tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6607380711407995442..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: OfferabilityRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31400332315105393662011-09-03T18:37:12.094-04:002011-09-03T18:37:12.094-04:00This has been an excellent series, Steve. Thanks ...This has been an excellent series, Steve. Thanks for taking up Ponter's pet topic.<br /><br />Tradition is truly blinding.<br /><br />In Him,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90541851724986655622011-09-02T21:42:43.396-04:002011-09-02T21:42:43.396-04:00Should 2) read "Judas was not elect"?Should 2) read "Judas was not elect"?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24400925164282294452011-09-02T18:39:16.101-04:002011-09-02T18:39:16.101-04:00True. Both Tony's argument and mine are fallac...True. Both Tony's argument and mine are fallacious. Mine is the mirror-image of his. If I win and I win, and if I lose I still win!stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21073626501497512322011-09-02T17:46:39.755-04:002011-09-02T17:46:39.755-04:00Well, as stated these aren't valid, but they c...Well, as stated these aren't valid, but they could be made to be valid. But let's put that, as well as the inserted 4-point premise securing a begging of the question, aside. Here's another one (using Byrne's formulation):<br /><br />1. Only those able to express faith are legally savable. (Acts 16:30-31 etc)<br />2. Judas was not able to express faith. (Judas cannot do other than the decree)<br />3. Therefore, Judas was not legally savable. (issues aside: from (1) and (2) by MT).<br /><br />Hence, etc.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.com