ReverendRV
Well-known member
How are y'all using this Tu Quoqe Fallacy to explain the error of the Posters? It seems to me that it's a false claim...Tu quoque very sad .
How are y'all using this Tu Quoqe Fallacy to explain the error of the Posters? It seems to me that it's a false claim...Tu quoque very sad .
I haven't noticed anyone doing this; I reckon that's why it seems misapplied...Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack
Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack
I haven't noticed anyone doing this; I reckon that's why it seems misapplied...
Another fallacy , quote anyone claiming sinlessness or sinless perfection . I’ve know two posters who claim that , one female and another named gary on the apologetics forum . Those are the only two posters I’ve ever heard make those false claims . No one on this forum believes such nonsense.
How ironic that Calvinists were unceremoniously ostracized by Eastern Orthodoxy and here is a petition to allow a Calvinist into Team Truth based on his "Orthodoxy". I know that Eastern Orthodoxy does not equate to Orthodoxy in Protestant circles but nevertheless there is solid truth behind my statement.That's the irony they are not getting. Allowing a Unitarian onto Team Truth because they scratch your ears, but not allowing a Calvinist who is within the Pale of Orthodoxy onto Team Truth...
You disagree that I belong on Team Truth? Then take it up with Civic. Me? I can say Jesus is LORD...How ironic that Calvinists were unceremoniously ostracized by Eastern Orthodoxy and here is a petition to allow a Calvinist into Team Truth based on his "Orthodoxy". I know that Eastern Orthodoxy does not equate to Orthodoxy in Protestant circles but nevertheless there is solid truth behind my statement.
I was focusing on the "irony" part, not you. Chalcedon is the team leader so I'll defer to his judgment. One thing that a team member must adhere to is your commitment to the team. No dual-team members as the Arminianism Calvinistic divide does not allow for it. I'm not sure if you've already committed exclusively to our team yet?You disagree that I belong on Team Truth? Then take it up with Civic. Me? I can say Jesus is LORD...
Arminianism isn't taught in the Bible. Your demand is senseless. Arminianism is taught by a man. You are his follower. You refuse to deal with the question because it will reveal you're a hypocrite.
Fair enough...I was focusing on the "irony" part, not you. Chalcedon is the team leader so I'll defer to his judgment. One thing that a team member must adhere to is your commitment to the team. No dual-team members as the Arminianism Calvinistic divide does not allow for it. I'm not sure if you've already committed exclusively to our team yet?
Fair enough...
I'll just say one more thing. Dizerner is on Team Truth despite his belief that God poured his Wrath out on Jesus. Perhaps the Unitarian would agree since he thinks Jesus is not God...
Me? I do not plan on quitting Team Truth. If you want me ousted, wait for Civic to return...
If I continue to sin, deliberately (which means you know that it is sin), and die in that state, Hebrews says that I will fall into the hands of an angry God.I knew what you believed. Remember, we talked about this. Your claims are false. Either way, given your claim, you can't "live up to" your own claims.
Did I not say that death reigned, even if no one sinned as Adam had? Physical death is the consequence of Adam's sin. Spiritual death, eternal separation from God, is what is based on guilt from sinning. It is the second death! That is Paul's message in Rom 5:13-14.Wow. I don't see how you can make such a statement. You're ignoring the obvious. People died (judged as sinners) without the law. Thusly, the penalty of death was legal applied to those regardless of their understanding of the law.
As the result of Adam, our forefather's sin! Not because of their sin!Why did people die at all?
I have made no such claim! I have not claimed to be without sin. I have not claimed that actions done of which I am ignorant of their sinfulness are not sin, or that things that I know are sins, but an unaware that I have committed them, are not sins. They are indeed sin, but they are not held against us by God until we are made aware of it. This is precisely what Paul preached in Athens, saying, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts17:30)You claim you're not sinful because you don't understand your sin. That is "back peddling" from claiming to live a righteous life according to what you claim to be God's demand.
With all due respect, sin doesn't require your acknowledgement to be sin. I heard you the first time you gave this type of example. It is a bogus example.
