tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4059643171784051425..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24268064364984437812010-09-27T12:55:48.742-04:002010-09-27T12:55:48.742-04:00Steve said:
ii) Moreover, people do good because ...Steve said:<br /><br /><i>ii) Moreover, people do good because of God’s common grace or special grace. They don’t get any intrinsic credit for their good deeds, for that’s the end-result of God motivating them to do good.</i><br /><br />Do you mean this to refer to the unregenerate also? If so, how do you square this with Total Depravity?Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53076718752306361492010-09-26T23:03:04.858-04:002010-09-26T23:03:04.858-04:00I wrote:
"Steve you don't know what my t...I wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Steve you don't know what my theological position is.”</i></b><br /><br />Steve Wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>To the contrary, you stated your position. You said: “For the record though, I am as much as Pelagian, as I am an Calvinist, as I am an Arminian."</i></b><br /><br />No Steve.<br /><br /> Jesus also, was as much a Pelagian, as he was a Calvinist or an Arminian. Since Jesus was Christ, it is fair to say he was none of those things.<br /><br />Jesus was not a theological chameleon; nor am I. But it is possible that my comment was too subtle, so I'll clarify.<br /><br />I would be a theological chameleon if I were a Pelagian, a Calvinist and an Arminian, but I am none of those things. <br /><br />I care more for Christ's doctrine than that of some mere imperfect theologian.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3702997736678027102010-09-26T19:09:53.189-04:002010-09-26T19:09:53.189-04:00ἐκκλησία said...
“Steve you don't know what m...ἐκκλησία said...<br /><br />“Steve you don't know what my theological position is.”<br /><br />To the contrary, you stated your position. You said: “For the record though, I am as much as Pelagian, as I am an Calvinist, as I am an Arminian.”<br /><br />That makes you a theological chameleon.<br /><br />“The question was asked about Wm. Lane Craig, and the answer I provide employed his logic.”<br /><br />No. You left that comment on a post on retributive justice. Craig had nothing to do with it.<br /><br />“This was also an ad hominem attack and not characteristic of one who bears the name Christian, for the world judges Christ through Christians.”<br /><br />i) Since Jesus himself is not above ad hominem attacks (e.g. Mt 23), I take it that Christ is insufficiently Christian for you. <br /><br />Speaking for myself, I don’t think Christ is unchristian. But that’s just me.<br /><br />Likewise, NT writers such as Jude also employ ad hominem language. Do you think Jude is “uncharacteristic of one who bears the name Christian”?<br /><br />ii) If you classify my response as an ad hominem attack, then you attacked yourself when you characterized yourself as follows:” I am as much as Pelagian, as I am an Calvinist, as I am an Arminian.”<br /><br />My description of you was modeled on your self-portrait. <br /><br />“Although we are to contend for our faith we are to do so graciously. You may find this difficult to believe but there are God believing, God honouring, pious Christian's who do not put The Institutes of the Christian Religion ahead of the Bible.”<br /><br />That’s a textbook example of an ad hominem attack. <br /><br />“Simply because someone refutes something you said, is not sufficient reason to call into question their sincerity, their integrity or their faith.”<br /><br />i) Since you haven’t refuted anything I said, we have yet to cross that bridge. <br /><br />ii) And, yes, when someone says, “I am as much as Pelagian, as I am an Calvinist, as I am an Arminian,” then he has certainly given me reason to question all of the above. <br /><br />“The problem with Calvinism is clearly illustrated here; Calvinism leads people to be more like Calvin, and not at all like Christ.”<br /><br />i) This was not a post on Calvinism.<br /><br />ii) Your accusation constitutes an ad hominem attack on Calvinists.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30622731651071328282010-09-26T16:31:17.736-04:002010-09-26T16:31:17.736-04:00And your comments aren't ad hominem?And your comments aren't <i>ad hominem</i>?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33112594244790086332010-09-26T16:25:50.046-04:002010-09-26T16:25:50.046-04:00Steve Said:
"For the record, you’re a theolo...Steve Said: <br /><b><i>"For the record, you’re a theological chameleon."</i></b><br /><br />Steve you don't know what my theological position is. The question was asked about Wm. Lane Craig, and the answer I provide employed his logic.<br /><br />This was also an <i>ad hominem</i> attack and not characteristic of one who bears the name <b>Christian</b>, for the world judges Christ through Christians.<br /><br />Although we are to contend for our faith we are to do so graciously. You may find this difficult to believe but there are God believing, God honouring, pious Christian's who do not put <b>The Institutes of the Christian Religion</b> ahead of the Bible.<br /><br />Simply because someone refutes something you said, is not sufficient reason to call into question their sincerity, their integrity or their faith.<br /><br />The problem with Calvinism is clearly illustrated here; Calvinism leads people to be more like Calvin, and not at all like Christ.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47665185883414072982010-09-26T15:01:44.898-04:002010-09-26T15:01:44.898-04:00JD WALTERS SAID:
"Pure silliness. I'm go...JD WALTERS SAID:<br /><br />"Pure silliness. I'm going to bow out of this conversation until you learn to use 'tu quoque' properly."<br /><br />Which is yet another assertion.<br /><br />"P.S. the fact that you title this post with the infamous slogan of the indulgence sellers is further evidence of your silliness and shows that you didn't read my post carefully."<br /><br />I read you more carefully than you do. What you offer in one hand you snatch away with the other.<br /><br />And it's not just a question of what you said in your post. It's also a question of your additional comments in response to me.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9285798998896172402010-09-26T11:39:14.142-04:002010-09-26T11:39:14.142-04:00P.S. the fact that you title this post with the in...P.S. the fact that you title this post with the infamous slogan of the indulgence sellers is further evidence of your silliness and shows that you didn't read my post carefully:<br /><br />"Am I suggesting then that a person could merit salvation solely on the basis of good works, that if a person achieved a certain optimum ratio of good to bad works then salvation should be guaranteed? By no means! On the contrary, I am suggesting that perhaps it is unwise to think of the final judgment in terms of strict retribution."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80257933312572410352010-09-26T11:12:00.400-04:002010-09-26T11:12:00.400-04:00"JD, careful about throwing around assertions..."JD, careful about throwing around assertions concerning my alleged assertions. You merely assert that I make assertions without documenting your assertions. Don't be hypocritical in your objections."<br /><br />Pure silliness. I'm going to bow out of this conversation until you learn to use 'tu quoque' properly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com