Dishonest Debate Tactic

[The Biblicist]

Here is what you said:

The Biblicist said: ↑

You an Darrell have a man made doctrine you must defend regardless of what you have to do with and to scripture to do it. End of story.

Nothing in this statement is an attack on your person but an attack on your doctrine.

Who are you to say my doctrine is man-made? lol

Another example of ridicule ("lol") in a clear context where you do not think anything I said was humorous. This is a debate forum or don't you realize that? I have that right to condemn any doctrine on this forum as error if I believe it is error just as you have that right and YOU HAVE MADE THIS VERY CLAIM with regard to my doctrine many times. Practice what you preach. If you think it is wrong for me to condemn your doctrine as error then don't condemn my doctrine as error and your record is full of such condemnations.

I'm not the one teaching the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is "the public accreditation of the administration of the Church."

Here is a perfect example of what I mean! You don't practice what you preach. This statement is a clear inference that you are claiming I am teaching a false doctrine and yet you ask "who are you to say my doctrine is man-made."

Secondly...this is nothing more than back-biting slander. You assume your position is correct, and it has been shown on several occasions your doctrine is contradictory to itself.

I have the right to express my opinion about any doctrine that come on this forum. Sorry, but what you teach is not exempt from cricticism or condemnation. If you are that sensitive you don't need to be on this forum.

What error is it that you think I should admit to? I should admit my doctrine is man-made? lol

Another example of insincere humor, just ridicule ("lol").

Well, at least you're calling me a liar to my face.

I am not calling you a liar. I believe you are very sincere in your beliefs but sincerely wrong. You do not teach the Biblical doctrine but what you teach in reality denies the Biblical doctrine. If that is calling you a liar then so be it.

Actually, I would prefer to let others here think about what you are saying, and again thank you for the OP. Not often we get handed on a silver platter someone exposing themselves.

Amen to that!

 

[Darrell C]

Nothing in this statement is an attack on your person but an attack on your doctrine.



Another example of ridicule ("lol") in a clear context where you do not think anything I said was humorous. This is a debate forum or don't you realize that? I have that right to condemn any doctrine on this forum as error if I believe it is error just as you have that right and YOU HAVE MADE THIS VERY CLAIM with regard to my doctrine many times. Practice what you preach. If you think it is wrong for me to condemn your doctrine as error then don't condemn my doctrine as error and your record is full of such condemnations.



Here is a perfect example of what I mean! You don't practice what you preach. This statement is a clear inference that you are claiming I am teaching a false doctrine and yet you ask "who are you to say my doctrine is man-made."



I have the right to express my opinion about any doctrine that come on this forum. Sorry, but what you teach is not exempt from cricticism or condemnation. If you are that sensitive you don't need to be on this forum.




Another example of insincere humor, just ridicule ("lol").



I am not calling you a liar. I believe you are very sincere in your beliefs but sincerely wrong. You do not teach the Biblical doctrine but what you teach in reality denies the Biblical doctrine. If that is calling you a liar then so be it.







Amen to that!

You're not calling me a liar? Are you going to say you did not have me in mind when you created this thread?

Be honest.

You do not see a correlation between being a liar and conveying evil as mentioned in your OP...and our own discussions?

Simply amazing, Biblicist, how you try to rationalize anything that makes you look bad. You really need to work on that.

Probably best for me to refrain from talking with you anymore at this time, because I can see you are not at a point where you can set your emotion to the side for the sake of Doctrinal Discussion.

So go ahead, start threads intended to smear those you don't like. With me, you will have numerous allies.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

You're not calling me a liar? Are you going to say you did not have me in mind when you created this thread?

Be honest.

You do not see a correlation between being a liar and conveying evil as mentioned in your OP...and our own discussions?

Simply amazing, Biblicist, how you try to rationalize anything that makes you look bad. You really need to work on that.

Probably best for me to refrain from talking with you anymore at this time, because I can see you are not at a point where you can set your emotion to the side for the sake of Doctrinal Discussion.

So go ahead, start threads intended to smear those you don't like. With me, you will have numerous allies.


God bless.

