The nature of Quickening

[The Biblicist]

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers

Precisely what I was attempting to express concerning these definitions by Skandelon. They are "half-truths."

 

[The Biblicist]

Precisely what I was attempting to express concerning these definitions by Skandelon. They are "half-truths."

What I have found over and over again is that Arminians cannot deal with scriptures by sound rules of interpretation and so they always flee when cornered by scriptural facts to philosophical arguments and historical theology.

 

[Skandelon]

Good points. To put it another way, I’d add conclusions are often communicated either euphemistically or dysphemistically which amount to little more than rhetoric regarding the logical truth toward reaching the conclusion.

What stands out to me in Skan’s examples are that:

(A) amounts to a purposefully vague euphemistic “half-truth” which is presenting a claim.

(B) dysphemistically defines the method of the claim (“dogmatic teaching”) and addresses the consequences of that premise while drawing a conclusion upon it which presents a moral dilemma (“negative side”) concerning it or adds some transparency to the vague euphemistic dogma which was presented.

What I see being objected to and avoided by Skan’s opponents is simply his being more complete in defining their positions and exposing the half-truths which are being dogmatically presenting.

Since the purpose of debate should be drawing out the truth in an argument and this begins by examining and defining the terms (claims and issues) it seems to me Skan is on the right path which is to draw conclusions. It is obvious as I watch him time and again have to defend himself from those trying to turn the argument into a personal slugfest rather than allowing him to establish the premises in an argument/debate which can then be shown to come to logically true conclusions who it is that has the proper and ethical objectives in this debate. His opponents constantly squawk about his efforts to “restrict” their claims to their logically true conclusions while he is merely trying to prevent them from question begging on these same issues later- holding them to their logically true (and detrimental) conclusions.

The Determinists typically resort to euphemisms, ambiguity, double speak and phrases like “redemptive love” to smokescreen such issues of either/or Love divinely brought through in creation for all of God’s creatures as per His Omnibenevolent nature.

The problem with Determinists trying to argue while avoiding being pinned down on where their doctrines logically lead is summed up quite nicely by the words of Adrian Rogers:

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers

Well said! :thumbs:

Let him who has ears to hear be so edified.

 

[Benjamin]

What I have found over and over again is that Arminians cannot deal with scriptures by sound rules of interpretation and so they always flee when cornered by scriptural facts to philosophical arguments and historical theology.

I find Calvinist typically can’t follow or deal with a logical thought to its conclusion concerning their supposed rules of scriptural interpretations and when cornered in defense always flee to that they follow the Bible while disclaiming any philosophically reasoning from which they derive their interpretations. IOWs they reason that their systematic theology is void of reasoning and just refer it as scriptural facts.

 

[The Biblicist]

I find Calvinist typically can’t follow or deal with a logical thought to its conclusion concerning their supposed rules of scriptural interpretations

First, the rules of heremeneutics was not written by Calvinists but are based upon common sense rules. I have yet to find one Arminian on this forum that has not violated basic common sense rules of hermeneutics or ignored basic Greek grammar.

and when cornered in defense always flee to that they follow the Bible while disclaiming any philosophically reasoning from which they derive their interpretations.

Philosophy is as diverse and confusing as is historical theology. The Bible explciitly warns agaisnt philsophical reasonings. Arminans cannot base their teachings upon sound principles of hermentics. Not one on this forum has been able to do that. They get cornered and flee to philsophical reasonings i order to overturn sound Biblcial exegesis.

This has occurred with John 6:64-65 which is pivotal to properly understanding and interpreting John 6:44-45 and John 12:32. This has occurred with Romans 8:8-9. This was just recently demonstrated with Jeremiah 9:24 and Romans 5:12-14; Rev. 3:20-21 and etc.[/QUOTE]

 

[Iconoclast]

First, the rules of heremeneutics was not written by Calvinists but are based upon common sense rules. I have yet to find one Arminian on this forum that has not violated basic common sense rules of hermeneutics or ignored basic Greek grammar.





Philosophy is as diverse and confusing as is historical theology. The Bible explciitly warns agaisnt philsophical reasonings. Arminans cannot base their teachings upon sound principles of hermentics. Not one on this forum has been able to do that. They get cornered and flee to philsophical reasonings i order to overturn sound Biblcial exegesis.

This has occurred with John 6:64-65 which is pivotal to properly understanding and interpreting John 6:44-45 and John 12:32. This has occurred with Romans 8:8-9. This was just recently demonstrated with Jeremiah 9:24 and Romans 5:12-14; Rev. 3:20-21 and etc.

[/QUOTE]

yes.....you have seen through this foolishness again.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

conclusions are often communicated either euphemistically or dysphemistically which amount to little more than rhetoric regarding the logical truth toward reaching the conclusion.

indeed:laugh::laugh: