Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[FreeGrace2]

Red herring. Please address my comment. Otherwise it looks like deflection. We cannot have a reasonable discussion if you deflect.

This is a flagrant dodge. The question to you was legitimate:
So do you or don't you believe the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith????

It wasn't a red herring. That "defense" is the deflection. Please answer the question.

 

[Hammster]

This is a flagrant dodge. The question to you was legitimate:
So do you or don't you believe the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith????

It wasn't a red herring. That "defense" is the deflection. Please answer the question.

Most red herrings are legitimate questions.

 

[OzSpen]

Red herring. Please address my comment. Otherwise it looks like deflection. We cannot have a reasonable discussion if you deflect.

Not a red herring at all. It was you who stated,

There's never a command to be regenerated. I thought you were familiar with Calvinism.

And I was responding.

We can't have a reasonable discussion if you don't want to address the regeneration-faith issue in Calvinism. The Calvinistic view of regeneration preceding faith has nothing to do with regeneration being a command or not. It has to do with the Calvinistic theology of regeneration preceding faith.

 

[Hammster]

Not a red herring at all. It was you who stated,

And I was responding.

We can't have a reasonable discussion if you don't want to address the regeneration-faith issue in Calvinism. The Calvinistic view of regeneration preceding faith has nothing to do with regeneration being a command or not. It has to do with the Calvinistic theology of regeneration preceding faith.

When you address the content of my post, as opposed to just quoting and asking a question that's unrelated, let me know. You're red herrings are tiresome.

 

[EmSw]

When you address the content of my post, as opposed to just quoting and asking a question that's unrelated, let me know. You're red herrings are tiresome.

You sure have a way about not answering questions, and then blame others for doing the same.

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks for you (incorrect) opinion.

It was a CORRECT opinion. You are the one dodging.

 

[Hammster]

You sure have a way about not answering questions, and then blame others for doing the same.

The question was a red herring. Not to mention, he knows the answer.

 

[Hammster]

It was a CORRECT opinion. You are the one dodging.

Nope. The question was irrelevant to my post.

 

[OzSpen]

Most red herrings are legitimate questions.

Yes, they could be legitimate questions, but NOT with the topic being discussed.

All red herrings have nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Why? The definition of red herring is:

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)

Therefore, red herrings are fallacious reasoning, but they have to be identified accurately as red herrings.

This is not what you did in my case in the regeneration-faith theology that I raised because NOWHERE did I make a statement about a command to be regenerated. You introduced that as a red herring fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

You sure have a way about not answering questions, and then blame others for doing the same.

You hit the mark.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, they could be legitimate questions, but NOT with the topic being discussed.

All red herrings have nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Why? The definition of red herring is:

Therefore, red herrings are fallacious reasoning, but they have to be identified accurately as red herrings.

This is not what you did in my case in the regeneration-faith theology that I raised because NOWHERE did I make a statement about a command to be regenerated. You introduced that as a red herring fallacy.

I'm still waiting.

 

[OzSpen]

Nope. The question was irrelevant to my post.

Dodging again.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm still waiting.

So am I still waiting - for you to admit the process of what you do with dodging and the use of a red herring fallacy. You blamed me. I showed you that that was not the case, but you keep on blaming me.

Logical discussion is at a brick wall when you continue to do this with the use of logical fallacies. Some call it dodging, but with you it is often the use of a red herring fallacy.

FOR WHAT ARE YOU STILL WAITING?

 

[Hammster]

So am I still waiting - for you to admit the process of what you do with dodging and the use of a red herring fallacy. You blamed me. I showed you that that was not the case, but you keep on blaming me.

Logical discussion is at a brick wall when you continue to do this with the use of logical fallacies. Some call it dodging, but with you it is often the use of a red herring fallacy.

FOR WHAT ARE YOU STILL WAITING?

I'm waiting for you to address the context of my post.

 

[Hammster]

Dodging again.

I'm glad you've finally admitted it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Most red herrings are legitimate questions.

If that was truly your view, why haven't all those "red herrings" directly your way been answered.

Your usual response was "red herring" as if it was irrelevant. Irrelevant questions are not legitimate ones.

Your comments are contradictory to each other.

 

[FreeGrace2]

When you address the content of my post, as opposed to just quoting and asking a question that's unrelated, let me know. You're red herrings are tiresome.

Your very recent post said that red herrings are legitimate questions. I guess, only when asked by you. And apparently not when anyone else questions you.

Isn't that being hypocritical? (legitimate question)

 

[FreeGrace2]

So am I still waiting - for you to admit the process of what you do with dodging and the use of a red herring fallacy. You blamed me. I showed you that that was not the case, but you keep on blaming me.

Logical discussion is at a brick wall when you continue to do this with the use of logical fallacies. Some call it dodging, but with you it is often the use of a red herring fallacy.

FOR WHAT ARE YOU STILL WAITING?

This is the only option left for those without proper defense and they know it.

 

[Hammster]

If that was truly your view, why haven't all those "red herrings" directly your way been answered.

Your usual response was "red herring" as if it was irrelevant. Irrelevant questions are not legitimate ones.

Your comments are contradictory to each other.

They don't get answers because the point is to move the conversation in another direction. That's dodging.

 

[Hammster]

Your very recent post said that red herrings are legitimate questions. I guess, only when asked by you. And apparently not when anyone else questions you.

Isn't that being hypocritical? (legitimate question)

It's a fine question if asked in the right context. His had nothing to do with what I posted. So no hypocrisy.