Quoted by heymikey80:
Yes, bootstrapping one definition which is not meant by a use of the word.
Also known as the logical fallacy of
Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. -- K. Wheeler
And yet, Calvinism speaks out of
both sides of its mouth; by saying "Man has free will", but ALSO saying "man's will
always chooses according to depraved nature (if not sovereign-regenerated), or according to spiritual nature (if sovereign-elect-regenerated). So Calvinism claims "man's will is FREE, but CANNOT choose faith or unbelief freely"...
OK: QUOTES. CITATIONS.
Or I'll simply assert you're stating more falsehood. And I called you to repent of this sin dozens of times.
Gotta begin with what people
actually state, Ben.
Otherwise you're simply engaged in (mis)characterization.
Quote:
Nope. As before, I have it both ways, you're demanding it only one way.
We've discussed this before. False dilemma.
WRong. What comes first --- God CAUSING man's faith, or God RESPONDING TO man's faith? You can't straddle the fence.
Of course you have to demonstrate they're mutually exclusive. Which you haven't, because you can't. It's just an assumption on your part. A mistaken one.
You can't demonstrate it. Because it's quite clear from Scripture, without God as ultimate Cause, it comes to nothing.
Quote:
Verse 23 repeats the concept of Paul partaking with new believers. The idea that Paul is compelled to convert people or he loses his salvation is incredible, and not Paul's sense.
I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
The incredible meets the plausible ... again.
You
can't insert the word "blessings" ---
it's participation in the GOSPEL ITSELF that can be forfeit.
...no matter how much you may dislike the idea...
This is the fallacy of the
Red Herring. I couldn't care less whether you interpret this as "its blessings" (a perfectly legit way to interpret it, if you knew Greek you'd know this is a "produce" interpretation of the noun) or not. It's that word "share" that's critical to my assertion. "
co-fellowship".
But of course, ROFL! Of course I can include the word "blessings", and on the
exact same basis as your injection of "while" in Heb 6:5!
A translator put it there!
Get real, Ben. When you make an argument, its rules either applies to both sides or it's a false argument.
No, the rules don't apply to Responsible Grace! Responsible Grace must carry in the imaginary realm without reason!
Quote:
And we compete with many of us. Concluding the multiple personality disorder to which I referred before.
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 1 Cor 9:24
Nope ---
each competes in his OWN (individual) race. Just as Paul HIMSELF must
individually subdue his body, lest he be DISQUALIFIED...
"in a race many run"
one race. many runners. Straight from
Paul.
Point lost. Case lost.
Quote:
The imperishable crown is for others' conversion to eternal life, yes, and eternal communion with him. A soul won is eternally sharing in the blessings of Christ along with Paul.
Does not fit --- it's Paul's OWN PARTICIPATION in the GOSPEL that can be forfeit.
No, Paul's "
co-fellowship" is lost.
sunkoinonos.
Quote:
Why? Grammar.
"disqualified" means something different in a different context when you say it or write it. "disqualified" is an adjectival word, qualifying another concept presented in the text. Ref. the use in 1 Cor 9, it's not referring to Paul's salvation.
On what basis? There's nothing there
more than your own "say-so".
Paul's say-so.
Quote:
In one place he says "race" (and "for an imperishable CROWN"). In another place, "run the race with ENDURANCE, avoiding the sin that so easily entangles us".
C'mon. By the end of this discussion you'd have every word in Scripture meaning "salvation".
Do you believe we can be "entangled in sin but REMAIN SAVED"?
Actually,
you do. I recently established that when you hedged from actually
not sinning to "characterizing" people as "not sinners".
As they continue sinning, your position is not substantially different from Sovereign Grace here. Your only assertion is that we must not allow "
God CAUSING man's faith" -- the prime contention of semi-Pelagianism:
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles
Council of Orange specifically addressing semi-Pelagianism.
Quote:
Since "many run, but only one receives the crown, you'd better hope it's not salvation. Of course the grammar simply destroys this idea, so I'm quite confident in what God's actually said above your interpretation.
You haven't answered the question ---
if it's a COMMUNITY race, what is the ONE CROWN?
I said Paul referred to the race in singular, and the runners in plural. It's so simply, flatly accurate, that you're not going to solve this problem. Paul's grammar prevents your interpretation. It's that simple.
The one crown is the prize for winning
that particular race among multiple runners.
I have already answered your question, directly, twice. The crown is what Paul talks about "winning". It's other people. Paul's so blatant about it
it's flatly stated:For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.
It's stated over and over again.
My question is why can't you accept Paul's statement
for what he says?
Secondarily, I answered the question before, this is now the third time. Your assertion is false. You should've known it was false, you read my answers before. Yet you stated a falsehood. That's bearing false witness, an increase in the number of sins among Christians, and one for which you haven't sought reconciliation.
I consider the behavior of every Christian human being to be Exhibit A in terms of our handling of sins in general. You're no exception in this matter.
