The dead can see , hear and know

Howie

Well-known member
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."
 

sundance

Well-known member
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? That's also a load of Bull.

You said I expressed no emotion. You just contradicted yourself.

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

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)
 

Howie

Well-known member
You said I expressed no emotion. You just contradicted yourself.
I said you appealed to emotion.

There is absolute no reference to bad things in Romans 8:28. Please point it out.
Really? So "bad things" are not a subset of "all things?" How do you figure that?

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)
LOL ... Gen 50:20 -- read the entire passage.
 

sundance

Well-known member
I said you appealed to emotion.

No. I appealed to reason. Evil is not good. That is reason. No emotion involved.

Really? So "bad things" are not a subset of "all things?" How do you figure that?

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.

LOL ... Gen 50:20 -- read the entire passage.

Laughing doesn't fix your mistake. Emotional fallacy.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Amen Tom its a stronghold as seth use to call it and he was right. As a former "calvinist" I was to blind to see it and was trapped in a man made theology I was protecting. But the Son has set me free and I can see scripture without a calvinist lens now. The Truth has set me free and the Bible is ALIVE again, the First Love is back. AMEN

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
Amazing. A Calvinist making an "all" argument as if it actually means "all".

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...

I suppose that Jesus tasted death for every man.... Right?

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.

I suppose that Jesus died for all men???? Right?

Nope.
Not if you interpret "all men" to mean "all individuals".

Laughing doesn't fix your mistake. Emotional fallacy.

Nor does it fix YOUR mistake.
Lose the attitude.
 

Howie

Well-known member
No. I appealed to reason. Evil is not good. That is reason. No emotion involved.
I disagree.
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?
Straw man fallacy

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.
God uses all things for good in the lives of the saints, friend. Denying that doesn't change that.
Laughing doesn't fix your mistake. Emotional fallacy.
SMH ...
 

sundance

Well-known member
No Calvinist has EVER claimed that " 'all' doesn't mean 'all'. "

Dunning-Kruger fallacy. You can't possibly know this.

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.

Emotional fallacy.

Nope.
Not if you interpret "all men" to mean "all individuals"..

Men are not individuals? Is your issue with the plural vs singular English word?

Nor does it fix YOUR mistake.
Lose the attitude.

I don't have an attitude. False claim on your part.
 

sundance

Well-known member
I disagree.

EDIT PER MOD

Straw man fallacy

I gave you references to common arguments concerning "all". Did you not recognize them?

God uses all things for good in the lives of the saints, friend. Denying that doesn't change that.

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:

Howie

Well-known member
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?
Thanks for your posts
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Theo1689

Well-known member
Dunning-Kruger fallacy. You can't possibly know this.

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.

Emotional fallacy.

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.

Men are not individuals? Is your issue with the plural vs singular English word?

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".

I don't have an attitude.

<Chuckle>
Whatever.
If I was a super-member, I start a poll.
Btw, do you know what an "intervention" is?

False claim on your part.

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.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I see that you believe evil is good.

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"?
 

sundance

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.

Here is what he wrote.....Bold mine.

Really? So "bad things" are not a subset of "all things?" How do you figure that?
 

sundance

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"?

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
Why are you demanding a quote? Not all Calvinist publish. I've listened to many say such.

Correct your mistake and I'll get your a written reference. Or not, your choice, my requirement.

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.
 
Top