The 6 common misconceptions about what is called 'Calvinism'

[JAL]

There is a second problem with the notion that God's virtues are at best analogical to human values, the notion that we cannot understand His values.

Suppose you attended a science convention with the world's greatest minds and announced, "I have a great new scientific theory, and I think we should publish it and hold it in high regard. It solves an important problem." They say, "OK, tell us about your theory." You reply, "Well I would, but the problem is that it is beyond human understanding." At this point they might be inclined to throw you out! They might listen to you a little longer only if they themselsves had found no other solution to that problem.

Stated differently, to claim that one's doctrine is beyond understanding is essentially to have made no claim at all. No content can be associated with such doctrine, if it such content is outside the domain of human comprehension. The theologian who says, "My views cannot be understood" might as well shut up. For example, even though I don't understand all the details of how a computer works, I can still say honestly that I know how a computer works. So am I not saying that we have to understand all the details of a doctrine prior to publishing it, but it should at least be logically coherent. It should make some general sense.

What then of Paul's claim that God's judgments are unsearchable? There are several things Paul may be alluding to here. For example, God has not revealed all the specifics of His plans, nor all the specifics of how He has worked in the past. Secondly, God's will take into account billions of factors unknown to men, so we can never fathom His rationale. For example, He has a full grasp of the factors influencing the world economy. Hence His judgemnts in this area are unsearchable. However, the fact that He is smarter than we are does not allow us to conclude that His virtues are the opposite of what we would call virtue. Thirdly, another sense in which God transcends our understanding is that He is MORE virtuous than we are. This is not a different kind of virtue but of higher intensity than we can currently fathom. Here I'm speaking specifically of His love, mercy, compassion, and zeal.

 

[JAL]

If you'd like to provide Biblical arguments from the texts of Scripture, supported by proof texts, I would be willing to address those.

Other than that, I have no need to deal with that fact.

Ok, here's an example. To prove your theory of a double standard, you cited biblical texts suggesting that God has, in fact, done injury to the innocent and Has commanded men such as Abraham to do the same. You also hold, I would imagine, to the traditional view of original sin, namely that God punishes us for what Adam did, which would be another example of doing injury to the innocent. I'd like to see how you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18 which describes God's justice as fairness, and specifically provides the example that God would not punish a son for the sins of his father.

If children should not be punished for the sins of their father, how can we say, without contradicting Scripture, that Adam's offspring perish for his sins? And why is it that Ezkekiel has expressed here a very human concept of justice if God is not so bound?

(Again, I have a different view of Adam that allows for a solution, so this isn't a problem for me).

 

[ArcticFox]

Ok, here's an example. To prove your theory of a double standard, you cited biblical texts suggesting that God has, in fact, done injury to the innocent and Has commanded men such as Abraham to do the same.

Not so. I did not say, nor mean to imply at all, that God punishes the innocent, for I believe that ALL are guilty (Romans 3), and they are guilty from birth (Psalm 51:5)

You also hold, I would imagine, to the traditional view of original sin, namely that God punishes us for what Adam did, which would be another example of doing injury to the innocent. I'd like to see how you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18 which describes God's justice as fairness, and specifically provides the example that God would not punish a son for the sins of his father.

I would not say it the way you said it, but I believe that we are all guilty of sin, and therefore all incur God's wrath. This guilt is imputed from Adam, and manifests itself in our life through our sinful nature, which we show forth from the earliest ages.

If children should not be punished for the sins of his father, how can we say, without contradicting Scripture, that Adam's offspring perish for his sins? And why is it that Ezkekiel has expressed here a very human concept of justice if God is not so bound?

Again, this is answered simply by the fact that we are not being held guilty for one man's actions, but we are held guilty for having a sinful nature in which we constantly sin. Even if you didn't believe the Bible taught that we inherit a guilty sin nature, sin manifests itself as soon as we are able to perform actions.

(Again, I have a different view of Adam that allows for a solution, so this isn't a problem for me).

Not a problem for me, either.

There is a second problem with the notion that God's virtues are at best analogical to human values, the notion that we cannot understand His values.

