SDA Hypocrisy?

[Claudia_T]

Any time the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin and/or of something you ought to be doing or not doing and you choose to ignore it, it becomes a salvation issue because you are choosing to rebel against God.

If you do it in ignorance then thats another story.

If you purposely try to avoid the light so that you cause yourself to remain in ignorance then that is still another story.


God doesnt trifle with us...

Jn:12:35: Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Mostly good answers Claudia...

But, are the majority on this board being accused of trying to avoid the light?

You see it's the inclusion of statements like this that make it so hard and so dangerous to agree with you...

Even when you do (occaisionally) make a good point...

SMM

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting DHK,

""And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together "
--This is the day "when the disciples came together" that is when they were accustomed to gather"

That is yout 'translation'.

Fact: They "on the First Day WERE TOGETHER STILL" - NO verb, only the Participle Perf.
Conclusion: They had to have actually 'gathered for Holy Communion', the day before : on the Sabbath Day, therefore.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting DHK,

"This was the day when Paul would come and gather it"

Incorrect; This was NOT the day when Paul would come and gather the collection accumulated over an indefinite period, individually, at home, privately, on the First Day of each week.
Implication : Paul says, money matters done on Sundays! It should not be done on Sabbaths.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting DHK,

"There is no command to keep the Sabbath (in the NT)".

No direct command or Commandment, yes! But much stronger reason for! Such as Jesus revealing and declaring Himself the Lord of the Sabbath Day --- and then PROVING Himselves the LORD of the Sabbath Day by rising from the dead on it: "IN SABBATH'STIME'S FULNESS" opse de sabbatohn epiphohskousehi.

This very SAME reason double-applied in verses 8 and 10 of Hb4, to GROUND "a keeping of the Sabbath Day VALID for the People of God" in verse 9. The what about the special and specific Sabbath-ministries of Jesus; and the Apostles' Sabbaths' meetings; and Paul's declaration on the very same grounds of Jesus' resurrection: "Let nobody judge you where you feast your Sabbath" (freely rendered to the essence of the text).???

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
Eric,

I dont understand that since in Genesis 2 it says God made the seventh day Sabbath... so they had to keep that as one of the laws, right?

It was part of God's law before Sinai...

see:

Exodus 16:4, 27-29

Here you see another one. SDA's recognising God's Law before the Law; but show them God's LAW AFTER the Law, and they think you're crazy.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting Bob Ryan,

#1. GOD says REMEMBER
#2. GOD says "FOR IN SIX days GOD CREATED.." "

who has just quoted Ex20:

""11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

I and Bob had LENGTHY discussions on this one. It illustrates Bob's 'Sola Scriptura', perfectly.

Till today he persists OMITTING what doesn's suit him, and makes of the Fourth Commandment a creation- and work commandment, instead of a rest-Commandment. I haven't seen him ONCE taking notice of the nearest and first reason for the Sabbath Commandment, which says that BECAUSE God RESTED on the Seventh Day, THEREFORE the People of God (Israel of all ages) are obliged to consider the fact and should also rest on that day. So Bobryan misses the great truth the Sabbath is a Salvation-Institution first of all before it is a creation- or a work-Commandmnet.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Then they - the SDA's - say the Sabbath Commandment is not a 'symbolic' (I would have said, 'eschatologicl') Commandment or Law!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Claudia_T:
Eric,

I dont understand that since in Genesis 2 it says God made the seventh day Sabbath... so they had to keep that as one of the laws, right?

It was part of God's law before Sinai...

see:

Exodus 16:4, 27-29

Here you see another one. SDA's recognising God's Law before the Law; but show them God's LAW AFTER the Law, and they think you're crazy. </font>[/QUOTE]. . . and call you a New Ager and witchcrafts guru

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting Claudia,

"If you purposely try to avoid the light so that you cause yourself to remain in ignorance ..."

What is 'the light'? Jesus said: "I am the light".

Now I have been trying for long now to show the Adventists Jesus Christ is the Light also of the Sabbath Commandment and Day by being Himself the LAW for His People of that Commandment and Day. One might think they would eagerly grasp at that firm foundation; but no, it is always back to the Jews' and Judaism'e reasons and motivations and sense of the Sabbath Commandment and its Day.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:

I have been saying that as those who are supposed to care about things like "Sola Scriptura" it is much better to make a bible point and then focus on it long enough to fully explore it - fully explain how your view stands up to exegetical review.

