sentiments exactly, though better stated than I would have.
Wait, Dave is seriously suggesting that we need to provide a source for where he said he wouldn't interact with anti-Catholics anymore, after *HE* linked us to his article titled "Clarification of Why I No Longer Attempt Debate With Anti-Catholic Protestants"? And in that clarification, he nowhere says "I don't mean I won't ever do it" but instead repeatedly asserts "this is *WHY* I won't ever do it."
ReplyDeleteThis is beyond hubris and deep into the realm of insanity.
I can't wait for DA's dodge that writing 6000+ word responses on a site he says is run by an anti-Catholic doesn't constitute "debate" because it's not conducted by a debate society or whatnot.
Then again, Dave linked dialgoue and debate several times.
Exhibit A:
---
But a conversation or even a clarification, as presently, is not the same as a pro-con debate or dialogue on theological subjects, which is what I have said I am through with, out of futility. [bold added]
---
Exhibit B:
---
I didn't know he was referring solely to oral debates at first. I do know that he was dialoguing with me (quite a bit) back in 1996, when we were both members of James White's sola Scriptura Internet discussion list.
---
So it's clear there is no clear-cut line between "debate" and "dialogue" in Dave's mind. I trust readers can see through his veneer and see that this simply means "I don't talk to anti-Catholics who won't let me win."
I could probably Google more of Dave's stuff, but A) why would I want to do that? and B) this is already sufficient to prove the point.
Scream away, Dave.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
"One thing that is obvious is that no one likes to be considered so unserious and lacking in intellectual acumen that others will decide they are not worth spending the time debating."
ReplyDeleteCf. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/chat-room-debate-challenge-to.html
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI for one, without the playbook mind you, don't buy any of what you just wrote.
Here is what I buy with regards to you.
Let these men judge it and offer a correction, instruction, reproof or even a rebuke!
Here is what I am guided by, the Scriptures:::>
Rom 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
and, as I indicated in an earlier post, if any one of the many USA Cardinals were fully informed about you, they might actually do what the Spirit of Grace gave the Apostle Paul insight and wisdom to instruct Titus to do after two admonitions with regard to your rants and continual insinuations in here about the members of Triablogue and other Christian interlocutors participating in the here:::>
Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Tit 3:8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
When you are asked to "consider" substance over self, I will bet my wooden indian nickel that the "substance" Steve is thinking about is that there in Titus 3:4-8 all the while wondering, like I am right now, if you might be like those kinds of souls being described at 3:9-11?
Comment has been blocked.
Dave's mouth side 1:
ReplyDelete“but could never manage to do so with anti-Catholics, because of the combination of ignorance, stubbornness, and hostility.”
“It's the classic Big Lie: you simply repeat it enough times like a mantra and ignorant followers who trust your judgment will believe it.”
“you clowns”
Dave's mouth side 2:
“I can still approach the anti-Catholic in the sense that he is a brother in Christ”
Comment has been blocked.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteJesus had a different view of what constitutes an oath than you do. Steve's already quoted the relevant Scripture for you. Furthermore, you continue to ignore the fact that one not need to violate an "official" oath to be a liar; which is why you want to focus on the "I'm not an oath-breaker" aspect. You are in essence saying, "Yeah, I lied about not interacting with anti-Catholics, but it's okay because I never made a vow. I just said I would do so; and so a little [James] white lie here and there is no biggie." In fact, you've set it up right now so that the only person you would feel bad about lying to is your wife, because she's the only one you made a vow to.
That's pretty pathetic, no matter how you cut it.
Let's look at this for a moment:
1: When you say X and then do non-X, that is a lie.
2: Dave said he is "through with" both "a pro-con debate or dialogue on theological subjects" with anti-Catholics.
3: Using Scripture to back your argument would most certainly be a "dialogue on theological subjects" given Scripture *just is* a theological subject!
4: Dave considers TF to be an anti-Catholic.
5: Dave just quoted 17 passages of Scripture in an attempt to defend himself to TF.
6: Dave said X but did non-X.
7: Therefore, Dave is a liar.
I would now further add the following:
8: Any mature, Godly person ought to recognize his own lies and apologize for them.
9: Dave doesn't recognize his own lies, nor does he apologize for them (he instead rationalizes them).
I'll let you fill in the conclusion.