Why do Arminians...

[Hammster]

It's obvious you don't listen to feedback from me. I still do not know what you meant by that last statement. Please quit playing these kinds of games. I asked for an explanation because it was incoherent and you deny that. I tell you that it WAS incoherent to me as a reader.

Are you listening and prepared to explain?

I gave an explanation. And two other readers understood it just fine.

 

[Hammster]

So you are an accurate mind reader? Pull the other leg!

Sorry. That should have said "can't figure out".

 

[OzSpen]

I gave an explanation. And two other readers understood it just fine.

You are still stubbornly resisting giving me an explanation. I am not the 'two other readers'.

 

[Hammster]

It does not make sense to me. Aren't you listening to what I wrote?

Here's the bottom line. Stan accused me, basically, of being indoctrinated from a young age. I said it wasn't true and offered to prove it, though my word should have been enough. I them posted links to threads I started early on at CF that showed I wasn't a Calvinist even seven years ago. He said that didn't prove anything. I say it does.

 

[Hammster]

You are still stubbornly resisting giving me an explanation. I am not the 'two other readers'.

Why are you lying? I did give an explanation. Post 478.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You can't make an argument for that based on what Paul said. It's a narrative, not didactic.

I make all of my arguments based on what Scripture SAYS. And Paul SAYS to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL BE (future tense) be saved.

That means that salvation is conditioned upon belief in Christ. And, according to RT defintion of 'synergism', Paul was a synergist.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your questions don't give any definitions. I'm starting to think the words must mean the same thing.

So, unable to answer a simple question:

Are all choices an election?

There's nothing difficult about it. They either are, or are not.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, the showing your non sequitur logical fallacy is to show how your technique in discussion is to to include your premise in your conclusion. Such technique prevents a reasonable discussion from continuing.

You don't seem to be able to accept what you are doing in this fallacy that you use in conversation.

Are all choices an election? Quite simple and straight forward.

 

[Hammster]

I make all of my arguments based on what Scripture SAYS. And Paul SAYS to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL BE (future tense) be saved.

That means that salvation is conditioned upon belief in Christ. And, according to RT defintion of 'synergism', Paul was a synergist.

Where does Paul mention the work of the Spirit in that narrative? Or the cross? Or who Jesus even was?

 

[Hammster]

So, unable to answer a simple question:

Are all choices an election?

There's nothing difficult about it. They either are, or are not.

Please, for the third or fourth time, define your terms.

 

[OzSpen]

Why are you lying? I did give an explanation. Post 478.

That is an absolutely false accusation. You did not give the explanation to make it coherent for me.

At #468, you made this statement: 'Why you have chosen to say it isn't is really beyond me'

Then at #476, I wrote:

That is an incoherent statement. Please write it in language that explains what you meant to say with 'to say it isn't is really'. Those words don't make logical sense to me.
​

It is incoherent because of your lack of punctuation and wrong wording. You could have meant a number of things if you had used some punctuation and edited the sentence. Did you really mean:

• 'Why you have chosen to say it isn't is really beyond me' (which is incoherent because it does not have a coherent English meaning).
• Did you mean to say, 'Why you have chosen to say it, isn't really beyond me?' OR
• 'Why you have chosen to say it, is really beyond me'.

Which one is it or what are the other possibilities? It was that one sentence that was incoherent to me. And that's all I commented on.

Now please tell me your exact meaning in that sentence, instead of calling me a LIAR by asking the question, 'Why are you lying?' I am NOT lying. I'm telling you the absolute truth. I did not understand your sentence. It was incoherent. Are you getting it yet?


Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Are all choices an election? Quite simple and straight forward.

So again you are not answering what I wrote to you, thus making your response a red herring logical fallacy.

 

[Hammster]

That is an absolutely false accusation. You did not give the explanation to make it coherent for me.

