The Called

[glfredrick]

And now Forest has shown us how to erect a strawman...and burn that baby down! Bravo :applause:

How exactly was his post a strawman, other than the fact that you disagree with him?

To be a strawman it has to actually be a fallacy you know; not just something that you find incredulous, such as God actually saving someone by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves.

 

[seekingthetruth]

It has always made me sad that most of the religeous world cuts God short of his power and ability to eternally save those that he wants to save. Most of the believing world will claim that man has to help God, or accept certain things to help them to obtain their eternal salvation. My belief is that God eternally saves us by his grace alone, without the help of man. I am a firm believer that before a person can understand the truth of the gospel, the Holy Spirit has to reveal the truth to them, so I cannot explain any scripture to a persons understanding without God revealing it to them.

Does the Holy Spirit call on you to reveal the truth in a deceitful manner?

John

 

[webdog]

well, glf, ask and ye shall receive...

It has always made me sad that most of the religeous
world cuts God short of his power and ability to
eternally save those that he wants to save. Most of
the believing world will claim that man has to help
God, or accept certain things to help them to obtain
their eternal salvation.

There's your fallacies. Someone actually needs to know what a fallacy is before calling someone out on their use of "strawman", you know.

 

[glfredrick]

well, glf, ask and ye shall receive...

There's your fallacies. Someone actually needs to know what a fallacy is before calling someone out on their use of "strawman", you know.

You have not demonstrated a fallacy. You have demonstrated that you have a difference of opinion as to what it is that God does, but that is not a fallacy. To be a fallacy the statements would have to be untrue, not merely a matter of opinion or interpretation.

For instance, an intentional fallacy, in particular a strawman argument, would be that Webdog is a Calvinist because he reads the Bible and the Bible is Calvinistic in nature.

 

[webdog]

You have not demonstrated a fallacy. You have demonstrated that you have a difference of opinion as to what it is that God does, but that is not a fallacy. To be a fallacy the statements would have to be untrue, not merely a matter of opinion or interpretation.

For instance, an intentional fallacy, in particular a strawman argument, would be that Webdog is a Calvinist because he reads the Bible and the Bible is Calvinistic in nature.

Well, since Scripture never even hints at what Forest stated, in fact confirms the opposite, besides a strawman (his address of his own made up view contrary to the absolute truth of Scripture)), he also made an argument from silence while begging the question. Fallacy is written all over it.

Your own example applies perfectly when you substitute a few words "webdog believes he has to assist God because he doesn't hold to my soteriology which is true".

 

[glfredrick]

Well, since Scripture never even hints at what Forest stated, in fact confirms the opposite, besides a strawman (his address of his own made up view contrary to the absolute truth of Scripture)), he also made an argument from silence while begging the question. Fallacy is written all over it.

Your own example applies perfectly when you substitute a few words "webdog believes he has to assist God because he doesn't hold to my soteriology".

No, webdog believes he has to assist God. Note the period on the end of that sentence. That is why webdog sees a fallacy in the writing of the other man.

 

[webdog]

No, webdog believes he has to assist God. Note the period on the end of that sentence. That is why webdog sees a fallacy in the writing of the other man.

Now you are not making sense as my example was not from first person perspective. You are also delving on semantics instead of the issue. Not interested.

 

[Forest]

well, glf, ask and ye shall receive...

There's your fallacies. Someone actually needs to know what a fallacy is before calling someone out on their use of "strawman", you know.

Webdog, the things that you have in bold lettering are not by beliefs, but what I perceive most children of God think.

 

[Forest]

No, webdog believes he has to assist God. Note the period on the end of that sentence. That is why webdog sees a fallacy in the writing of the other man.

Can you give some scriptures that confirm the opposite of what I have stated?

 

[kyredneck]

It has always made me sad that most of the religeous world cuts God short of his power and ability to eternally save those that he wants to save. Most of the believing world will claim that man has to help God, or accept certain things to help them to obtain their eternal salvation.......

holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power therefore....2 Tim 3:5

It is sad Forest, and they don't see it, in fact they rail against those that do keep thse precious vital truths.

