Dishonest Debate Tactic

[Darrell C]

So, yes we can consider it a dishonest tactic to jerk a statement out of context in your opponents argument!

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑

Two things:

1. The OP is in error on a number of issues. You can't seriously tell you think that it is a dishonest debate tactic to dismantle an argument by dismantling one of its elements...can you?

Darrel is not accurately portraying the OP in his statement above. Here is what I actually said:

I have noticed the repeated use of a very dishonest debate tactic. The tactic is taking a statement from an opponent and isolating it from the context in which it is found and then proceeding to dismantle it without regard to the actual context it is placed in by their opponent.

So, yes we can consider it a dishonest tactic to jerk a statement out of context in your opponents argument! That is called misrepresentation or lying or transforming your opponents words to say what he never said or meant.

Here is my response:

Great, let's see an example of that.

What I have always noticed in debate is that it doesn't matter how one addresses an issue...nothing is good enough.

So let's see an example.

Still waiting.

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

I also said:

Sometimes, when an antagonist will not answer, it helps to pull issues out as a focus. While that may be inconvenient for some, it hardly falls under a category of evil.

So let's see an example of this "evil." Let's see if the context is lost.

That is precisely what I have done.

You know it.

On the other hand, I fully admitted you claimed Old Testament saints were justified. However, it was your definitions that I stated and debated.

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.

Furthermore, both you and van have misrepresented Paul and James.

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.

So, I have not misrepresented you at all.

No, of course not:

Darrel and Van are attacking the very essence of the Biblical doctrine.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Now, I don't think anyone on this forum had a problem with the analogy I provided. A person claims to believe a certain issue, and says it in the clearest terms. However, when they come to defining precisely what they mean by that claim, it turns out their definitions actually deny it.

So quote me denying what is actually meant.

Here is another quote for you:

Of course, a piecemeal approach is necessary as many posts can be long, but the evil is not the piecemeal approach but with how that statement is treated with regard to its actual context. The evil is not merely isolating the statement, but isolating it from its context when dealing with it.

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.

We are all acquainted with the use of Biblical language but emptied of Biblical content or definition. Darrell says clearly he believes that Abraham was justified by faith but then defines it as "based on" works when Paul says "without works." That is a huge definitional difference. Darrel said that Abraham was "being" justified on the basis of works, plus beliefs, plus faith whereas Paul denies his justification was a incompleted action ("being") but an Aorist tense completed action confined within the limits of his uncircumcised life. Another huge difference.

So quote what I said.

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

Abraham presents the scenario basics of Abraham justified by faith without works as a completed action as the MODEL for "all who are of faith" but Darrel asserts that Abraham's justification is nothing like post-cross justification as he says we were "justified by the blood of Christ" and they were being justified by works, plus beliefs, plus faith whereas Paul claims they are the same model. By the way, Darrel does not define what it means or what he means by "justified by the blood" of Christ.

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.

Again, note there is no tone of ridicule, no personal attacks, no snide remarks that characterize this post.

lol


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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

...there is a difference between Abraham being justified for his faith based on his actions, beliefs, and faith, and one being justified by the Blood of Christ.

Its that simple. - Darrell

I too believe "its that simple". Darrel makes it clear that Abraham was "BEING justified by his faith BASED ON his actions, beliefs, and faith" while Paul says he was justified by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" and it is just that simple.

You did define Abraham's justification as an unfinished ongoing incompleted process ("being" justified) whereas Paul said it was a completed action by using completed action verbs to describe it and by denying it occurred during his life of circumcision but restricting its occurrence as a completed action within his life of uncircumcision

I have noticed the repeated use of a very dishonest debate tactic. The tactic is taking a statement from an opponent and isolating it from the context in which it is found and then proceeding to dismantle it without regard to the actual context it is placed in by their opponent.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

You did define Abrahams justification to be "based on actions (works)" but Paul said "without works."

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.-

 

[The American Dream]

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.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I didn't define Abraham's justification to be based on actions/works, James did:
James 2:21-24
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.

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.