Featured Soteriology, False Accusations, Straw Man Tactics & Denial

Recently in a thread concerning a woman who was saved out of a lifestyle of sin I commented upon her salvation experience.

Here is her quote:

My comment immediately upon this said:

Of course my quote was met with false assumoptions and accusations masked as 'questions':

First response:

My response:

This was met yet again with false accusations disguised as 'questions' which were actually used as conclusions, putting words in my mouth, and were, in fact straw man arguments:

As it can be readily seen above in the post, there were conclusions made not upon what I stated, but upon what a person says I said. I not one time suggested any of the above conclusions.

I responded with this:

My point is: If you are going to rebut someone, don't assume upon their words. Don't play the game of denial, and don't deny what in all actuality you are saying another person said.

To be frank, doing so is not Christian behavior, and these tactics are simply used to 'win' a pseudo debate made up in the mind of the one using false conclusions and only debating their own accusations which are apparently false.

Don't use false conclusions as fact, which is what was done in responding to my statements. What's the point in doing so? False deception? Failure to face actual facts?

Thirdly there was denial that said was done. Consider the following dialogue in repsonse to what I stated above:

It is apparent that these weren't simply 'questions' being 'asked', since there were instead conclusions being made after the false assumptions, and then these assumptions were used as if factual, and then were attacked.

Nevertheless the response to the above was this at post 13:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89067&page=2

I appreciate good honest debate, but to argue things that another person never stated IMO is not good. It doesn't reflect facts.

To be honest, I've seen these tactics, denials, and more among too many Baptists, and it is downright wrong and shameful IMO.

Can we argue the facts without the denial and straw man tactics and putting words into another's mouth?

I appreciated the woman's testimony, and saw it as Biblically solid. There is no reason to accuse a person as being Catholic for complimenting a persons salvational experience -- it is was unnecessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does this happen, and why do some go into accusatory mode and plant assumptions as fact upon another, when the evidence is so clear that the one being accused in no way supports these things? Why are questions which are actually accusatory spun to be 'only' questions when it is a apparent they are not simply questions when they are used as conclusions?

These things should not be.

Concluding thoughts:

I read the OP tied to this OP and was enthused by the woman's understanding of salvation. There was absolutely no intent on my part to make it a Cal/Arm debate, as I said I was simply enthused and I genuiney hope others get it as she did.

But, being enthused that a person grasps Solus Christus brings on an attack because her affiliation didn't have the right 'brand mark', and since that was the case, it was assumed that I then endorse Catholicism.

Why do we treat others this way?

 

It's interesting and sad that even suggesting that a person has a better grasp on truth than another it is considered as an 'attack'. What a fragile ego. :laugh:

I seriously wonder if the anti-cal actually read the entire article as it was quite clear that her salvational testimony was undergirded with truth aka reformed/calvinist doctrine, albeit probably unbeknownst to her.

But now? Well, the testimony formerly used as something positive is now at this time being looked at as a possible negative since the truth of her conversion is now brought to the forefront, and even suggesting she has a better understanding is considered not only an attack, but a 'back-handed' attack. :laugh:

Let's apply that nonsense to Scripture for example. Anytime a person is rebuked or shown to be lacking in knowledge, (which happens frequently in the NT) we should take that as a back-handed attack. Or put it this way, if a person does take it that way, it is a commentary on their own ego and pride.

That's it right there, and that is what I was saying in the other thread all along, and it is what is reflected in the OP here. It's quite Pharisaical of persons to attack another due to their being enthused about someone else's salvation, not to mention putting words in their mouth, drumming up false accusations and the other nonsense.

 

Actually you're not the object, the woman who was saved is the object. :wavey:

The second part of the post is about how others go on the attack concerning a persons salvation and accuse others of being anything negative that comes to mind for being enthused about that persons salvation, using all sorts of vitriol, false accusations and more.

The underlying question of the post is to show how in Baptist realms this behavior takes place which is quite shameful to say the least. :thumbs:

 

He owns his decision to run off. :wavey:

 

Look at the nonsense and attack on her testimony.

She's being told she's not saved.

She's being attacked.

She's being told she was only saved from atheism.

What is being inferred is that she must become a Baptist (or most anything but Catholic) to 'get to heaven' or for her testimony to be valid.

What nonsense.

It is apparent that she was saved from her sins.

 

Herald,

Here's the link.