Featured Your opponent plays dumb.

Quit messing with him.

 

What makes you think they're playing?

 

Do you have any scripture? Still waiting...

 

Off topic for this thread.

 

Not really. 37 thinks he has provided arguments for his view and shown scripture when he rarely has any scripture that actually make his point. It's like he blindly opens the Bible and picks a verse that he likes and then claims he has made a valid point. When asked for an actual passage that actually teaches what he claimed, he responds with " I already have" which is demonstrably false since he cannot point to any post where he actually did what he claimed. It's been a repetitive trend of 37s.

 

If it’s a running thread with progressive argument, you may have to cite what you’ve said before. You don’t necessarily have to repeat it, but you may have to explain further.

I’ve noticed on more than one occasion that posters are not using common language, for example, their definitions of certain terms or phrases may not match.

 

Yes, really. By the way, one may provide an argument which does not convince another. That is wholly different than having provided no argument at all. Treating the former as if the latter is hardly kosher communication.

 

Perhaps what’s needed are some model discussions or templates that illustrate adequate communication in debate, so that serious posters can understand how to communicate more effectively in an exchange.

Such might also be used to illustrate how or where communication is breaking down in an exchange.

Maybe include some examples of ineffective communication. Perhaps link another thread for this. And it might be best not to cite such from existing debates, but rather create fresh, uncontroversial examples.

 

I have never said there is no argument. I have said that a biblical argument has no validity if it does not have scripture in context with the argument. Without that one merely has an opinion without documentation.

 

Not "say," but "treat," which has a much broader domain. But if you did neither, fine. My post doesn’t accuse you either way. You can take that up with the OP, or whomever.


A biblical argument is still valid, even if Scripture has not been specifically cited. However, in debate, one will eventually have to provide Scripture. Also, one will likely have to explain why and how that Scripture applies.

Usually, the disagreement will hinge on interpretation/application, but very often is about definitions, which is often overlooked and generally creates an impasse, especially in "C vs. A" discussions.

 

Many times it does come down to definitions. It also comes down to taking those definitions to their logical conclusion. For example: Universal Atonement. Universal means all. Atonement means to be made holy. Therefore Universal Atonement is to have all humanity be made holy. If all humanity is made holy, then no human is viewed as unholy (a sinner) by God. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, all humanity cannot go to hell since God would be casting holy people into hell.
However, people who hold to Universal Atonement here try to make exceptions to the rule and in so doing they limit the atonement. But when they are shown that they are limiting the atonement, they get angry and say "you don't understand." Well, I do understand, but they refuse to go to the logical conclusion of their position. So, there is an impasse.

 

Another problem that we run into is when the term is modified to fit a particular theological view.

 

Then stop modifying it, Sliverhair.

 

Yes, and part of this can have to do with limited perception. Sometimes we need to expand or realign our understanding.

For example, I do not hold to universal atonement as some define it, but limited atonement seems an impossibility, as nowhere in Scripture is the blood of Jesus limited. Jesus could save a million, a billion, a trillion, a quadrillion, etc. The atonement is unlimited and yet there are no "wasted drops of blood" regardless.

The only limit would be in how many will believe. If by limited atonement one simply means that only the saved will be saved, well, no duh.

 

Yeah, that's not really playing. Regardless of atonement, limited understanding and limited ability to understand are universal.

 

You said it, brother! (But you left out the scriptural references. )