tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post113988996267615310..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is Forensic Justification "Poppycock"?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1139947592009514242006-02-14T15:06:00.000-05:002006-02-14T15:06:00.000-05:00Listen Up!<A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/listen-up.html" REL="nofollow">Listen Up!</A>Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1139945494129147432006-02-14T14:31:00.000-05:002006-02-14T14:31:00.000-05:00Mr. Loftus:I would re-read your comments except th...Mr. Loftus:<BR/><BR/>I would re-read your comments except that they are already self-contradictory. If I am not allowed (per your most recent posts on your blog) to use the Bible to answer your questions about God or theology, then either you cannot be allowed to do it either or you have to admit that you have a double standard and go forward from there.<BR/><BR/>Either you are willing to reason from the Bible, or you are not. Trying to have it both ways is a criticism you want to level at Christendom, but it seems to me that clarity should begin at home.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1139902379971481912006-02-14T02:32:00.000-05:002006-02-14T02:32:00.000-05:00Aren't there less moronic atheists to debate?Aren't there less moronic atheists to debate?UK67https://www.blogger.com/profile/15095910610517995965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1139891408904028032006-02-13T23:30:00.000-05:002006-02-13T23:30:00.000-05:00If Mr. Loftus wishes to debunk Calvinism, then he ...If Mr. Loftus wishes to debunk Calvinism, then he needs to deal responsibly with it. Calvinism is built on the concept of the covenant.<BR/><BR/>There are two types: Diathetic and Synthetic. God's covenants with men are diathetic, between unequals. Loftus treats them as synthetic covenants, between equals, and, even within the terms he names "Father" for example, those relatioships are not the same, so even if he wishes to play as if we are in a synthetic covenant, the relationships are still unequal. If he can't tell the difference, then one wonders what he actually learned in seminary.'<BR/><BR/>So, Mr. Loftus, if you read this, if you wish to critique the inner logic of penal substitution and, more broadly, Reformed theology, you need to deal with the nature of the relationships between God and man within the concept of the covenant. That's the main structure on which Calvinism is built. If Calvinism doesn't make sense, then you must show how it violates this fundamental concept.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com