If faith is a gift from God...

[FreeGrace2]

I'll prove my point


"No matter how many verses OT or NT we muster to show that atonement was limited, for God's chosen people, for the elect, those who have a presupposition that requires unlimited atonement, will constantly make world = every single person who ever lived; world does mean everyone; everyone = all; all = all; you don't have a single verse, etcetera.

Well, that proved nothing. Yes, there are verses that say that Christ died for the church, etc. But NONE of those verses that you "muster" state it in any exclusionary terms, such as "only" or "just". That's what you keep missing.

And regarding this so-called "presupposition that requires unlimited atonement", that's kind of funny. It is the reformed who have been bitten with that malady, except your malady requires limited atonement, to be consistent and logical from points 1 and 2 of TULIP.

So, when you come to Heb 2:9, you just can't imagine that the writer really meant everyone, though the majority of Greek scholars involved in English translations certainly did. So the bias card gets played by you.

I cannot see any way through. When there is a presuppositional bias towards a certain theology, it is very difficult to move, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. This is what you and I have found in this discussion with Arminians, and others sympathetic to synergistic unlimited atonement advocates.

This is absolutely true, as demonstrated time and time again on this forum. But the presuppositional bias has been demonstrated by the reformed.

I'll even give you an excellent example. One of the reformed, when dealing with Heb 2:9, said that when one reads 2:9, the "obvious question" (my quotes) is "all of which group?". That question is a clear demonstration of BIAS against unlimited atonement. Why would anyone, other than a Calvinsit, even consider that question? No one would. Only a Calvinist, who is biased AGAINST unlimited atonement, because of their presuppositions.

I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:14, 15 NASB).

Jesus' claim that He "lay down My life for THE sheep" is another statement of unlimited atonement, because in the context of John 10, He refers to the unbelieving Jews as not "MY sheep". He didn't say they weren't sheep, but not His sheep. So the phrase "the sheep" is a reference to all of mankind. Those who believe in Him He calls "My sheep". Those who don't believe in Him are not "My sheep". Simple as that.

Or "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 NASB)

And the very next verse (v.45) tells us who is drawn; those who have listened and learned from the Father.

 

[Hammster]

Well, that proved nothing. Yes, there are verses that say that Christ died for the church, etc. But NONE of those verses that you "muster" state it in any exclusionary terms, such as "only" or "just". That's what you keep missing.

And regarding this so-called "presupposition that requires unlimited atonement", that's kind of funny. It is the reformed who have been bitten with that malady, except your malady requires limited atonement, to be consistent and logical from points 1 and 2 of TULIP.

So, when you come to Heb 2:9, you just can't imagine that the writer really meant everyone, though the majority of Greek scholars involved in English translations certainly did. So the bias card gets played by you.


This is absolutely true, as demonstrated time and time again on this forum. But the presuppositional bias has been demonstrated by the reformed.

I'll even give you an excellent example. One of the reformed, when dealing with Heb 2:9, said that when one reads 2:9, the "obvious question" (my quotes) is "all of which group?". That question is a clear demonstration of BIAS against unlimited atonement. Why would anyone, other than a Calvinsit, even consider that question? No one would. Only a Calvinist, who is biased AGAINST unlimited atonement, because of their presuppositions.


Jesus' claim that He "lay down My life for THE sheep" is another statement of unlimited atonement, because in the context of John 10, He refers to the unbelieving Jews as not "MY sheep". He didn't say they weren't sheep, but not His sheep. So the phrase "the sheep" is a reference to all of mankind. Those who believe in Him He calls "My sheep". Those who don't believe in Him are not "My sheep". Simple as that.


And the very next verse (v.45) tells us who is drawn; those who have listened and learned from the Father.

I guess you completely missed my point as well.

I tried.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, you committed the red herring. Your post I responded to did not address what I posted. You took a section out of context and responded to it.

That's a false allegation. I directly addressed your quotes from John 10 to demonstrate that you used a fallacy of biased sample.

There is no way for you and me to have a rational conversation when you continually violate the laws of logic with your use of logical fallacies.

When will you admit what you did in providing the biased sample fallacy and I called you to account?

 

[OzSpen]

I guess you completely missed my point as well.

I tried.

No he didn't miss your point. You did to him exactly what you did to the content of my post. You committed a logical fallacy of biased sample. But will you ever own up to what you do when you commit this kind of fallacy? You haven't demonstrated to FreeGrace2 and to me that you are capable of seeing what you do in committing logical fallacies.

Therefore, having a reasonable conversation with you is impossible when you violate the laws of logic with your use of logical fallacies.

 

[Hammster]

That's a false allegation. I directly addressed your quotes from John 10 to demonstrate that you used a fallacy of biased sample.

There is no way for you and me to have a rational conversation when you continually violate the laws of logic with your use of logical fallacies.

