Incorrect. Even if he is right, he would still be begging the question by presuming so. I am making arguments in support of my views, he is presuming them to be in error by calling them "obsessive" and "half-cocked" without any argumentation to back up his presumptions. Thus, he is begging the question.
No, they are in error because they are in error...
My mission is probably no different than yours on this board fredrick, just because I may be more veracious than you doesn't necessarily prove a different intent.
You are wrong. I'm here to interact with brothers and sisters in the Lord, and though I certainly enjoy a good debate, I have no ax to grind nor do I have a published agenda as do you...
http://critiquingcalvinism.blogspot.com/ said:
If you are a Calvinist coming to this blog to debate me and prove me wrong, you are welcome here. However, it has been my experience that people are less than objective and most certainly not teachable while in the midst of a competitive debate. Pride and the overwhelming desire to win, or simply show up your opponent, is almost impossible to avoid. Instead, my desire is to challenge each other to a deeper and more full understanding of our salvation. While many of us may never fully agree, I believe brothers and sisters in Christ can have a civil and meaningful conversation about doctrinal disagreements. Pray that God will bring us clarity and discuss these matters with a Christlike love for each others......ABOUT ME: I am a minister who held to the five points of Calvinism for about 10 years of my life. After much study and prayer I was convinced that Calvinism is not supported by scripture. These are the arguments, objections and explanations as to why I can no longer be a Calvinist.
That begs the question by presuming Calvinism is truth, when in fact my arguments are made to show otherwise. Unless you wish to make a rebuttal of the arguments I've presented or present new arguments against my view then you are offering nothing of value to our discussion. It just becomes a big childish game of "Nu-hu and you too."
A lot of "begging" going on of late, huh? I do not assume Calvinism to be true. I assume that the Scriptures are true, and that Calvinism is one way of seeing those true Scriptures. I do not front my theology first, then bend Scripture to match. I follow Christ and His Word, and then search for a theology that best matches what I find in that Word. In fact, as such, I am an Infralapsarian not a Supralapsarian, because I cannot go as far in my Reformed leanings as do some and be faithful to the Text.
I do see the childish game you mention, however... Probably not quite the same way you see it as you pound post after post in favor of your published agenda. :thumbs:
Prove it. Show me where I've refused to entertain arguments against my position? Now, if you mean that I don't agree with or decline to rebut arguments that is much different, but to charge that I don't even "entertain" them is an unfounded accusation.
That is precisely what I mean. I can't know if you "entertain" them. I can only know what you pick and choose to respond to on this board (while playing one of those "childish games" when others do likewise to you by suggesting that they have no argument if they do not respond).
I distinctly recall giving you a chance to provide a positive response in favor of free will and the limits or lack thereof. You came forward with nothing that added to the thread. I suspect that you did not because you fully realize the ramifications (as did many other free-will people on this board) of your position. We can try again if you like...