Of course I had you and some others in mind when I introduced this thread but in order to avoid personalizing it, I dealt with it abstractly. My "emotion" has nothing to do with this. I simply like honest debate without constant ridicule, diversive tactics, circular reasoning, insults which characterize your posts. If you can't refrain from such tactics then please do remove yourself.

 

[HankD]

Please, no one is perfect.
Honesty is a subjective machination in the heart of each one of us.
Yes others can see it better than ourselves if we are being dishonest.
BUT, we can be unaware.

Gentle?

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

OK Biblicist was trying to be gentle but it did grate on the souls of some.

I've been guilty of unaware dishonesty, I can handle gentle rebuke. Anyone else?

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

Of course I had you and some others in mind when I introduced this thread but in order to avoid personalizing it, I dealt with it abstractly. My "emotion" has nothing to do with this. I simply like honest debate without constant ridicule, diversive tactics, circular reasoning, insults which characterize your posts. If you can't refrain from such tactics the please do remove yourself.

But you didn't mind personalizing it in the other thread.

Really restraining myself to throw in a lol, don't want you to think I don't find that hilarious...

How about...





Both represent the same thing.

If you want it to be honest, then quote me denying the Old Testament Saint was justified. And then explain how I can possibly be teaching that when I have several times pointed out their perfection:


Hebrews 12:18-24

King James Version (KJV)


18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


So...show you are sincere and quote me saying Old Testament Saints were not justified.

That's all you have to do.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Please, no one is perfect.

Sorry, Hank, but you are wrong: every born again believer is perfect:


Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


The problem is that you are imposing a modern understanding of a word used to translate the Greek, thus, you impose a perfection which is not the Biblical Perfection that is in view in regards to the content of the discussion/s I have had with Biblicist.

I am not speaking of the modern connotation which suggests believers are sinless, or do no wrong, but referring to the position of the believer from an eternal perspective in relation to Eternal Redemption.

The simple teaching that would have been understood by the First Century audience was that believers were not made complete under the Law, but are made complete through Christ and the New Covenant.

If you want to say that you are not perfect, then you would have to ascribe legitimacy to sacrificial offerings that are not the Offering of Christ.

And I know you well enough to know you do not.

And this is what I mean about dishonesty in regards to debate. You see, I don't assume that Biblicist is completely dishonest about certain issues, but believe he simply is not capable of understanding this at this time. As far as making public statements that I deny Old Testament Saints were justified, or even saved for that matter...is open dishonesty, because I have addressed these false charges many times.

The burden is on him to quote me from the Public Record saying this, or, he is shown to be dishonest in the arguments he has presented, which goes back to the OP, showing hypocrisy, which shows that the premise of the OP is false, as I have said already.

Some just have a talent for creating threads and single-handedly dismantling the very argument they present.

And the bottom line...this seems to be a matter of arguing just for the sake of argument.

I can say with certainty that I have never denied the justification of the Old Testament Saint, because it is actually a defense of my own position, that, though justified by God, there was still the need for those justified to be made perfect/complete in Christ.

And that is a point I have presented for several years here, so the Public Record can be consulted to verify consistency on my part.

I have made the simple point for years that it is in error to impose the fulfillment and realization of what was only promise in the Ages prior to this one.

So just so you know, my friend, in my eyes...

...you are perfect.

So is Biblicist.

And whether you guys acknowledge this or not doesn't change the truth of it, lol.




God bless.

 

[HankD]

Oh come on Darrell Be honest! you know I don't mean positional perfection but practical perfection.

If you believe I am perfect ask my wife

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

I've been guilty of unaware dishonesty, I can handle gentle rebuke. Anyone else?

HankD

Yes, I have also been guilty of unaware dishonesty and have been rebuked plenty of times for it. Yes, I can handle gentle rebuke.

 

[HankD]

Yes, I have also been guilty of unaware dishonesty and have been rebuked plenty of times for it. Yes, I can handle gentle rebuke.

Secret - We all have been guilty.

Thanks
HankD

 

[Baptist Believer]

So you think liberals are "fallen human beings?"

