Romans 1 says otherwise. You are teaching something false every time you say it. It's sad that you wont' see this.
-
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!
Apparent contradiction?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Romans 1 says otherwise. You are teaching something false every time you say it. It's sad that you wont' see this.
Skan's problem is that he wants to add "an excuse" to it even though it directly contradicts the Bible. (Romans 1)
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Let me help you out a little:
The Bible: man is without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself through creation, and man, having clearly seen, understood and known God, refused to acknowledge Him as God but instead chose to trade that truth in for a lie become defiled.
Calvinism unbiblical addition: Men are born totally depraved (defiled) in their thinking from birth and thus can't really understand God's revelation unless first born again. Even though God has clearly revealed himself men are born totally unable to willingly accept that revelation. Only if God supernaturally and irresistibly intervenes to enable man to respond will they be able to do so.
Me: The second statement contradicts the first.
You: That is completely unbiblical, just read the first statement again (while ignoring the second one) and that proves men are without excuse.
I'm sorry, I thought you said you believed that man is born totally depraved, but I guess I was wrong.
actually it doesn't, but let's get back to what you said.
You: That is completely unbiblical, just read the first statement again (while ignoring the second one) and that proves men are without excuse.[/QUOTE]
We are dealing with your excuse argument and that alone. You are making an argument that is against Scripture. It's sad that you won't admit to it when called out on it. Instead, you want to turn the tables on me.
The Bible: man is without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself through creation
You: man has an excuse because of his sinful nature despite the fact God has clearly revealed himself through creation.
So the problem is that you ave made a statement about giving man an excuse when that's no excuse at all according to the Bible. You just don't have the decency to admit it. We can discuss the Bible and see if what I'm saying about man's depravity is true, but you keep wanting to use your unbiblical(and actually contradicting the Bible) excuse argument.
in other words, I'm willing to discuss the Bible and see what the Bible says without side arguments that cannot be backuped with Scripture. We can see what the Bible says about depravity, but I'm not going to do that with someone that won't use the Scripture and prefers "excuse" arguments.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I've explained to you many times that I affirm Original Sin but deny the part of Calvinism's doctrine which suggest men are born unable to willingly come to Christ even when invited to do so by God. I believe God's revelations are more powerful than man's fallen nature.
Which is an argument against the claims of Calvinism, not the claims of Romans 1, as you mistakenly presume upon my argument over and over again.
Question begging, by assuming Calvinism is scriptural, the very point up for debate. Again, this is lowest form of debate and should be avoided as it is circular and fruitless. The only thing lower is ad hominem, oh wait, you went there too...
:tear:
This is over. I choose not to engage in fallacious and circular debates. When you want to discuss my arguments against Calvinism without use of repeated fallacies please let me know.
I've made no mistake. Romans 1 says man is without excuse because God has revealed himself though Scripture. Anything else if false.
I haven't assumed anything. I'm not discussing that view with you right now. You said if my view was true, it would be an excuse. I say, no, even if my view is true it would not be an excuse. Question begging would be if I assumed my view to be true which I've not. I'm simply showing that IF(no question begging with "if) my view is true, it would not be an excuse because God has clearly reveled himself though creation thus making man without excuse(Romans 1)
I haven't used any ad hominem to you.
I've asked for that for a while now.
1. I'm not using any circular debate. Please quote where I ever used a circular argument.
2. I'm not being fallacious at all.
3. I haven't used any ad hominem tactics against you. I said you were wrong because of the Bible, not because of something against you.
Suit yourself, but I haven't used any ad hominem against you. You are saying that man would have* an excuse even though God has clearly revealed himself through creation. You can run away all you want and falsely accuse me, but that doesn't hide what you said. It's obvious you don't want to discuss the Scripture. I've asked repeatedly to discuss the Bible and leave your excuse argument alone to no avail. You refuse and keep using it. I've called you out and will continue to call you out every time I see it. It's unbiblical and it' sad that you would use it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
See your first quote.
You are question begging by assuming Calvinism's claims are consistent with the claims of Romans 1. I'm not arguing against the claims of Romans 1, I'm using the claims of Romans 1 to argue against the claims of Calvinism. And instead of defending the claims of Calvinism, the view I'm arguing against, you defend the claims of Romans 1 as if I disagree with them. That is a classic example of question begging (a circular fallacy.)
What WOULD be a good excuse for an unbeliever that isn't true?
Suggesting I don't have the 'decency' to admit something, as if I'm attempting to deceive is pretty close. I may be accusing you of a fallacy, but I know you are not intending to do so.
See, you are doing it again. I'm not arguing against the claims of Romans 1. I agree with Romans 1. I agree that men are without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself through creation. My argument is against Calvinism's claims, not Paul's. You can defend the claims of Calvinism in light of Romans 1 and actually engage me in a debate, or you can continue by yourself in this circular fallacy.
Ad Hominem. Choosing not to engage in circular fallacy is not 'running.' And accusing me of not wanting to discuss scripture because I disagree with your interpretation of it is more of the same and only further justifies my decision to discontinue this discussion.
Do a search and you will see that my "excuse argument," originally started with Romans 1. You seem to think you introduced Romans 1 to the argument, but you didn't. I started with the claims of Romans 1 to bring the argument against the claims of Calvinism. You refuse to deal with the claims of Calvinism because I think you know where they lead. The fact that you never answer the question, "Enough for what?" kind of proves that point.
Just to make some clarify comment on one point
the debate we are engaging is if my view is true, then it would be an excuse. We are not arguing if my view is correct. If we were, then you would be correct.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Right, my argument is: If the claims of Calvinism are true, then men would have an excuse and Romans 1 would be contradicted (for the reasons previously stated)
My argument is not: If the claims of Romans 1 and Calvinism is true, then men would have an excuse.
Make sense?
Yes makes perfect sense. And my argument is, if the claims of Calvinism are true, then men would not have an excuse.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
But you are not using the claims of Calvinism to support your position that men are without excuse, instead you are only using the claims of Paul in Romans 1. See the difference?
It would be like if you were arguing against my view by saying, "Clearly people are predestined to adoption as taught in Eph. 1. But you view doesn't support that scripture." And I replied saying, "People are predestined to adoption. We know that is true because of what Paul teaches in Eph. 1."
You would say, "I know, that is what I said, but your view doesn't support that teaching in Eph. 1." And I said, "Yes it does." And you said, "No, it doesn't."
That is a circular argument. Why? Because I'm not explaining to you how my claims match up with the claims of Paul in Eph 1. For my argument to be valid, I'd need to explain that in my view Paul is speaking of believers being predestined to be adopted, not preselected lost individuals being individually predestined to believe and thus be adopted. That would be an argument because I would explain HOW my claims match up with the claims of the scripture. You have yet to do that in regard to your claims and Paul's claims in Romans 1, IMO.
You started to when you argued "God did enough," but you never told us "Enough for what?"
No difference.....
Paul equals Calvinist:thumbs::thumbs:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Thank you Icon for aptly illustrating the circular fallacy of question beggars everywhere for you are most certainly their poster child. :smilewinkgrin:
no problem....just did not want to see you remain confused on this:thumbs::love2::wavey:
