Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What about the Hell Yes people complaining about ad hominemz?
But seriously Major1, you don't seem to grasp what's insulting.
There was no death prior to the Fall of Man…:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 2:17 ........
"…and there was no sin in man until then".
Romans 5:12........
“Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.”
Seriously MMXX.......you seem to be more interested in something said to you than you do the thread itself.
From what I read about your response to "ad hominins", I really do not think you grasp what that means.
* * *
Is this verse the only verse in the NT which addresses the subject of salvation? If there are other verses, and there are, should not the honest inquirer not read every verse which addresses this?MMXX said:* * * 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Lemme guess, just as "in all" can't mean the other "in all" in the same sentence, "many" can't mean the other "many" in the same sentence.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Irrelevant. I am not now in any of those categories. You might try reading those lists and include the adjacent verses. See e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:11, carefully note the tenses of the verbs. You do know what "tenses" are don't you?Have you ever been drunk? If so, do you accept that you will not inherit the kingdom of God?
If you've really never been drunk, then have you ever felt envious or ever revelled?
Irrelevant. I am not now in any of those categories.
What is the topic of this thread? Do you even know? When did the topic change to me?Irrelevant? You quote a verse which you believe supports ECT which says that if you have ever been drunk or envious etc you will not enter the kingdom of God. I asked you if you have ever been drunk or envious and you say that's irrelevant and that you are not in that "category" now. Your logic is very hard to follow comrade Alte.
As an aside, I didn't know that there was a category of people who no longer suffer from envy. What does it feel like to be a member of this group.
What is the topic of this thread? Do you even know? When did the topic change to me?
These are in the rules.
- Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
- Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF, or use nicknames to do so. A list of unacceptable names can be found here.. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
That's Latin, and insults and personal asides are not necessarily ad hominems because ad hominem refers to the fallacious argumentation not simply conduct. Essentially:Any personal remarks are ad hominem (to the man). See? I too know some Greek
I have been doing that here since G.H.W. Bush was president and have not been warned yet.The rules you quote might exclude the use of comments like "Wrong!" and "Rubbish!".
This is actually a much stronger verse to try to hang UR on, especially since the proper understanding has been muddied by Reformation theology equating salvation with justification. It doesn't when we have a proper theology of atonement, but that's a very complex discussion to be had which requires going through the Pentateuch and the Prophets at least.13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Lemme guess, just as "in all" can't mean the other "in all" in the same sentence, "many" can't mean the other "many" in the same sentence.
Is this verse the only verse in the NT which addresses the subject of salvation? If there are other verses, and there are, should not the honest inquirer not read every verse which addresses this?
I say most definitely. What do you say? Quite evidently you read verses in isolation and decide what they mean irrespective of what any other verse(s) say.
Should we not read every verse that this writer wrote? This same writer, Paul, also said that 22 categories of wrongdoers have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10Paul never said that these groups will someday finally have an inheritance. Was Paul lying?
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that [no wrongdoer] no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
This is actually a much stronger verse to try to hang UR on, especially since the proper understanding has been muddied by Reformation theology equating salvation with justification. It doesn't when we have a proper theology of atonement, but that's a very complex discussion to be had which requires going through the Pentateuch and the Prophets at least.
* * *
MMXX said:Hey, I saw that Major1 had posted Romans 5:12 and I felt prompted to keep reading. And voilà. I've read Romans before of course, but that's the first time Romans 5:15 stood out that way to me. But hey, lets deflect with what you've posted several times already.
About 3 weeks ago I fell and received a large gash on the back of my head. Somewhere between the fall and the hospital I lost my prescription sunglasses. I searched and called but I did not find the glasses.MMXX said:Now the thing with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5 and I suppose 1 Corinthians 3:17 is that I've most often seen those verses being used against OSAS. So I'd be interested to see what the OSAS top dogs have to say about those verses. (side note; my mind isn't made up about OSAS either).
That's Latin
and insults and personal asides are not necessarily ad hominems because ad hominem refers to the fallacious argumentation not simply conduct. Essentially:
"Your argument is bad because you're an idiot" would be an ad hominem, "Your argument is bad because counterfactual XYX. Also, you're an idiot." is not an ad hominem if counterfactual XYX addresses the central tenets of the argument presented. What makes your attempt to paint me as overcomplicating and major as not complicating enough is that you completely ignore the arguments that are presented and try to dismiss them for not hitting the sweet spot that allows your interpretation to squeeze by uncritically. That what you seem to believe to be the most natural reading of 1 Cor. 15:22 has been almost entirely excluded from a contextual standpoint and a grammatical standpoint. And I will point out that it is Hmm who tried to make it about grammar by introducing an "expert" who tried to argue using the English grammar and placing the preposition in the predicate and falsly claiming that the Greek is similar. All that's been presented by the UR side is patently fallacious arguments that are paper thin combined with a great deal of unwarranted self-satisfaction.
I do agree it is one that has potential as a UR proof text since it is both contextually relevant and grammatically coherent.I don't recall having seen Romans 5:15 used as a UR proof text before. I agree, it's quite a strong one. I'm pretty familiar with the Catholic, Orthodox, Mainline and Arminian views that go against the Calvinist and Reformed views. Believe it or not I tend to lean more towards those, especially Orthodox and Lutheran. I'm personally inclined towards Orthodox Theosis and Lutheran Christification.
Then again, there's this Orthodox view of salvation:
No, it's the ad hominem fallacy so it refers to how an argument is attempted to be refuted/supported. In a formal debate it would include errors in etiquette like addressing the person being debated but in an informal discussion like this it has to be an attempt to dismiss the argument presented or to support one's own position. For example, Hmm standing on "experts" authority is an ad hominem(and a special class at that) because it's about the person who made the argument not the argument, and your trying to dismiss major by implying he's not being critical enough/applying enough analysis is also an ad hominem. One made even more shameful when you turn around and try to dismiss my argument by implying I am being too critical/applying too much analysis.]Ad hominem simply means to the man. In other words, talking about the man, rather than his argument. Most of us have done that in this thread.
About 3 weeks ago I fell and received a large gash on the back of my head. Somewhere between the fall and the hospital I lost my prescription sunglasses. I searched and called but I did not find the glasses.
I don't believe in OSAS as it is usually understood. One can't lose their salvation as I lost my glasses. It can't be done accidentally it requires conscious, deliberate action.
Hebrews 10:26-31
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people."
31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
This passage mentions a fate worse than death without mercy. I would like to hear how my understanding of the verses I posted is incorrect.
All I have ever seen is the "Neener, neener argument" i.e. "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh." Saying "Another interpretation of this vs. is 'X.'" Is not a refutation.
No, it's the ad hominem fallacy so it refers to how an argument is attempted to be refuted/supported. In a formal debate it would include errors in etiquette like addressing the person being debated but in an informal discussion like this it has to be an attempt to dismiss the argument presented or to support one's own position. For example, Hmm standing on "experts" authority is an ad hominem(and a special class at that) because it's about the person who made the argument not the argument, and your trying to dismiss major by implying he's not being critical enough/applying enough analysis is also an ad hominem. One made even more shameful when you turn around and try to dismiss my argument by implying I am being too critical/applying too much analysis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?