All persons who have walked this earth in flesh and blood - save One - has been a fallen version of a human being at one point or another.

People throw labels on others and place them on themselves, but that does not change that fact.

Think about this: you are saying the one that is opposite the "fallen human being" is engaged in malfeasance.

Only someone with severe comprehension issues or someone deliver ably trying to twist words would come to that conclusion.

God bless.

if you are going to make posts like this, I would appreciate it if you would not misuse the name of God as you do it. We all will face judgment for what we say and do (Matthew 12:36, Exodus 20:7).

 

[blessedwife318]

All persons who have walked this earth in flesh and blood - save One - has been a fallen version of a human being at one point or another.

People throw labels on others and place them on themselves, but that does not change that fact.


Only someone with severe comprehension issues or someone deliver ably trying to twist words would come to that conclusion.


if you are going to make posts like this, I would appreciate it if you would not misuse the name of God as you do it. We all will face judgment for what we say and do (Matthew 12:36, Exodus 20:7).

I do believe you have pointed out just what you were referring to in your Original post.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[tyndale1946]

Oh come on Darrell Be honest! you know I don't mean positional perfection but practical perfection.

If you believe I am perfect ask my wife

HankD

Hank old buddy... If she is anything like mine she will whip out a list... You know the one... the honey do list you didn't do... Is that one of them hidden sins?... Brother Glen

 

[HankD]

Hank old buddy... If she is anything like mine she will whip out a list... You know the one... the honey do list you didn't do... Is that one of them hidden sins?... Brother Glen

Yes that's the one (and several others).

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

My wife has a sign: If you ask my husband to do something. He will do it. You don't have to remind him every 6 months! He will do it. Eventually.

 

[Darrell C]

All persons who have walked this earth in flesh and blood - save One - has been a fallen version of a human being at one point or another.

People throw labels on others and place them on themselves, but that does not change that fact.

But...weren't you the one applying labels? lol

Only someone with severe comprehension issues or someone deliver ably trying to twist words would come to that conclusion.

What I said is true. Look at it again.

if you are going to make posts like this, I would appreciate it if you would not misuse the name of God as you do it. We all will face judgment for what we say and do (Matthew 12:36, Exodus 20:7).

I am quite Confident the Lord has no problem with me wishing my blessing on you, my friend.

Perhaps if you read what I said, then look at your own statement in the context you gave it, you will see that the reasoning is sound, and, it was not an attempt to belittle you, simply point out the fallacy of your statement.It's one thing to call a Christian a liberal, quite another to call one a fallen human being.

If you want illogical posts, I can refer you to at least two now that will suit your desire.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Nothing in this statement is an attack on your person but an attack on your doctrine.

Okay, Biblicist, my "man-made" doctrine has nothing to do with me, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Duplicate post.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, Hank, but you are wrong: every born again believer is perfect:

Here is a clear example of a person who is being obviously irrational and unreasonable as it is quite plain what Hank means.

The new birth perfects the "spirit" of man as it is the "spirit" that is born of God (Jn. 3:6) and it is created in "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10)

In addition justification is the sinless perfection of our LEGAL POSITION before God and His Law.

However, Hank was obviously speaking of our yet unglorified PERSON on earth which is not yet freed from the PRESENCE of indwelling sin. Your response proves his point as your response are an excellent illustration of an imperfect flawed human being.

Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The writer is speaking of our LEGAL POSITION or justification here by the atonement made by Christ on the cross or POSITIONAL SANCTIFICATION. All saints from Adam to Pentecost were equally sanctified by faith in this same atonement as "the blood of the everlasting covenant". Abraham is set forth as THE EXAMPLE of this positonal sanctification or the doctine of justification which IS remission of all sins in somuch that there is no future imputation of sin, so that their sins were separated from them insomuch as the east is from the west and so thoroughly remitted that God has cast them into the deepest sea to remember them NO MORE and that is from the old Testament saints perpsective of how thorough and permanent sin has been remitted before the cross.

The problem is that you are imposing a modern understanding of a word used to translate the Greek, thus, you impose a perfection which is not the Biblical Perfection that is in view in regards to the content of the discussion/s I have had with Biblicist.

