Exactly, White has explained this many times. The foul language used by atheist and others forced him to disable comments. But this will fall on deaf ears because some on here think its because White is scared of debating. Amazing:BangHead:
-
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!
James White Responds To Dr Jerry Walls
- Thread starter DrJamesAch
- Start date
Exactly, White has explained this many times. The foul language used by atheist and others forced him to disable comments. But this will fall on deaf ears because some on here think its because White is scared of debating. Amazing:BangHead:
preacher4truth
Active Member
Concise and accurate. :thumbsup:
preacher4truth
Active Member
Exactly. The detractors consider this a victory for themselves when there is absolutely no substance, rhyme nor reason to celebrate. Yet celebrate they will which is status quo for them and those of their ilk.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
No Calvinist here...or apparently in the Realm of Theology writ-large has addressed Walls's actual argument at all. White didn't, nor does anyone here.
I would LOVE for a debate to develop based upon the propositions which Walls develops in his argument. But no Calvinist has addressed them.
Calvinists on B.B. who would (on the one hand) disagree with Pink's conclusions about God's love simultaneously say nothing about the inconsistency within the Calvinist schema about whether God does indeed "LOVE" mankind at all.
Pink clearly says "no":........(he's right)
Average Calvie here (and Calvies like Pipe)r say "yes"......(they're wrong)
No Calvinist is willing to address this glaring inconsistency withing their system, because if they did.......it would force them to address Walls's argument head on. No one has done so thus far.
I would LOVE for a debate to develop based upon the propositions which Walls develops in his argument. But no Calvinist has addressed them.
Calvinists on B.B. who would (on the one hand) disagree with Pink's conclusions about God's love simultaneously say nothing about the inconsistency within the Calvinist schema about whether God does indeed "LOVE" mankind at all.
Pink clearly says "no":........(he's right)
Average Calvie here (and Calvies like Pipe)r say "yes"......(they're wrong)
No Calvinist is willing to address this glaring inconsistency withing their system, because if they did.......it would force them to address Walls's argument head on. No one has done so thus far.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
He never addressed Walls's arguments. He can't make "short-work" of an argument he never addressed. And he never addressed Walls's argument at all.
He yacked about it............but he never falsified his premises. There's a difference, and frankly, White is merely appealing to the feeble-minded with this arrogant drivel. He did not, in any way, attempt to engage Walls's propositions at all. He sounded like a middle-school girl getting huffy and dismissive. But he said nothing relevant to the discussion......he avoided it every time.
If you can't see that....than frankly, I pity your family.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Quoting the article you post:
Here is "Dr." White condemning the use of a "guilt by association" "well-poisoning" and then employing it literally 2 paragraphs earlier:
3) Then we come to a sub section titled "Other Issues We Have With White." Oh goodie! Now we start into the "let's create all sorts of associations and not bother to establish meaningful links" conspiratorialist thinking that we are running into with Chris Pinto as well. It works like this: "Minnesota recently approved gay marriage. James White was born in Minnesota. Therefore James White approves gay marriage." That kind of thinking (though, normally, there are as many as five steps to the argument!).
Here....he's decrying well-poisoning..........While simultaneously implying that an entire 5-STEP argument is so clearly too sophisticated for Plebians like us to comprehend....:sleep:.........I've seen as many as 24-steps to such arguments but, if White thinks that a 5-step argument is incomprehensibly sophisticated...than the good "Dr." is an amateur.
But here...he uses the same thing only 2 paragraphs earlier:
. Of course, this is a KJV Only site, and KJV Onlyism produces the most wide-eyed forms of vitriol and slander on the Internet, so we should not be overly surprised.
Anyone catch that???
White spends his time veritably insulting your intelligence.....................and you love him for it.....:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently you haven't listened to the latest Dividing Line where White addresses the Pink quote. He actually asks a question I never hear the anti Calvinist answer, does God love everyone in exactly the same way? Did God love the Babylonians in the same way He loved Israel? Does God try to save everyone equally? Did God create humans with the knowledge they would reject Him and spend eternity in Hell? Have at it Inspector.