We can understand his values. JAL, I think you may have misunderstood the nature of the argument here. It seems we are arguing but not arguing each other's position, but a position that neither of us holds.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here

 

[JAL]

Not so. I did not say, nor mean to imply at all, that God punishes the innocent, for I believe that ALL are guilty (Romans 3), and they are guilty from birth (Psalm 51:5)



I would not say it the way you said it, but I believe that we are all guilty of sin, and therefore all incur God's wrath. This guilt is imputed from Adam, and manifests itself in our life through our sinful nature, which we show forth from the earliest ages.



Again, this is answered simply by the fact that we are not being held guilty for one man's actions, but we are held guilty for having a sinful nature in which we constantly sin. Even if you didn't believe the Bible taught that we inherit a guilty sin nature, sin manifests itself as soon as we are able to perform actions.

Not a problem for me, either.

We can understand his values. JAL, I think you may have misunderstood the nature of the argument here. It seems we are arguing but not arguing each other's position, but a position that neither of us holds.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here
[/size]

You are saying that we are condemned for having a sinful nature. Why do we have a sinful nature? Becuase Adam sinned, in your view. Logically, then, Adam is the cause of our guilt, in your view (the traditional view). So we who have not sinned are punished for our father Adam who has sinned. Reconcile this with Ezekiel 18, please.

 

[JAL]

Do you consider youself Reformed? You wrote:

Again, this is answered simply by the fact that we are not being held guilty for one man's actions, but we are held guilty for having a sinful nature in which we constantly sin.

Do you realize this statement denies federalism's claim of Adamic representation? You are essentially saying that Adam's behavior did not determine the verdict of the human race? It's only an individual issue, that is, how much each of us sin?

Also, you can square this notion with Romans 5?

 

[JAL]

ArcticFox, you say that I have to prove something from Scripture to make any kind of a claim in this discussion. Let me explain why that's kind of silly.

Suppose you visit a church only to find out that the pastor seems confused as to whether Jesus is divine. He holds two services. In the first service, he denies divinity and cites a number of verses, in support of this denial, which cast a least a modicum of doubt upon it. In the second service, he cites Scripture supporting His divinity.

Here is a man who has cited plenty of Scripture, but with no logic to it. He is contradicting himself. Citing scripture is not, therefore, sufficient to make a biblical argument. One must not contradict himself nor other scriptures. For example, one must not contradict Ezekiel 18.

Why does Ezekiel 18 contradict your view? You suggested that God isn't bound to human concepts of justice. But Ezekiel 18 belies this. It argues, just as any (Christian) human would, that the innocent should be held harmless, and the guilty punished.

Ezekiel 18 also contradicts the Reformed view of original sin. And I also explained why your claim that God isn't bound to human standards is internally self-contradictory.

If you claim that there is no logical problem here for you to deal with, I think you're in plain denial - which seems to be par for the course around here.

You said you're not sure what we are arguing about. Hope this helps.

 

[JAL]

Not so. I did not say, nor mean to imply at all, that God punishes the innocent, for I believe that ALL are guilty (Romans 3)

Suddenly you seem eager to defend God's fairness. What happened to the double standard?

and they are guilty from birth (Psalm 51:5)

As I said, quoting Scripture is not enough to make an argument. You must also demonstrate logical consistency with yourself, and with other scriptures. Otherwise you merely demonstrate your ability to misinterpret the very Scriptures that you cite.

You read the above Scripture as God having men born guilty and/or sin-stained resulting in wrath. How does that square with your claim that God does no injury to the innocent?

How can you say, without contradiction, that a child is born guilty?
If you say, "on account of father Adam," how do you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18?

 

[ArcticFox]

Suddenly you seem eager to defend God's fairness. What happened to the double standard?

As I said, quoting Scripture is not enough to make an argument. You must also demonstrate logical consistency with yourself, and with other scriptures. Otherwise you merely demonstrate your ability to misinterpret the very Scriptures that you cite.

You read the above Scripture as God having men born guilty and/or sin-stained resulting in wrath. How does that square with your claim that God does no injury to the innocent?

How can you say, without contradiction, that a child is born guilty?
If you say, "on account of father Adam," how do you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'suddenly.' And, most importantly, I do not want to defend God's 'fairness.' I don't think God is fair in the human sense of the word. We have a wholly different concept of fair.

Quoting Scripture may not be the entirety of the argument, but going through a process of quoting all relevant Scripture, explaining the consistency, addressing seemingly contradictory Scriptures, and then tying it all together is a long process. I did the first part of that by posting this thread. However, I did not address seemingly contradictory verses, since this was not primarily a defense of the Calvinistic doctrines, but an explanation.

