I didn't say you expressed an emotion.
The dead can see , hear and know
- Thread starter Johnnybgood
- Start date
There is no emotional fallacy if emotion is not involved. I used reason alone.
The fallacy is an appeal to emotion fallacy: "I believe most Calvinist have to admit it is difficult to accept "The good pleasure of God's will" as an answer for the suffering of saints that God supposedly "predetermined" to "His Glory".... instead of the causal result of man's weaknesses and failures."
Got it? Your statement is also a load of Bull, unless you've personally interviewed thousands of "Calvinists," which I'm certain you haven't.
Here's a biblical response: Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
There's the answer for why saints suffer.
If you're to hate your fellow Christians, @Chalcedon is the man for you to hang with.
"Birds of a feathef flock together."You said I expressed no emotion. You just contradicted yourself.
There is absolute no reference to bad things in Romans 8:28. Please point it out.
Yes. God's goodness overcomes bad things. Saying God purposes bad things to accomplish good is a "load of bull". (to borrow your own words)
I said you appealed to emotion.
Really? So "bad things" are not a subset of "all things?" How do you figure that?
LOL ... Gen 50:20 -- read the entire passage.
No. I appealed to reason. Evil is not good. That is reason. No emotion involved.
Amazing. A Calvinist making an "all" argument as if it actually means "all".
I suppose that Jesus tasted death for every man.... Right? I suppose that Jesus died for all men???? Right?
The context is
Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
So the Spirit overcomes evil through intercession. This doesn't mean that evil works for good.
Laughing doesn't fix your mistake. Emotional fallacy.
Theo1689
Well-known member
Jesus: "The son sets you free from sin."
Chalcedon: "The son sets you free from Calvinism."
Maybe you should stop focusing on "Calvinism" and start focusing on Jesus?
Theo1689
Well-known member
No Calvinist has EVER claimed that " 'all' doesn't mean 'all'. "
That has always and only ever been an anti-Calvinist straw-man.
The reason we don't believe that the phrase "all men" means "every single individual" is NOT because we take issue with the meaning of "all".
" 'All' means 'all'."
We take issue with the (errant, IMO) ASSUMPTION that "men" refers to "individuals".
But straw-men are easier to beat down, I guess...
That depends on how we understand the meaning of "man".
We could have a discussion about that, but most anti-Calvinists aren't interested in discussion.
Nope.
Not if you interpret "all men" to mean "all individuals".
Nor does it fix YOUR mistake.
Lose the attitude.
I disagree.
Straw man fallacy
God uses all things for good in the lives of the saints, friend. Denying that doesn't change that.
SMH ...
Dunning-Kruger fallacy. You can't possibly know this.
Emotional fallacy.
Men are not individuals? Is your issue with the plural vs singular English word?
I don't have an attitude. False claim on your part.
EDIT PER MOD
I gave you references to common arguments concerning "all". Did you not recognize them?
Emotional fallacy. Friendship has nothing to do with the issue. It is either right or it is wrong. Evil is never good.
Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Wave energy? Green power?
Last edited by a moderator:
Carbon
Well-known member
Really? Why would you accuse a good Christian man of something like that!
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your posts
Last edited by a moderator:
Theo1689
Well-known member
Wow... You'd argue with a brick wall, wouldn't you.
I have said I've never made that argument.
Howie has said he's never made that argument.
So unless you can QUOTE a Calvinist who said "all doesn't mean all", then you probably shouldn't assert something you don't know to be true.
Really?!
So you think it's "emotional" and a "fallacy" to suggest we have a discussion on something on which we disagree?
I think you're simply throwing out terms you don't know the meaning of.
Depending on usage, "men" can mean:
1) males;
2) male adults;
3) individual humans;
4) groups of humans;
5) classes of humans.
Not only do you ASSUME one particular meaning (without any basis), you seem to want to DEMAND that everyone else uses it as well.
Btw, this also demonstrates the source of your straw-man argument where you (falsely) claim Calvinists argue "all doesn't mean all", since you ASSUME (wrongly) that we believe "men" means "individuals", and so the only OTHER way you think we can disagree with you is if YOU assume that we think "all doesn't mean all".
<Chuckle>
Whatever.
If I was a super-member, I start a poll.
Btw, do you know what an "intervention" is?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Because you think you're infallible and inerrant.
So anyone who disagrees with you must be making a "false claim".
But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with "attitude".
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Really? Why would you accuse a good Christian man of something like that!
He said he did.
Carbon
Well-known member
No he didn’t. Maybe you should go back and read his post?
That’s the least you can do.
And then you owe him an apology.
Theo1689
Well-known member
You made FOUR claims, to which he stated, "I disagree".
Why did you ASSUME that the one he disagreed with was, "evil is not good", rather than one of your other assertions, such as "I appealed to reason", or "no emotion involved"?
Is there no charity in your brand of "Christianity"?
Here is what he wrote.....Bold mine.
Really? So "bad things" are not a subset of "all things?" How do you figure that?
I believe what he said about what he believes....
He said.....
Really? So "bad things" are not a subset of "all things?" How do you figure that?
Theo1689
Well-known member
Because you're positing an argument on a premise that doesn't exist.
NO Calvinist in this forum has EVER argued that "all doesn't mean all".
NO Calvinist whom I have EVER read or heard, has ever argued that "all doesn't mean all".
If the ONLY way you can make an argument is by MISREPRESENTING others, then you have a problem.