Featured Dishonest Debate Tactic

Great. I've already shown you doing this. Does this not apply to you?

Here is another example of dishonest debate tactic which is in fact representative of your complaint in the OP:


The Biblicist said: ↑

God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.

Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...
...until the Cross.
And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed... – Post 157


You post part of what I say and in doing so seek to substantiate the false charge that I teach men were not saved in previous Ages.

Yet when we look at all that I said...

Darrell C said:


God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.

Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...

...until the Cross.

And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed...
...is like saying we are not saved because our flesh has not yet been redeemed.

LINK


God bless.

 

Here is my response:

Still waiting.

Its just another false argument which is all you can supply.

I also said:

That is precisely what I have done.

You know it.

Right. Saying I improperly use terms is "fully admitting I claimed Old Testaments Saints were justified," which is sufficient as an answer to a demand to actually quote me saying that, whether implicit or explicit in nature.

Quote me, Biblicist.

So you say, but because the doctrine is of second consequence to your public image, and you will only address what you want to address, I guess we will never actually know.

So go on with your carnal lectures, Biblicist. Just let me know if you start up with that "The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the public accreditation of the earthly ministry of the Church" again. Feel free to badmouth me, doesn't hurt my feelings.

No, of course not:

I haven't seen Darrell teaching that the coming of the Holy Ghost as promised by God is the empowerment of the Church.

You really are hilarious.


God bless.

 

So quote me denying what is actually meant.

Here is another quote for you:

Your own words.

Isolating the statement and isolating it from the context.

Yet where is the quote of me doing this? Where is the quote of me improperly using Biblical Terms?

All you have is the charge, and you refuse to back it up.

So quote what I said.

Show where I said he was "being justified." That should be easy enough.

Grammatical suicide. I have warmed you about that.

And it is rather humorous to see you ranting, and I am very honored that my debates with you have had such an impact (and hope that in the future this will be profitable for you), but again the irony of your hypocritical OP and seeing you continue to hang yourself is really over the top.

Do you have the courage to actually quote me, or do you really not see the dishonesty and dishonor of simply slandering someone?

Your problem is still the same, you equate Abraham being justified with salvation in Christ.

lol


God bless.

 

Another great example of the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the OP:

You are an embarrassment to Christian Doctrinal Debate.

Its that simple.

If you, or anyone, really cannot understand your typical fashion of debate, you truly have my sympathy. Seriously.


God bless.

 

Actually, you are the one redefining what I say.

I didn't define Abraham's justification to be based on actions/works, James did:


James 2:21-24

King James Version (KJV)


21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


Now, do you really want to talk about justification? That will likely prove to be as embarrassing for you as everything else we have discussed.

Just let me know.


God bless.-

 

I can only make this observation being an administrator slightly larger forum than this one. Debate does not require insults. Debate can be mixed with discussing doctrine. What we do not tolerate is name calling, questioning salvation, using quotes in a false way, or warping Scripture. Anyone is given one warning only. Several posts in this thread would have caught our attention.

 

There used to be a large debate forum in which a Moderator would, if anything even seemed to be personal, come on and say...

Address the Post and not the Poster!

I miss that guy, lol.


God bless.

 

The first thing we need to understand is that James cannot contradict Paul (Romans 3:28; 4:5 etc.). Abraham was justified by God on account of his faith alone in Genesis 15:6. He offered up Isaac in Genesis 22:1ff, around 30 years later. To justify someone means to declare them righteous. God declared Abraham righteous in Genesis 15. His works declared him righteous in Genesis 22.

Abraham, like all born-again believers, was justified in God's eyes by grace alone by faith in Christ alone (John 8:56; Galatians 3:29). But like all born-again believers, his faith did not stay alone (Ephesians 2:10). It issued forth in works of righteousness and obedience which declared him to be what God had declared him to be 30+ years earlier.