We are not punished for Adam's sins in the way that sons are punished for the father's sins.

So we who have not sinned are punished for our father Adam who has sinned.

This is not an issue because there is no 'we who have not sinned.' Such a group does not exist, and therefore this 'what if' scenario cannot be squared with Scripture because Scripture does not address fantasy scenarios, but the reality of our sinfulness.

Furthermore, there ARE cases indeed where people are punished for their father's sins (father meaning more than just immediate paternal father, but ancestors):

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands,* forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Numbers 14:18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’

[Emphasis mine in all verses]

You asked how people being born into sin (with a sin nature) squares with God doing no harm to the innocent. I'm not sure that's even an issue here. You'll have to explain what problem you are seeing in this.

How can I claim that a child is born guilty?

The following verses:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

....


Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

[This does not have to be interpreted as 'we are judged for Adam eating the fruit,' and thus explains my comment that we are not punished for eating a fruit ourselves]

Furthermore:

Romans 3:10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

No exclusions/exceptions are made for children. There is no distinguishing of age here. The Scriptures could not be clearer -- there is NO ONE righteous, NO ONE who hasn't become worthless/turned aside.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

All includes children and babies. Romans 3 leaves little wiggle room to claim exceptions, except for one man (Hebrews 4:15).

Also, life experience confirms these truths. What are some of the first words a child is able to learn? They are words that define what is theirs. What is a child unable to understand until later in life? Another's point of view, and others' needs.

Do you have to teach your children to be selfish? Do you have to try hard to get them to share? We all know that children are far from innocent. As one man once said, and I lack the proper information to give him credit, 'Babies and children do not lack the will to do evil, they just lack the capacity; as soon as they get the capacity, they'll start doing evil things.'

Some argue that children don't understand what they are doing is wrong. Why then does little Mary hide her stolen cookie behind her back as she denies taking anything from the cookie jar?


BTW:

What happened to the double standard?

It's always been there, and still is. I hold entirely to that.

Your story about the pastor quoting verses does not relate. It is clearly a story of nonsense. If you think my posts are such clear non-sense, you are welcome to stop replying.

If you claim that there is no logical problem here for you to deal with, I think you're in plain denial - which seems to be par for the course around here.

Guilty as charged . Plain denial, what can I say.

Ezekiel 18, you must remember, is contextual, as all of the Scriptures are. It is also the Old Testament, which is the old covenant. It still, however, presents no problem.

Ezekiel 18 teaches that a son is not held guilty for the sinful actions of his father. This is true in a certain sense. God also visits the sins of the fathers on the children; this is also true in a certain sense.

Rather than re-invent the wheel, please see this article that addresses your concerns about this particular issue (sins of the fathers held against sons):

http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource...Visit_the_Sins_of_the_Fathers_on_theChildren/

Since this article answers it better than I can, you may dispute the article in a new thread if you'd like. I might even post there, if you keep the gloves on .

One prominent atheist-become-Christian once said that what led him to Christianity was not the defense of it, but the offenses made against it. He said that he saw Christianity being attacked from both sides of every issue, some claiming it was too pacifist, some claiming it was too war-mongering. Some claimed it was too judgmental, others claimed it was too forgiving. He decided, then, that if people see problems from both angles of every issue, that perhaps this is the one religion that has got the balance right. He was indeed correct in his assumption!

As long as we stay focused on the issue of original sin, a Calvinistic concept (though Calvin was neither the first nor the only), I will continue the debate. If we stray into areas of philosophical debate, I'll side-step the issue. Just letting you know ahead of time! So please post Scripture in support. Thank you!

 

[JAL]

To even sugest that we are punished for ous sins contradicts the notion of Adam as our representative. If our sins even count, then we are individually accounted versus federally accounted. Much of what you say only exposes more problems with the federal view.

That's sort of like saying that we go to hell anyway, because of our individual sins, even though Christ represents us.

Representation and individual accounting are polarized concepts. They cannot be reconciled.