I have been arguing that the opposite of this is "simply clinging to man made tradition".
Bob

Bob,
In reading these posts, I conclude that you have abondoned sola scriptura and have appealed to tradtion in its place. Eric has given you Scripture, and so have I. Though you have not directly said so you have given us the standard SDA traditional doctrine. It is an appeal to your tradition, not to Scripture. You claim adherence to the Sabbath is a necessity without Scriptural support. You cannot support your positon with Scripture.
1. There is no command anywhere in Scripture before Sinai for man to keep the Sabbath Day.
2. The only command to keep the Sabbath Day was given at Sinai to the Jews in the Ten Commandments.
3. That Command (to keep the Sabbath) was made more specific in Exodus 31, where the Lord God Jehovah specifically makes the Sabbath a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel and her generations forever. Does God renege on His promises? Read Numbers 23:19
It forever will be a sign between Jehovah and Israel. You have yet to explain this fact.
4. The Isaiah 66 passage refers to a future time when Christ comes for the Jews, at which time "all Israel shall be saved." The covenant will be fulfilled at that time, and the Sabbath reinstituted. This is the Millennial Kingdom. Yes, all mankind will serve the Lord Jesus Christ (from Sabbath to Sabbath) as Christ rules from his throne in Jerusalem. At that time "all mankind" will ocme and worship Christ. But that does not happen today, does it? What is your answer to this Bob? Don't give me what John saw in Revelation. That has no bearing on what is happening now.
5. Where in any New Testament passage is there any command to keep the Sabbath? There isn't any clear command is there?
6. In fact since there is clear example in passages as Acts 20:7 when believers met on the first day of the week, Sunday, that your appeal is more to tradition, not to Scripture. You have not used sola scriptura in this debate.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Bob you have been unable to give a Scriptural answer to each of these points. That is why I say that your appeal is to tradition--the tradition of the SDA. Your premise is on faulty reasoning of the Scripture as Eric has pointed out many times.
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
And now for some accuracy.

#1. The C Vs A thread was closed because people were getting far too far from scripture and it had become all about the kind of "you are calling me a lawbreaker EVEN if you don't say it" mud slinging thing.

#2. The scenarios I gave included BOTH an Arminian future scenario AND a Calvinist one. The idea was for Calvinists to USE the Arminian principles to accurately formulate the comparable Arminian future scenario as I had accurately used the Calvinist principles to predict the Calvinist future scenario.

When they failed to do so - I handed the Arminian future scenario to them - grattis.

BOTH scenarios dealt with a loving parent (a saint) going to heaven (A Calvinist in the CAlvinist scenario and an Arminian in the Arminian scenario) and then finding that a precious child was in torment. BOTH the Arminian AND the Calvinist future scenario had the SAME conditions.

(Eric seems to be bent on fact-wrenching for some innexplicable reason. Maybe this SDA topic has gone to far with him.)

Part of that argument also required that Calvinsts actually IDENTIFY any point in my scenario that WAS NOT based solidly on WELL published public statements verbatim from Calvinists to establish the scenario. This included statments from Johnathan Edwards for example.

That stated purpose was to SHOW that 4 and 5 point Calvinism "required" a certaini heartless disregard for the lost because in those systems "Limited Atonement" means that God arbitrarily selects a FEW to actually love and Die for as opposed to "God so Loved the World that he GAVE".

Calvinists were often quoted in their responses to that "Scenario" by saying that the Arminian scenario makes God look weak and wimpy while their version as described by Me made Him look Sovereign and showed that He really did not need to care about anyone if He did not graciously choose to. That is one you got a pro-Johnathan Edwards Calvinist on the line.

Eric's "recast above" can only be supported in this one area - those 4 and 5 point Calvinists that had not gone so far as to run off the cliff with Johnathan Edwards would at times admit that this view of the innevitable Calvinist future caused them some discomfort since they knew that the principles used there -- are in fact pure Calvinism and the "result" was something unpleasant even for them!!