I was speaking about Ach's pathetic attack on his wrong doing christians site/blog whatever it is.....I do not see walls mounting much of any significant argument at all.
I have addressed the issue many times...the love of God is only found in Christ...that is where scripture says it is....
In Christ, not apart from it.
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
SolaSaint
Well-Known Member
Not meaning to distract from the OP but isn't this issue considered the civil war within Christianity? If so and I think it is, won't we all be sitting at Jesus feet in Heaven one day laughing over our silliness in this debate? Didn't God tell us in Scripture many times that we will not understand all there is and that much is a mystery? I think we all agree God does the saving, so lets not throw rocks when we think our methods are the only truth. God will use whatever He wants to bring about His will.
Nice human definition, now prove it from scripture. Especially that "true flourishing" part.
The key phrase is "that definition", you cannot assume it you must prove it from scripture.
As White pointed out, you do not allow God to have distinguishing loves, yet His creation does.
As soon as you show me where "true flourishing" is found in scripture. If you can't, then take your own advice.
Very good, your not an open theist. So God created billions of people knowing they would spend eternity in hell.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Do you not understand that love IS a word, and since it is in fact, a word, it has DOES have a definition. Love BY DEFINITION is desiring the good of others. It's the Hebrew definition (ahava) as well as Greek, and every other language in the world. In Leviticus 19:18, the Scripture says "love they neighbor as thyself". Since I desire even MY OWN true flourishing, to love my neighbor as myself is to want to see my neighbor's happiness and success. The very fact that marketing by nature is man's attempt to develop products that assist in making OTHERS lives easier shows that man by nature understands what the meaning of love is. Men also by nature have a general sense of moral obligation and a general sense of repugnance against the maltreatment of others. It's enough that apologists call it the axiological argument against atheism.
"No man hath ever yet hated his own flesh but NOURISHETH it and CHERISHETH it" Eph 5:29. And this verse is in the context of how a husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church.
"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." Jeremiah 29:11
It's like telling your wife, "Honey I really love you , but I don't want you to succeed or desire your true flourishing".
Love either means to love or it does not. I may treat my wife differently then I treat my child in the sense that I am intimate with my wife but not my child, but does that imply that the core value of love is altered because the kind of attention and affection I display is different?
Answered above, but you can't prove from Scripture that is does NOT mean that. In fact, since Walls, Jovert and others have presented what is the commonly held view, and only Calvinists digress, the burden of proof is on the Calvinist to show that the definition of love is different from the definitions offered by other believers, and the common sense, commonly held definition.
White never himself proved a difference. And neither have you. Calvinism has invented its own version of what love is that defies common sense, common usage, and common evidence of its practice in all cultures at all times and places among heathen and saved alike. And if you would have listened to Walls presentation, you would have heard how Walls proves that his definition was correct.
Show me supralapsarian or infralapsarian in the Bible. Show me effectual call. Show me preterition. Show me the word BIBLE in the Bible. Don't be so petty.
Even Calvinists in defining a lesser love say that God sends rain on the just and the unjust as proof. Now why would God send rain on a sinners field that He didn't want to see GROW. Even the "lesser" view proposed by Calvinism stills shows that God desires their flourishing, Calvinists just bypass that obvious point.
This doesn't sound like you even know what Open Theism is. Open Theism proposes that God DOES NOT know the future, not that He knew what would or could have happened and then permitted it. Your accusation of Open Theism is backwards.
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:
You are evil. Your infantile rant is so much like HOS. He was finally banned for his sinful statements regarding R.C.Sproul. I do not think HOS is your brother-in-law --you're him. You are dishonest among other things.
DrJamesAch
New Member
So Baptistboard is nothing more than a place for you to hash out your differences with Calvinism and James White?
Some people think they will get notoriety by mentioning a well known person and offering a critical comment about them.Most everyone see's through it right away.