 

[JAL]

Furthermore, there ARE cases indeed where people are punished for their father's sins (father meaning more than just immediate paternal father, but ancestors):

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands,* forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Numbers 14:18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’

This is no problem to explain if we are guilty in Adam, deserving of hell. There is nothing wrong with God punishing us for the sins of our fathers if the REAL justification for that punishment is prior deserving of hell. The sins of our fathers are not, therefore, the justification, but a provocation of His wrath, reducing some of His present mercy. And these are earthly judgments. Quite another matter to say that God puts people in hell for Adam's sin!

 

[JAL]

[Quot] How can I claim that a child is born guilty? [/quote] You then cite a bunch of verses. No, that wasn't my question. You omitted the last part. My question was this:

How can you claim that a child is born guilty WITHOUT CONTRADICTION?

 

[JAL]

And, most importantly, I do not want to defend God's 'fairness.' I don't think God is fair in the human sense of the word. We have a wholly different concept of fair.

Again, how can I have hope if virtues such as fair don't necessarily mean what I HOPE they would mean?

 

[JAL]

So please post Scripture in support. Thank you!

And that's enough, contradictions don't matter? You also said that my analogy about the pastor is silly. I just don't get it. Let's try this again

You go to a church. In the first service, the pastor defends Calvinism, citing lots of verses. In the second service he defends Arminianism, citing lots of verses. But he is contradicting himself.
Isn't this a problem?

Can we really afford to value Scripture to the exclusion of valuing the law of noncontradiction?
I think not.

 

[ArcticFox]

Can we really afford to value Scripture to the exclusion of valuing the law of noncontradiction?

We are not put in that position.

But if we were, the answer is yes, we can value Scripture to the exclusion of the 'law' of non-contradiction if we lack appropriate knowledge and/or ability to put into words the truths of Scripture (Trinity comes to mind as one example, as well as the nature of God's absolute sovereignty over all things, and human moral responsibility).

As for the other arguments, we appear to be going in circles. I think we just disagree about how to interpret Scripture on this matter. Best case scenario is that we are disagreeing because are communicating similar truths with different words.

After all, it would appear that a slight variation in the definition of 'philosophy' can lead one to believe it is essential for Scripture reading, and another to think it is damaging.

 

[JAL]

We are not put in that position.

But if we were, the answer is yes, we can value Scripture to the exclusion of the 'law' of non-contradiction if we lack appropriate knowledge and/or ability to put into words the truths of Scripture (Trinity comes to mind as one example, as well as the nature of God's absolute sovereignty over all things, and human moral responsibility).

As for the other arguments, we appear to be going in circles. I think we just disagree about how to interpret Scripture on this matter. Best case scenario is that we are disagreeing because are communicating similar truths with different words.

After all, it would appear that a slight variation in the definition of 'philosophy' can lead one to believe it is essential for Scripture reading, and another to think it is damaging.

No, it's not that we are going in circles. You just are unwilling to admit three facts. (1) The Reformed presentation of origianl sin contradicts the notion of a just God, and some important Reformed theologians have already admitted this fact. They have no solution - simply because they are unwilling to consder a few non-traditional assumptions.
(2) Your claim that we shouldn't judge God by human standards contradicts the promises of Scripture. Those promises connote reassurance, whereas in your paradigm which allows a double standard of virtue, they do not and cannot connote reassurance. Stop trying to construe this is a philosophical issue - that's just a cheap tactic to exempt yourself from facing the issue. The issue here is not some extrabiblical "philosophy" but the issue of biblical interpretation. You want relevant Scripture? Just look at basically every promise in the Bible and every verse where a divine virtue is mentioned - I could find several hundred of them. All these verses become antithematic within a double-standard framework. (3) The notion that biblical terms (here I speak of all biblical terms, not just virtues) can have meanings unintelligible to human beings contradicts the assumption that Scripture aims to convey truth to men. What good is Sola Scriptura if we cannot rely on the language used to convey meaning?

 

[ArcticFox]

No, it's not that we are going in circles. You just are unwilling to admit three facts. (1) The Reformed presentation of origianl sin contradicts the notion of a just God, and some important Reformed theologians have already admitted this fact. They have no solution - simply because they are unwilling to consder a few non-traditional assumptions.

First, I should tell you that I am only 'Reformed' in so much as I believe it confirms the truth of Scripture; wherever they diverge, I hope to follow Scripture and not a man-made tradition.

(2) Your claim that we shouldn't judge God by human standards contradicts the promises of Scripture. Those promises connote reassurance, whereas in your paradigm which allows a double standard of virtue, they do not and cannot connote reassurance.

