Uh....yesUh.....no
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Uh....yesUh.....no
Uh....yes
It's all good.I should have been more selective on which part of your quote I was responding to. I have since corrected it.
Not ignored, just understanding the proper sequence.But yet you ignore Ephesians 2:1-3
How do you understand this "black or white" fallacy to be different than the law of the excluded middle?
Never heard of it put that way, I would say that the black and white fallacy is just that it is a fallacy. Reasonable conversations should not employ them because they are illogical and fallacious.
An aguement can only be the black and white fallacy if there cannot be only two possibilities.
Such is almost never true but presented as such to try and shut down debate
Obviously, the answer is that the fallacy of false dichotomy does not exclude the law of the excluded middle, as the latter only applies to binary situations.Either the law of the excluded middle applies or it does not. If it applies, then it cannot be a black and white fallacy.
Jesus excluded the middle when He said,Obviously, the answer is that the fallacy of false dichotomy does not exclude the law of the excluded middle, as the latter only applies to binary situations.
Insisting the situation is binary even when another describes a third alternative is to shut down further discussion. Sometimes it's called "not listening," or "hearing without understanding."
In analyizing metaphysical truth claims, they should be done only in pairs, even though there may be a dozen or more possibilities. And eliminating a claim one by one. This method is not well studied. It is popularly called a "Pascal's Wager." The failure of Pascal's Wager is do to introduction of multiple other possibilities, and not pairing them.Obviously, the answer is that the fallacy of false dichotomy does not exclude the law of the excluded middle, as the latter only applies to binary situations.
Insisting the situation is binary even when another describes a third alternative is to shut down further discussion. Sometimes it's called "not listening," or "hearing without understanding."
Yes, you are right of course, but it is the same point. It is only reasonable if it aligns with God’s Word. Or do you imagine we should treat or apply Scripture without reason?Jesus excluded the middle when He said,
Matthew 12:30 (NASB)
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.“
The question is not whether it’s reasonable to entertain “middle options”, but rather do those middle options align with scripture. If they do not align with scripture, they are “against God” and will “scatter.” Therefore, it is wise to approach middle options with a black & white - exclusionary - mindset asking “is this true or not true according to the scripture.” We must be noble-minded.
Acts 17:11 (NASB)
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Again, this works if and only if the pairs are true binary options. They must be sufficiently pared to be properly paired. Otherwise you will create a false dichotomy.In analyizing metaphysical truth claims, they should be done only in pairs, even though there may be a dozen or more possibilities. And eliminating a claim one by one. This method is not well studied. It is popularly called a "Pascal's Wager." The failure of Pascal's Wager is do to introduction of multiple other possibilities, and not pairing them.
You failed to understand the point of my last arguement. Metaphysical analysis to work must be done in pairs. You can have points of view A, B, C, D, E, F, etc. One would compare A with B. Then if B is removed, then A against C and C against A. And so one.Again, this works if and only if the pairs are true binary options. They must be sufficiently pared to be properly paired. Otherwise you will create a false dichotomy.
We are going to have to disagree here Is that all right with you?Not ignored, just understanding the proper sequence.
Ephesians 1:13-14 (NASB) 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Acts 11:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Scripture is clear on the sequence - the Holy Spirit indwells AFTER belief, not before.
There is no middle. We either end up in Heaven or hell there is no in between we all will be in one place or the other. If there is a middle then it is right here where you are trying to decide. eventually you will be in one place or the otherEither the law of the excluded middle applies or it does not. If it applies, then it cannot be a black and white fallacy.
Us as genuine Christians should have no doubts regarding God's promise of salvation. Titus 1:2, 1 John 5:13, Hebrews 10:17.There is no middle. We either end up in Heaven or hell there is no in between we all will be in one place or the other. If there is a middle then it is right here where you are trying to decide. eventually you will be in one place or the other
MB
I have no doubts of my Salvation.Us as genuine Christians should have no doubts regarding God's promise of salvation. Titus 1:2, 1 John 5:13, Hebrews 10:17.
On a side note, what parts of Classical Arminianism do you disagree with? C.A. allows either view of eternal security. You can hold Eternal Security and be a Classical Arminian. From conversing with you, It really seems as if you hold the other 4 points.It seems like you had a conversation with Reformed where you admitted to it as well as being an Arminian.
On a side note, what parts of Classical Arminianism do you disagree with? C.A. allows either view of eternal security. You can hold Eternal Security and be a Classical Arminian. From conversing with you, It really seems as if you hold the other 4 points.
I am not so sure the true Arminian definition of total depravity greatly differs from what you believe. The Gospel is and always has been central and essential to the Arminian doctrine. The link is a group of Arminians that call themselves Classical, but they don't totally line up with the foundational doctrine of Classucal Arminianism which is the Articles Remonstrance. I don't exactly agree with article 2.1. I deny Total inability, I hold to human depravity
2. I have a big problem with Universal Grace. According to the link there is no mention of the word of God being preached. I hold that the gospel was lived and provided by Jesus. He said He, Himself will draw man to Him (John 12:32). The Holy Spirit inspired word of God says that the gospel is the power to salvation (Romans 1:16). It also says faith comes from the gospel (Romans 10:17).
3. I deny conditional perseverance. I hold that we are now new creatures in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) Our salvation is kept by god not us (1 Peter 1:3-5).
4. Regeneration lack and point on the role of the gospel in man's salvation. Big problem.
The Making of a Classical Arminian
I am not so sure the true Arminian definition of total depravity greatly differs from what you believe.
Are you aware that Arminian total Depravity is not the same as Calvinistic Total Depravity?It has to, I completely deny Total Depravity.
Are you aware that Arminian total Depravity is not the same as Calvinistic Total Depravity?
Arminian T.D. simply holds that man is totally incapable of accepting Christ until The Holy Spirit calls him.
If I am not mistaken, that is exactly what the vast majority of "traditionalists" believe.
Can you be kind enough to explain your view of depravity to me? "Human Depravity" is a term that in the few texts I can find it is interchangeable with total depravity.
Do you believe in original sin?