No, the problem is so obvious that ever reader on this forum can see it but one - YOU! and that problem is YOU - an irrational and unreasonable person who can't see the obvious if it were placed in neon flashing lights in front of your face. EVERYONE on this forum knows what Hank meant but ONE - YOU!

However, this only proves my point about certain people on this forum that like to argue just to argue and it is a waste of time to debate with them because they are irrational and unreasonable and so the only thing to do is to expose and ignore them.

 

[Darrell C]

Here is a clear example of a person who is being obviously irrational and unreasonable as it is quite plain what Hank means.

The new birth perfects the "spirit" of man as it is the "spirit" that is born of God (Jn. 3:6) and it is created in "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10)

In addition justification is the sinless perfection of our LEGAL POSITION before God and His Law.

However, Hank was obviously speaking of our yet unglorified PERSON on earth which is not yet freed from the PRESENCE of indwelling sin. Your response proves his point as your response are an excellent illustration of an imperfect flawed human being.




The writer is speaking of our LEGAL POSITION or justification here by the atonement made by Christ on the cross or POSITIONAL SANCTIFICATION. All saints from Adam to Pentecost were equally sanctified by faith in this same atonement as "the blood of the everlasting covenant". Abraham is set forth as THE EXAMPLE of this positonal sanctification or the doctine of justification which IS remission of all sins in somuch that there is no future imputation of sin, so that their sins were separated from them insomuch as the east is from the west and so thoroughly remitted that God has cast them into the deepest sea to remember them NO MORE and that is from the old Testament saints perpsective of how thorough and permanent sin has been remitted before the cross.




No, the problem is so obvious that ever reader on this forum can see it but one - YOU! and that problem is YOU - an irrational and unreasonable person who can't see the obvious if it were placed in neon flashing lights in front of your face. EVERYONE on this forum knows what Hank meant but ONE - YOU!

However, this only proves my point about certain people on this forum that like to argue just to argue and it is a waste of time to debate with them because they are irrational and unreasonable and so the only thing to do is to expose and ignore them.

Still waiting for that quote of me saying men were not justified in the Old Testament.

If you want to discuss Perfection I suggest you respond to my own address of your erroneous teaching that men are not yet made perfect.

You can find that here.

Perfection is not speaking about glorification. Anyone familiar with Hebrews...knows that.

And this is just one element of the discussion we have been having, one which you need to acquaint yourself.

And just to reiterate one argument presented to you on numerous occasions, we are not saved any more than the Old Testament Saint that did not receive the Eternal Indwelling Spirit promised, than we will be "more saved" when we are glorified. Salvation is the result of God's Grace, which, for the Old Testament Saint is described as Forbearance, but for us it is...

...finished.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Still waiting for that quote of me saying men were not justified in the Old Testament.

If you want to discuss Perfection I suggest you respond to my own address of your erroneous teaching that men are not yet made perfect.

Let me break this down for you. For an example, consider a man who says "I believe in the Trinity." There you have his clear statement of faith do you not? or so you think? However, he goes on to say I believe in the Trinue God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" BUT I do not believe Jesus Christ is God.

Now, when I point out he really does not beleive in the Trinity (even though he clearly repeats over and over again that he does) because his explanations are really a repudiation of the trinity and so I accuse of him of not believing in the trinity.

So, what does he do over and over again? He says please provide just ONE QUOTE where I said I do not believe in the trinity! Presto uno - that is YOU! You say you beleive Old Testament saints are justified - there is your clear statement right? But when you define their justification you deny the very inclusive elements necessary for it to be called justifiED - and you deny the very language that demands it is a past tense completed action.Therefore, when I charge you with denying justification to the saints on the basis of its actual meaning, you reply just quote me one time where I say I don't believe OT. saints were justified. What you should be asking is "how does my definitions deny it to be justification?" Then, we would have a real conversation. But that is not how you operate. That represents your kind of debate tactics which are dishonest and deceptive. End of story!

Just like your response to Hank! ridiculous! No, I won't be debating this issue with you or anyone like you - back on ignore.