Actually, it doesn't 'contradict' anything. You claim that it's a contradiction because if what I believe is true, than the promises could be something other than what we think they are. This is just your argument, but is not a contradiction.

Stop trying to construe this is a philosophical issue - that's just a cheap tactic to exempt yourself from facing the issue. The issue here is not some extrabiblical "philosophy" but the issue of biblical interpretation. You want relevant Scripture? Just look at basically every promise in the Bible and every verse where a divine virtue is mentioned - I could find several hundred of them. All these verses become antithematic within a double-standard framework.

I think you critically misunderstand what I mean by double standard. This is NOT relativism, or anything even close to it. God is the standard of justice, love, mercy, and grace. God does not fit a standard of justice, but IS that standard. However, God cannot violate his own promises, as he would be violating his own nature. I am not saying that any promise could mean anything, what I AM saying is that God's love is not our love, and God's justice is not our justice.

I think you'd do well to remember this verse:

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

Attempting to get an idea of God's justice by thinking, 'Hmm, what would we as humans consider justice?' is absolutely wrong. Instead, we must seek what God considers justice. Furthermore, because God is the judge, he is able to do things we are not. Compared to a Republic such as that of the USA, God is the judge, jury, prison warden, and executioner.

God's justice is perfect, and his love is perfect love. Therefore, God's promises have infinitely greater value than if we both had the same standards.

Do the teacher and the student have the same authority in a school? Do the police and the criminals have the same authority? Of course not! It would be absolutely silly to allow the police to do everything a regular citizen can, and a regular citizen everything an officer can do. Such would be anarchy!

(3) The notion that biblical terms (here I speak of all biblical terms, not just virtues) can have meanings unintelligible to human beings contradicts the assumption that Scripture aims to convey truth to men. What good is Sola Scriptura if we cannot rely on the language used to convey meaning?

Who said they have meanings unintelligible to humans? I have NO idea what you are trying to argue here. Are you sure you are arguing points I brought up? I'm completely at a loss as to why you are trying to convince me of what I am already convinced of, and have never argued against

 

[JAL]

Actually, it doesn't 'contradict' anything. You claim that it's a contradiction because if what I believe is true, than the promises could be something other than what we think they are. This is just your argument, but is not a contradiction.

Actually, it's a clarification of your position that don't want to own up to. And I will re-demonstrate the accuracy of my reading of you right now.

Who said they have meanings unintelligible to humans? I have NO idea what you are trying to argue here. Are you sure you are arguing points I brought up? I'm completely at a loss as to why you are trying to convince me of what I am already convinced of, and have never argued against

Who said it? You did. Stop trying to pretend that you don't see the force of my argument.
Who said it? You said it like this, for example:

What I AM saying is that God's love is not our love, and God's justice is not our justice.

When I think of justtice, I think of fairness. You just said that God's justice is NOT what we understand as justice (by implication it is unintelligible, it is something we don't understand). The implications of that are pretty frightening. And I suppose His integrity is not our integrity? Equally frightening, because integrity to us means honesty. In support of this apparent insanity, you cited the following verse:

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

But this type of exegesis is precisely what I hav e warned about. When we as exegetes fail to properly esteem the law of non-contradiction, we only manifest our inability to misinterpret the verses, as I warned. This verse need not be interpreted the way YOU want to interpret it. Probably the main thrust of the verse is the fact that no one, at least not in this life, has attained or will attain to ascended to God's level of holiness.

I think you critically misunderstand what I mean by double standard. This is NOT relativism, or anything even close to it. God is the standard of justice, love, mercy, and grace. God does not fit a standard of justice, but IS that standard. However, God cannot violate his own promises, as he would be violating his own nature. I am not saying that any promise could mean anything, what I AM saying is that God's love is not our love, and God's justice is not our justice.

First, I don't really see the need to get into a semantic debate about what "relativism" means. The fact that your position is a kind of insanity is sufficient ground to reject it. In any case, my understanding of relativism is the absence of an absolute standard. By absolute standard is usually meant an ethical principle independent of the persons involed. Thus they can't arbitriarily SET their own standard but rather must CONFORM TO the standard. If there is no standard outside the persons involved, we are still in relativism. Your words suggest that at least one of the persons, God, SETS the standard instead of CONFORMING TO the standard.