God is not being judged, man is! Adam knew the eating of the tree was sinful, wrong, prohibited, and did it anyway! Learning the consequence of your sin is not the issue! God knowing it is sin is not the issue! The issue is a) whether God counts men's sins of ignorance against them, or if men are graciously abstained from guilt for sinful acts of which they are ignorant in one way or another. Scripture states the latter!Adam spent his entire life learning the consequence of his sin. God didn't change. He knew it all along. Knowledge varies with man but not with God.
Yes we are, because nobody is completely ignorant! We all know from an early age the difference between right and wrong.All the world is guilty. They just refuse to acknowledge it. Which is what Paul is dealing with in Romans 3.
Pay attention to the words ... "and all the world may become guilty before God. "
Condemnation is clear.....
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Notice the words... CONDEMNED ALREADY.
Your belief an acceptance of your own guilty doesn't establish guilt toward God. You're already guilty.
Grasshopper, you'll leave this world in weakness crying for mercy for your failures. Don't "kid yourself". No one is going to face God cheering.....
"Thank you Jesus for making me live so righteous"........
None of us can! Thank the Lord for his mercy and grace! He alone has the power of life and death! I'm glad you are better!I say BP of 70's over 40's this past week while the emergency room nurses thought I was leaving this world. The Lord heard and answered my prayer for mercy. My cry for help. I couldn't help myself.
I have never claimed anything contrary to this!How in the world can I claim anything other than Grace?
The above statement in the bold blue is totally false, for what you are confused with here, is what Paul means when he says "for sin is not imputed when their is no law".Silly boy! The damned are damned because they have been charged and found guilty, so their awareness is self evident! Again, "sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law."
Doug
The above statement in the bold blue is totally false, for what you are confused with here, is what Paul means when he says "for sin is not imputed when their is no law".
For he is not saying by this that they are not guilty of sin but only that the guilt of their sin has not been fully perceived by them being they have no commandment against their sin through which to convict them of it.
Read Romans 5:14, for Paul very clearly says that death (punishment for sin) reigned from Adam to Moses even over them who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam who had been given an actual commandment from God to impute sin within his conscience.
I have made no such claim! I have not claimed to be without sin. I have not claimed that actions done of which I am ignorant of their sinfulness are not sin, or that things that I know are sins, but an unaware that I have committed them, are not sins. They are indeed sin, but they are not held against us by God until we are made aware of it. This is precisely what Paul preached in Athens, saying, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts17:30)
I am sinful because I commit sin. I am guilty of sins I knowingly commit. I am condemned for not repenting of those sins which I knew were wrong, but continued to commit them unceasingly.
If I continue to sin, deliberately (which means you know that it is sin), and die in that state, Hebrews says that I will fall into the hands of an angry God.
The above statement in the bold blue is totally false, for what you are confused with here, is what Paul means when he says "for sin is not imputed when their is no law".
For he is not saying by this that they are not guilty of sin but only that the guilt of their sin has not been fully perceived by them being they have no commandment against their sin through which to convict them of it.
Read Romans 5:14, for Paul very clearly says that death (punishment for sin) reigned from Adam to Moses even over them who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam who had been given an actual commandment from God to impute sin within his conscience.
Acts 17 is an appeal to how the Gentile world was overlooked by God. They still died. They still received the judgement of their sin.
No, he is not!Actually your above is twisted also, for the writer of Hebrews is not speaking of sin in general here but rather of the specific sin of totally turning away from God through rejecting Christ Jesus and going back to the OT law after having been exposed completely to the truth of God that is in Christ.
This is what the whole book is about, for he is speaking to a mixed Hebrew crowd, some who had only tasted of Christ and were about to turn away and then also to those who had fully consumed the truth in Christ within their hearts and you should see this in Hebrews six also.
Yes he is, and what proves it are the words "there remains no sacrifice for sins" for their rejecting Christ and going back to the OT, would leave the without a sacrifice for their sin because the OT sacrifices never took away sin anyhow.No, he is not!
Doug