 

[glfredrick]

Can you give some scriptures that confirm the opposite of what I have stated?

Actually, I am agreeing with your statement and I do not believe that there are scriptures that lay out an opposite position without also doing damage to the text by citing it out of context. It is webdog who has the problem with your statement. He calls it a strawman.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is the feminine men who will not stand against trouble.

Interesting....are the effeminate men the majority of the church goers & is there an age ratio?

 

[webdog]

Webdog, the things that you have in bold lettering are not by beliefs, but what I perceive most children of God think.

Now you have cemented its a strawman by your own admission regardless of what glf says. I've never met a true believer that holds to your caricature.

 

[webdog]

Actually, I am agreeing with your statement and I do not believe that there are scriptures that lay out an opposite position without also doing damage to the text by citing it out of context. It is webdog who has the problem with your statement. He calls it a strawman.

Acts 17:26-27 in context by itself refutes forest's caricature of what he "thinks" most believers believe.

 

[glfredrick]

Acts 17:26-27 in context by itself refutes forest's caricature of what he "thinks" most believers believe.

How exactly does a verse written close to 2000 years ago deal with what believers believe today?

 

[webdog]

How exactly does a verse written close to 2000 years ago deal with what believers believe today?

What kind of question is that? Couldn't that same argument be turned around on you? You might want to reconsider the ramifications of such a position, afterall, all of the Bible was penned more than 2k years ago...how does any of it apply to believers?

 

[glfredrick]

What kind of question is that? Couldn't that same argument be turned around on you? You might want to reconsider the ramifications of such a position, afterall, all of the Bible was penned more than 2k years ago...how does any of it apply to believers?

No, and you are jumping on something you don't really want to jump on here. What I asked is HOW can a verse written almost 2000 years ago explain what believers believe TODAY? IF they believe that verse TODAY, then fine, but what if they do not? How can THAT VERSE predict WHAT they believe today?

Make sure you understand the difference of what I am asking and what you are stipulating in calling out a passage in Acts as WHAT BELIEVERS BELIEVE TODAY. They MAY or they MAY NOT. But the VERSE cannot predict that they do as you have suggested.

 

[gb93433]

Interesting....are the effeminate men the majority of the church goers & is there an age ratio?

That is my description of men who will not stand up and be counted as men and name a lie for what it is and call the church to follow Christ in spirit and truth. From what I have read and seen it seems to me that the generation who is in college wants little to do with what they have seen already. It seems to me that a lack of male leadership in churches and in the world is on the increase across our nation. I saw that when I taught high school in 1984.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is my description of men who will not stand up and be counted as men and name a lie for what it is and call the church to follow Christ in spirit and truth. From what I have read and seen it seems to me that the generation who is in college wants little to do with what they have seen already. It seems to me that a lack of male leadership in churches and in the world is on the increase across our nation. I saw that when I taught high school in 1984.

Perhaps its Low T as the commercials suggest & pharmacology can save the day! I think what your saying is more men need to grow a set. Right! I quite agree.

 

[webdog]

No, and you are jumping on something you don't really want to jump on here. What I asked is HOW can a verse written almost 2000 years ago explain what believers believe TODAY? IF they believe that verse TODAY, then fine, but what if they do not? How can THAT VERSE predict WHAT they believe today?

Make sure you understand the difference of what I am asking and what you are stipulating in calling out a passage in Acts as WHAT BELIEVERS BELIEVE TODAY. They MAY or they MAY NOT. But the VERSE cannot predict that they do as you have suggested.

Believers TODAY believe God reaches out to man first, which that verse perfectly proves. I have never come across a true believer in the 33 years I have been one who holds to the caricature presented by forest to which you stated you agreed with whic IS a strawman as forest even admitted to by his comment it was how he saw my view from side.