In Christ,

Bob

My point was that you keep repeating the same things, and it didn't convince anyone, but it dod become annoying, and did not contribute to the discussion after awhile. Calvinists are not fazed by emotive scenarios of hell. If you debate against them, you should know that. They believe God gets "glory" from people being in Hell, and we were all set for Hell, and God rescued some of us, and passes over the rest. So if a person's child is in Hell, it is all for God's glory, and good. No amount of repeating that "scenario" will convince them otuerwise, but you kept doing it.

Likewise now, you keep repeating the same arguments on the sabbath, yet it has all been answered.

 

[Claudia_T]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Mostly good answers Claudia...

But, are the majority on this board being accused of trying to avoid the light?

You see it's the inclusion of statements like this that make it so hard and so dangerous to agree with you...

Even when you do (occaisionally) make a good point...

SMM

Gee, thanks.

 

[Claudia_T]

Well, I feel like Im in an Encounter Group.

Personally just from observation, I think that you guys just plain dont know how to answer to most of the points that BobRyan says to you. So you are turning everything around on him to try and make him look like "the bad guy".


and so "Let's all do an Encounter Session with Bob and break the news to him that he is just too agressive in his debate techniques".

 

[Eric B]

I answer all of his points, but then it gets tiring when you just get something like "you're dodging the question so you don't have to honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day Memorial of Creation" thrown in your face everytime.

 

[BobRyan]

My point was that you keep repeating the same things, and it didn't convince anyone, but it dod become annoying, and did not contribute to the discussion after awhile. Calvinists are not fazed by emotive scenarios of hell. If you debate against them, you should know that. They believe God gets "glory" from people being in

Hell, and we were all set for Hell, and God rescued some of us, and passes over the rest. So if a person's child is in Hell, it is all for God's glory, and good. No amount of repeating that "scenario" will convince them otuerwise, but you kept doing it.

Likewise now, you keep repeating the same arguments on the sabbath, yet it has all been answered.

I notice that when your argument fails you simply "claim victory and move on" Eric. I will grant you that the Calvinists tried that same tactic.

But here is the thing - when you fail to respond to the point - then "the point remains". And when that happens it is my great pleasure to keep "pointing it out" just as many times as those opposed to that point of scripture find that they must fail to respond by actually providing a compelling argument. When they continue to present failed arguments that simply "gloss over inconvenient facts" as you have done in the post above, then it provides the open door to "emphasize the point that remains".

You see - when you respond like that - it is only of value to those who already agree with you. Whereas pointing out the failed argument that you are making not only appeals to those who "already agree with me" it also appeals to lurkers! Those who read but do not post.

If I wanted to - I to could post failed arguments that "only appeal to those who already agree with me".

I could easily have done that on the C-Vs-A board and I could easily do it here.

But that tactic is pointless Eric. I suggest another approach!

In the case of C-Vs-A the "inconvenient detail" you are forced to gloss over is that BOTH the Arminian AND the Calvinist scenarios were presented! You gloss over the fact that numerous sola-scriptura arguments were posted by me on that board. You gloss over the fact that the "salient point" of the "scenarios" was to PROVE that GIVEN a scenario where one can not easily AFFORD the heartless disconcern of the lost that 4 and 5pt Calvinism REQUIRES - the response is precisely what we would expect!!

I picked the parent and the loved one - for precisely that reason! I used it in BOTH the Calvinist AND the Arminian case to show objectivity.

Calvinists went into many twists and turns only to find that each time - a quote from their OWN Calvinist sources were SUPPORTING the Calvinist future scenario "details".

Just as in this case - when you feel free to gloss over details - you are quick to claim success.

In the mean time - the sola scriptura arguments I have given here for Christ the Creator's Holy Day stand - obviously affirmed in scripture.

The point remains. And "yes" I would love to continually point that out UNTIL someone provides a compelling response to challend the point. Simply "Claiming victory anyway" does not actually work in the long run.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now here is a lasting sequence that has stood the test of time "well"

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />DHK
You claim adherence to the Sabbath is a necessity without Scriptural support. You cannot support your positon with Scripture.

The support for Christ the Creator's Holy day that I have shown - comes from scripture alone. It is not that complicated - pretty easy to follow.

#1. Mark 2:27 CHRIST SAID that this day was MADE for MANKIND.