When will you admit what you did in providing the biased sample fallacy and I called you to account?

You missed the context of my post. Since you did that, your response was out of context. Thus, a red herring.

 

[Hammster]

No he didn't miss your point. You did to him exactly what you did to the content of my post. You committed a logical fallacy of biased sample. But will you ever own up to what you do when you commit this kind of fallacy? You haven't demonstrated to FreeGrace2 and to me that you are capable of seeing what you do in committing logical fallacies.

Therefore, having a reasonable conversation with you is impossible when you violate the laws of logic with your use of logical fallacies.

He did the same thing you did. My post had nothing to do with making an argument for limited atonement, or providing scriptural proof. If you follow the conversation back, you'd see that.

 

[OzSpen]

You missed the context of my post. Since you did that, your response was out of context. Thus, a red herring.

False accusation. Why are you still failing to address the content of my post to you of your committing a false of biased sample?

I'm waiting for your owning up to exactly what you did when I found you out with your use of a fallacy of biased sample.

A parallel logical fallacy to what you do is the fallacy of confirmation bias. What is that?

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor evidence and information which already supports previously held ideas or beliefs. The human mind will trick itself into protecting currently held beliefs regardless of evidence….
Confirmation bias is comprised of two main behaviors. The first behavior is searching and the second is filtering or appraising.

Searching

When searching for information a person with confirmation bias will actively search for information that supports their currently held belief, think liberals hitting up CNN or conservative only watching Fox. This aspect to confirmation bias is all about filling up your time with material that reinforces your world view.

Filtering or Appraisal

Alternatively, the mind may also filter out information which contradicts the currently held belief. When appraising multiple pieces of information a person might favor their current belief over contradictory data. In this case picture a liberal rejecting anything they hear from Glenn Beck or a conservative rejecting something they hear from CNN

​

 

[OzSpen]

He did the same thing you did. My post had nothing to do with making an argument for limited atonement, or providing scriptural proof. If you follow the conversation back, you'd see that.

You still engaged in the fallacy of biased sample or confirmation bias with him as well.

 

[Hammster]

False accusation. Why are you still failing to address the content of my post to you of your committing a false of biased sample?

I'm waiting for your owning up to exactly what you did when I found you out with your use of a fallacy of biased sample.

A parallel logical fallacy to what you do is the fallacy of confirmation bias. What is that?

​

I'm not sure why you keep doing these red herrings. You are not responding to the intent of my post, but instead only responding to something that you want.

If you didn't understand the reason for my post (especially after I said you missed the point), you could have just asked for clarification instead of making these false accusations.

 

[Hammster]

You still engaged in the fallacy of biased sample or confirmation bias with him as well.

No, I said he missed the point of my post.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I guess you completely missed my point as well.

Rather, I refuted it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, I said he missed the point of my post.

That was your opinion, but I didn't miss your point. I addressed it and refuted it. From Scripture.

 

[Hammster]

Rather, I refuted it.

Actually, since the point of my post WASN'T to make an argument for limited atonement, you didn't refute it. It was a red herring.

 

[Hammster]

That was your opinion, but I didn't miss your point. I addressed it and refuted it. From Scripture.

While my views could be said to be reflected in the post, the point of my post wasn't to present my view on limited atonement.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, since the point of my post WASN'T to make an argument for limited atonement, you didn't refute it. It was a red herring.

How about that! You missed my point. I refuted your point. That was my point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

While my views could be said to be reflected in the post, the point of my post wasn't to present my view on limited atonement.

OK

 

[Hammster]

How about that! You missed my point. I refuted your point. That was my point.

No, you didn't. You didn't even understand my argument, apparently.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, you didn't. You didn't even understand my argument, apparently.

Opinion noted.

However, you said you would prove something in post #408. I refuted what you claimed you were going to prove in post #413.

So don't say that I didn't understand your argument. That is condescending and untrue.

Those who read this thread understand exactly what is going on.

 

[Hammster]

Opinion noted.

However, you said you would prove something in post #408. I refuted what you claimed you were going to prove in post #413.

So don't say that I didn't understand your argument. That is condescending and untrue.

Those who read this thread understand exactly what is going on.

The only problem with that is that is that you didn't understand the point I made with the post. Maybe if you'd follow the conversation back to the origin, you'd figure it out.

Or, you could continue to claim that you refuted a point I didn't make.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The only problem with that is that is that you didn't understand the point I made with the post. Maybe if you'd follow the conversation back to the origin, you'd figure it out.

No, there was no problem. I addressed and refuted the point you made. I'm sorry that you didn't understand that.

Or, you could continue to claim that you refuted a point I didn't make.

I didn't refute a point you made. I refuted what you claimed you proved. I do know the difference.

btw, you do know that proving something is akin to proving a "point". No difference, really. But I know that you like to play with semantics.