God does not fit a standard of justice, but IS that standard.

So God isn't bound to a standard? He just makes it up as He goes along? Frightening.

Attempting to get an idea of God's justice by thinking, 'Hmm, what would we as assumes consider justice?' is absolutely wrong. Instead, we must seek what God considers justice.

There may be some merit to this statement, but it still misses my main point - that we have to be consistent. That is to say, if I conclude that God's justice means such and such, my values must align with that. Thus, again, if I say that God condemns the innocent, then I must also tell the world, "Hey guys, I'm running for judge, and if you guys elect me, I'll be sure to condemn the innocent." And I must also admit that the biblical promises offer me no hope - woops, now we have a contradiction, because they PURPORT to offer hope. Oh, I know a way to avoid the contradiction. Just say that what God means by "hope" is not what we humans mean by hope. So it could be that we are all going to hell (since integerity means something different for God than for man), but He has every right to call it hope since HE sets the standard, not us.

Furthermore, because God is the judge, he is able to do things we are not. Compared to a Republic such as that of the USA, God is the judge, jury, prison warden, and executioner.

And He is also the God of Relativism if He makes up the standard as He goes along.

God's justice is perfect, and his love is perfect love. Therefore, God's promises have infinitely greater value than if we both had the same standards.

Nope. I have just redemonstrated that what we have here is insanity, as I had already shown in my initial post.

Do the teacher and the student have the same authority in a school? Do the police and the criminals have the same authority? Of course not! It would be absolutely silly to allow the police to do everything a regular citizen can, and a regular citizen everything an officer can do. Such would be anarchy!

But why would you assume that my ethic counsels rebellion against authority? I have merely stated that ethics must be consistent and humanly intelligible if we intend to have a theological discussion. Far from counseling rebellion against authority, I would point out that even Jesus submitted to the Father's authority. You erect a strawman and knock it down. Congratulations on your success.

 

[ArcticFox]

I'm sorry JAL, but you are misconstruing what I am saying. You are taking my statements and making them some sort of extremism that even I find repulsive.

This debate cannot continue unless you will only take my words at their face value. As such, our conversation must end. This is the third post where I have attempted to tell you that you are not understanding my posts. However, you stick to your guns that you are understanding them perfectly and that I am somehow just changing my story over and over to fit my immediate need. It's very disrespectful to me and to the nature of the debate.

You can get the last post in if you want, but our debate in this thread is finished.

 

[JAL]

I'm sorry JAL, but you are misconstruing what I am saying. You are taking my statements and making them some sort of extremism that even I find repulsive.

This debate cannot continue unless you will only take my words at their face value. As such, our conversation must end. This is the third post where I have attempted to tell you that you are not understanding my posts. However, you stick to your guns that you are understanding them perfectly and that I am somehow just changing my story over and over to fit my immediate need. It's very disrespectful to me and to the nature of the debate.

You can get the last post in if you want, but our debate in this thread is finished.

I seem to recall at one point where I accused you of changing your story. And I don't even recall whether or not you exonerated yourself of that charge.
The fact that I may have mentioned it only once, and can't even recall it, shows that such accusation has NOT been the bulk of this discussion. So the notion that I am disrespectfully accusing you over and over again of changing your story has little foundation here.

Rather, at least 90% of it has been my accusing you of a fundamental logical inconsistency. You have kept trying to show your position logical and scriptural, I have tried to show it illogical and unscriptrual.

I see nothing different, therefore, in this debate versus other debates I've seen on this forum. And frankly I disagree with your insinuation that I am not playing fair in this debate. I have stuck to logic and Scripture, not polemics.

I've seen a lot of underhanded debaters on this forum. These are people who can never, for example, admit the opposition has made a good point. One example where I submitted to opposition is the fact that I originally came to this forum as a YEC and soon became OEC.

Also, underhanded debaters constantly misrepresent the other person's statements. I have tried to ramify your position, not misrepresent it. In a debate, one of the best ways to allege a fallacy is to ramify a position to show where it leads.

 

[JAL]

I'm sorry JAL, but you are misconstruing what I am saying. You are taking my statements and making them some sort of extremism that even I find repulsive.

No, what I am saying is that your position ALLOWS FOR extremism. Once you hold that God doesn't mean words in the same way men mean words, you essentially allow for ANYTHING including extremism.