#2. Isaiah 66 God tells us that the SCOPE of the Sabbath is for ALL MANKIND. "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" and the context is the NEW EARTH in Isaiah 66 the same future point in time that John identifies in Rev 21;1-3!

#3. In Exodus 20 God (actually Christ our Creator God) shows us that HIS OWN Holy Day is a memorial of HIS creative act in making mankind - in making our world in SIX literal days.

#4. Christ HIMSELF commands His own followers "IF you LOVE me KEEP my commandments" and this was done PRE-CROSS -- which is before any reasonable argument can attempt to abolish God's Law.

#5 In Rev 12 and 14 we see that POST-Cross the SAINTS are STILL those that are known for the fact that they "keep the Commandments of God".

BTW - you youself admitted that the SCOPE In the OT was "ALL MANKIND" when you admit that your own view of Isaiah 66 though incorrect - still holds to a REAL "ALL MANKIND" intent in that text as spoken by God. In other words exegetically you could not reject the ALL-MANKIND scope stated in the text.

#6. It has been shown from Rom 3:31 that our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW of God - rather than abolishing it"

The idea that thes texts are simply "my tradition" or are not actually the Bible or are not proof that the argument I am making is "sola scriptura" would need to be "proven" defended in "detail" rather than merely "Assumed" without evidence.

BTW - thanks again for that Albert Barnes reference in 1Cor 16. A pure goldmine!

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Now here is a lasting sequence that has stood the test of time "well"

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

DHK
You claim adherence to the Sabbath is a necessity without Scriptural support. You cannot support your positon with Scripture.

The support for Christ the Creator's Holy day that I have shown - comes from scripture alone. It is not that complicated - pretty easy to follow.

#1. Mark 2:27 CHRIST SAID that this day was MADE for MANKIND.</font>

This is your rebuttal to my first point which was:

1. There is no command anywhere in Scripture before Sinai for man to keep the Sabbath Day.

As one can plainly see Mark 2:27 is not a command. There is no imperative there. It is a declarative statement, a statement of information, not a command. It simply says:

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
--In fact, if anything, this verse defeats your position. Jesus is pointing out precisely the reason why his disciples could "break" the Sabbath day. The Sabbath day was made for man. Man was not a slave to the Sabbath. He was not bound to the rules and regulations of it any longer. Christ was the Lord of the Sabbath (vs.28). They had Christ. That is all they needed. He was a fulfillment of the law, which included the Sabbath.
Again, you skirted the issue. You failed to answer my objection. Where in the New Testament does it give any command to keep the Sabbath. You never gave one. There isn't one.

#2. Isaiah 66 God tells us that the SCOPE of the Sabbath is for ALL MANKIND. "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" and the context is the NEW EARTH in Isaiah 66 the same future point in time that John identifies in Rev 21;1-3!

This is your rebuttal to my original question, which was stated as thus:

2. The only command to keep the Sabbath Day was given at Sinai to the Jews in the Ten Commandments.

Again you have failed to answer that I put to you.
Revelation 21:1-3 have nothing to do with this passage in Isaiah 66. It is non sequitor at best, and eisigesis at least.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
--What has this to do with the subject at hand (or the price of tea in China). It is a red herring. We are not speaking of the time when God shall make a new heaven and a new earth. Do you see God doing that now. Let us deal with the present, not the future.
So what does Revelation 21:1-3 have to do with the command given at Mount Sinai, the only place that there was an actual command to keep the Sabbath, and that command was given to the Israelites.
Again, you have skirted the issue. You have not answered the question. You have gone off on other tangents. This has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
BTW, Isa. 66 has nothing to do with my question either. There is no command in Isaiah 66 for us to keep the Sabbath. You have failed on all accounts.

#3. In Exodus 20 God (actually Christ our Creator God) shows us that HIS OWN Holy Day is a memorial of HIS creative act in making mankind - in making our world in SIX literal days.