At #468, you made this statement: 'Why you have chosen to say it isn't is really beyond me'

Then at #476, I wrote:

That is an incoherent statement. Please write it in language that explains what you meant to say with 'to say it isn't is really'. Those words don't make logical sense to me.
​

It is incoherent because of your lack of punctuation and wrong wording. You could have meant a number of things if you had used some punctuation and edited the sentence. Did you really mean:

• 'Why you have chosen to say it isn't is really beyond me' (which is incoherent because it does not have a coherent English meaning).
• Did you mean to say, 'Why you have chosen to say it, isn't really beyond me?' OR
• 'Why you have chosen to say it, is really beyond me'.

Which one is it or what are the other possibilities? It was that one sentence that was incoherent to me. And that's all I commented on.

Now please tell me your exact meaning in that sentence, instead of calling me a LIAR by asking the question, 'Why are you lying?' I am NOT lying. I'm telling you the absolute truth. I did not understand your sentence. It was incoherent. Are you getting it yet?


Oz

Now you are just bolstering your lie against me instead of admitting your error. It's pretty upsetting. Please read post 478 again.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where does Paul mention the work of the Spirit in that narrative? Or the cross? Or who Jesus even was?

Context is everything. For a long time I wondered why the hardened jailer would even think to ask such a question. But it then dawned on me why he did.

Acts 16:18
It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” 18She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out at that very moment.

There is no doubt that this was well known throughout the city. The slave girl announced loudly what Paul was preaching for many days. So the word certainly had gotten out who Paul was and his message.

So the earthquake got the jailer's attention. And when he realized that Paul hadn't tried to escape he knew that Paul was a man of integrity and he wanted to know HOW to be saved.

Your question assumes no context at all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Please, for the third or fourth time, define your terms.

They can be found in any dictionary. On-line as well.

Can I infer from your request that you don't know what they mean???

 

[Hammster]

Context is everything. For a long time I wondered why the hardened jailer would even think to ask such a question. But it then dawned on me why he did.

Acts 16:18
It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” 18She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out at that very moment.

There is no doubt that this was well known throughout the city. The slave girl announced loudly what Paul was preaching for many days. So the word certainly had gotten out who Paul was and his message.

So the earthquake got the jailer's attention. And when he realized that Paul hadn't tried to escape he knew that Paul was a man of integrity and he wanted to know HOW to be saved.

Your question assumes no context at all.

Actually, my question assumes that there are things that the jailer had learned that aren't given in the text. So to assume that Paul was a synergist based on the text is wishful thinking.

 

[Hammster]

They can be found in any dictionary. On-line as well.

Can I infer from your request that you don't know what they mean???

They both mean choose. But you seem to think they mean something different.

 

[OzSpen]

Now you are just bolstering your lie against me instead of admitting your error. It's pretty upsetting. Please read post 478 again.

I am not bolstering my lie because I did not lie. What I said at #498 was the absolute truth of my wanting to get clarification from you about the one sentence that didn't make sense to me. I've re-read #478 and I can now see that this was your attempt to explain it to me. But it still left me with some questions about what you were meaning exactly.

I don't see it as an error made by me and it most definitely was not a lie, but your way of expressing it zoomed past me and your explanation was not as clear to me as you understood it for yourself.

If the error is mine, I'll be the first to admit it. I don't see it that way. You had a way of expressing it that was not clear for me and I asked for clarification.

Is that not OK?

 

[Hammster]

I am not bolstering my lie because I did not lie. What I said at #498 was the absolute truth of my wanting to get clarification from you about the one sentence that didn't make sense to me. I've re-read #478 and I can now see that this was your attempt to explain it to me. But it still left me with some questions about what you were meaning exactly.

I don't see it as an error made by me and it most definitely was not a lie, but your way of expressing it zoomed past me and your explanation was not as clear to me as you understood it for yourself.

If the error is mine, I'll be the first to admit it. I don't see it that way. You had a way of expressing it that was not clear for me and I asked for clarification.

Is that not OK?

The error is yours. I did give an explanation. Whether or not you understood it is another matter. But you cannot say that I did not give one.

 

[nobdysfool]

Oz, place a comma after the word 'isn't' in the sentence, and it should be clear.

'Why you have chosen to say it isn't, is really beyond me'

That was the only iteration of that sentence that you didn't consider, and it is exactly and clearly what he said.

Does that clear it up for you?