This is your answer to my question, which was:

3. That Command (to keep the Sabbath) was made more specific in Exodus 31, where the Lord God Jehovah specifically makes the Sabbath a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel and her generations forever. Does God renege on His promises? Read Numbers 23:19

You say that Exodus 20 is a memorial. "It shows us that His own Holy Day is a memorial of His creatice act in making mankind--in making our world in six literal days."
That is all fine and good. But that is not a command to anyone but the Jews. As you admit it is a memorai. A memorial is different than a command. Next weekend is a long weekend. We call it: "Queen Victoria Day," a memorial to the reign of Queen Victoria, who by the way was a Christian. She was the longest reigning monarch that England ever had. Under her reign England prospered greatly. But you don't have to celebrate it if you don't want to. It is a memorial, not a command. In fact many do work on that day. And many others say: "Who is Queen Victoria?" They are just glad for a day off work. It is a memorial, not a command.

Again you avoided my question. You went back to Exodus 20 instead of Exodus 31 where my question was from. Exodus 31 is where Jehovah ratified his covenant with the nation of Israel and her generations forever, using the sign of the Sabbath for that ratification. It was for the Jews only. But you ignored that.

#4. Christ HIMSELF commands His own followers "IF you LOVE me KEEP my commandments" and this was done PRE-CROSS -- which is before any reasonable argument can attempt to abolish God's Law.

This is your answer to my question #4 which was:

4. The Isaiah 66 passage refers to a future time when Christ comes for the Jews, at which time "all Israel shall be saved." The covenant will be fulfilled at that time, and the Sabbath reinstituted. This is the Millennial Kingdom. Yes, all mankind will serve the Lord Jesus Christ (from Sabbath to Sabbath) as Christ rules from his throne in Jerusalem. At that time "all mankind" will ocme and worship Christ. But that does not happen today, does it? What is your answer to this Bob? Don't give me what John saw in Revelation. That has no bearing on what is happening now.

What on earth has your answer got to do with this question which deals with a period of time which is still in the future.
All that you replied is: "IF you LOVE me KEEP my commandments" and this was done PRE-CROSS."
So what! Christ makes no reference to the Ten Commandments, and especially not the Sabbath. They were not "His Commandments." His commandments were:
Love one another as you have loved me.
Love your enemies,
Pray for them that persecute you.
...But I say unto you that whosoever looketh upon a woman with her in his heart hath already committed adultery.
If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.

These were only some of the many commands of Christ. There are many more: "Like pray without ceasing." These are the commands of Christ. He in no way referred to OT law. Again you have skirted the issue, and not given a Scriptural answer to the question that I have asked you.

#5 In Rev 12 and 14 we see that POST-Cross the SAINTS are STILL those that are known for the fact that they "keep the Commandments of God".

This is your answer to my question:

5. Where in any New Testament passage is there any command to keep the Sabbath? There isn't any clear command is there?

Again you skirt the question I ask you. You refer to Rev.12 and 14, not specific references. You say that they refer to "keeping the commandments of God." But what are the commandments of God? Again those commandments of God are no doubt the New Testament commands set forth by Christ Himself, and have nothing to do with the Ten Commands or the Sabbath. You have no proof of this. And have failed to answer my question directly: "Where in the NT is there any passage, any command to keep the sabbath? There isn't any clear command is there? Why can't you just answer the question?

BTW - you youself admitted that the SCOPE In the OT was "ALL MANKIND" when you admit that your own view of Isaiah 66 though incorrect - still holds to a REAL "ALL MANKIND" intent in that text as spoken by God. In other words exegetically you could not reject the ALL-MANKIND scope stated in the text.

--You fail to see that "all mankind" refers to a future event and not now. If you can show me that all mankind is NOW worshiping Christ who is NOW sitting on his throne, then I will believe you. Do the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, and cults of today all worshiop Christ? And all from sabbath to sabbath. It doesn't take place today. How then do you say it does. It is a future event. How do you account for this?

#6. It has been shown from Rom 3:31 that our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW of God - rather than abolishing it"

The idea that thes texts are simply "my tradition" or are not actually the Bible or are not proof that the argument I am making is "sola scriptura" would need to be "proven" defended in "detail" rather than merely "Assumed" without evidence.

BTW - thanks again for that Albert Barnes reference in 1Cor 16. A pure goldmine!

The real question was this:

6. In fact since there is clear example in passages as Acts 20:7 when believers met on the first day of the week, Sunday, that your appeal is more to tradition, not to Scripture. You have not used sola scriptura in this debate.

Again you ignore a straightforward answer to the question posed to you. The question centered around Acts 20:7 which you conveniently ignored and brought in some red herrings instead. The believers mentioned in Acts 20:7 met on the first day of the week. Instead of giving an answer from Scripture, you have resorted to tradition, the tradition of the SDA.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb] Now here is a lasting sequence that has stood the test of time "well"

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

DHK
You claim adherence to the Sabbath is a necessity without Scriptural support. You cannot support your positon with Scripture.

The support for Christ the Creator's Holy day that I have shown - comes from scripture alone. It is not that complicated - pretty easy to follow.

#1. Mark 2:27 CHRIST SAID that this day was MADE for MANKIND.</font>

Originally posted by DHK:
This is your rebuttal to my first point which was:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. There is no command anywhere in Scripture before Sinai for man to keep the Sabbath Day.

</font>[/QUOTE]Actually if you look at the post as quoted - you see that "This is my response to your claim that scripture does not support" Christ the Creator's Holy Day as applying to mankind.

"Sabbath as a necessity" in your words.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

DHK
Notice how #1-3 deal with the Sabbath, and then #4-6 deal with "commandments". Put them all together, and those are our eternal commandments to keep the sabbath. But #1 deals with purpose and not time or scope, but is applied to scope ("all mankind, though "all" is not in there) #2 deals with the future, and I believe was probably conditional anyway. #3 the scope is Israel. #4-6 deal with all people now, but once again, does not mention the sabbath. So you take 3 points dealing with the sabbath, and then add three points dealing with a universal scope and time, and that is supposed to prove that the sabbath is universal and eternal. But the problem is, the points miss each other, because they are not necessarily talking about the same things. It has to be shown FIRST that the sabbath is TODAY apart of the "commandments" we are to keep TODAY, or that simply instituting it at Creation or in the future Kingdom made it binding on all for eternity and just reasserting the same points does not serve of the proof of the assertion.

I notice that when your argument fails you simply "claim victory and move on" Eric. I will grant you that the Calvinists tried that same tactic.

But here is the thing - when you fail to respond to the point - then "the point remains". And when that happens it is my great pleasure to keep "pointing it out" just as many times as those opposed to that point of scripture find that they must fail to respond by actually providing a compelling argument. When they continue to present failed arguments that simply "gloss over inconvenient facts" as you have done in the post above, then it provides the open door to "emphasize the point that remains".

You see - when you respond like that - it is only of value to those who already agree with you. Whereas pointing out the failed argument that you are making not only appeals to those who "already agree with me" it also appeals to lurkers! Those who read but do not post.

If I wanted to - I to could post failed arguments that "only appeal to those who already agree with me".

I could easily have done that on the C-Vs-A board and I could easily do it here.

But that tactic is pointless Eric. I suggest another approach!

In the case of C-Vs-A the "inconvenient detail" you are forced to gloss over is that BOTH the Arminian AND the Calvinist scenarios were presented! You gloss over the fact that numerous sola-scriptura arguments were posted by me on that board. You gloss over the fact that the "salient point" of the "scenarios" was to PROVE that GIVEN a scenario where one can not easily AFFORD the heartless disconcern of the lost that 4 and 5pt Calvinism REQUIRES - the response is precisely what we would expect!!

I picked the parent and the loved one - for precisely that reason! I used it in BOTH the Calvinist AND the Arminian case to show objectivity.

Calvinists went into many twists and turns only to find that each time - a quote from their OWN Calvinist sources were SUPPORTING the Calvinist future scenario "details".

Just as in this case - when you feel free to gloss over details - you are quick to claim success.

In the mean time - the sola scriptura arguments I have given here for Christ the Creator's Holy Day stand - obviously affirmed in scripture.

The point remains. And "yes" I would love to continually point that out UNTIL someone provides a compelling response to challend the point. Simply "Claiming victory anyway" does not actually work in the long run.

But your point DOESN'T remain! We have just given you again the answers to them, and you do not accept them. Only thing is because you do not accept them, you pretend we have not answered the poijnts, and think your case for "the eternal Christ the Creator's Holy Day memorial" stands. You're the one constantly "claiming victory and moving on".

And the point on the C vs A debate was not that you weren't giving the other side, or whatever, but that it was a weak argument that you thought was proving something to them when it wasn't.