Minnow wrote:
Recap??
OK
Who is the one who implied that I saw a human as an "infallible" source. (Ad hominem?)
And
From the statement above; Who is the one who implies that I don't know that the Bible alone is God's Word.? (Ad hominem?)

"Out of the treasures of the heart the mouth speaks."

Minnow wrote:
"infallibility" ???
Sounds as though you're perfect Dr Phil!

Let's recap here to see a pattern:

First, you use Bavinck as an authority to support your point with Mike (not that I am in agreement with Mike).

Second, I challenged your use of Bavinck as an authority because he is a "mystic". If you are truly interested I can supply information, even from Abraham Kuyper.

Third, to support your argument against my challenge, you quoted from BB Warfield as your authority.

Fourth, when I challenged your use of Warfield as an authority, you resorted to an ad homenim argument to suggest my implication to infallibility. All I am doing is suggesting that you look more carefully at your arguments to some supposed authority figure. I was only warning you about Bavinck, because he is clearly a mystic in the family of Schleiremacher whose authority was "feelings, experiences". Consider the mulititude of directions and doctrines this path can take you. "Feelings and experiences" are the "winds of doctrines", they do not provide you with absolute truth. The Bible alone is the Word of God.

Minnow wrote:
Well Dr Phil;
I guess you already realise that not everybody agrees with you that Bavinck belongs to that particular stable.
"the controversies of the earlier half of the nineteenth century compacted a body of Calvinistic thought which gives way but slowly: and the influence of the great theologians who adorned the Churches during that period is still felt (especially Charles Hodge, 1797-1878, Robert J. Breckinridge, 1800-1871, James H. Thornwell, 1812-1862, Henry B. Smith, 1815- 1877, W. G. T. Shedd, 1820-1894, Robert L. Dabney, 1820-1898, Archibald Alexander Hodge, 1823-1886). And in Holland recent years have seen a notable revival of the Reformed consciousness, especially among the adherents of the Free Churches, which has been felt as widely as Dutch influence extends, and which is at present represented in Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, by a theologian of genius and a theologian of erudition worthy of the best Reformed traditions." (B B Warfield)
Or don't you like Warfield either?

Minnow wrote:
Mike, Bavinck wrote...
"Augustine accepted a twofold restriction of this concept: in his system the decree of predestination follows that concerning creation and the fall, and he generally used the term “predestination” in the favorable sense, as a synonym for “election,” while he gave the preference to the term “foreknowledge” to indicate reprobation: predestination, then, is what God does, namely that which is good; while “foreknowledge” refers to what man does, namely evil. In general, scholasticism, Roman Catholicism, and Lutheranism, accepted this interpretation of the term predestination."
(H Bavinck)

I don't think the "mystic" Bavinck is a good source to recommend to support your arguments. Please consider the following critical analyses of him for another perspective:

[URL=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/240-241-BiblicalViewofTruth.pdf]]]The Biblical View of Truth[/URL]

Mike wrote:
Luther said: "It would certainly be a hard question, I allow–indeed, an insoluble one–if you sought to establish both the foreknowledge of God and the freedom of man together; for what is harder, yea, more impossible, than maintaining that contraries and contradictories do not clash?
I wonder why he saw "the foreknowledge of God and the freedom of man together" as contradictory? Foreknowledge does not require them to be.

[URL=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/131a-LutheronFreeWill.pdf]]]Luther On Free Will[/URL]

John Yurich wrote:
Facts are facts. And the fact is that Obama is United Church Of Christ since he attends and belongs to a United Church Of Christ church and therefore is not a Muslim.

Have you really studied the doctrinal foundation of the United Church Of Christ denomination?

Neil wrote:
Lance repeats the party line about the Albigensians; since they were systematically butchered in papal Crusades, all we have is the testimony of their killers about what they really believed. In any case, I should not have to add that none deserved to die for their beliefs.

Discerning Believer wrote:
The difference between a sacrament and an ordinance is that a sacrament imparts grace or is a means of grace, whereas an ordinance is a symbol or a memorial of the grace already bestowed.
For examplle, the sacrament of baptism imparts the new birth on infants. The sacrament of communion is the actual literal eating the flesh of Christ and literally drinking his blood. However if these are both considered ordinances, then baptism symbolizes the spiritual union between Christ and his church. The ordinance of the Lord's supper memorializes the sacrificial death of Christ. Remember the words of Christ "This do in rememberance of me".
The sacramental system was derived from the Roman Catholic Church and caried over into Protestantism. That is one area where the reformers never completely broke away from the Romish traditions.

KK wrote:
McCain voted "No" on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
John McCain said he would be “comfortable with a homosexual as president of the United States.”
John McCain Flip Flops on Gay Marriage:

Mike wrote:
Dr Phil,
The answer to your first question is.. yes.
The answer to the second question is..change.
The answer to the third question is.. The only correlation I see is people cheering at nothing at all.
You are correct, I am being sarcastic. I was making fun of BO. He is an empty suit, as far as I'm concerned, saying nothing, but with feigned seriousness. Eloquent blather is still blather. It is shameful that many seem to be so entranced by this well-spoken socialist.

Dwyane Mayor wrote:
. . .I am slandered and accused of putting my soul in a very dangerous place in relation to God! I proclaim Christ's message "that these signs shall follow you," and they accuse me of spiritualism!
All I have done Colin, is preach the Gospel, without doctrines of men, and all I have continued to reap for my incessant efforts, is hateful, ignorant, and uncouth replies from the multifarious heathen on these forums. I agree with you, for Christ certainly did say, "with love and kindness have I drawn thee." And yet in Matthew 23, Christ then rails against the scribes and Pharisees BECAUSE THEY WERE OBSCURING THE GOSPEL. I, in a much lesser manner, find myself doing the same.

"And these signs shall follow THEM that believe; . . ." Mark 16:16

You could help your case against false accusations if you were more accurate with the truth.

Mike wrote:
B.O. will bring change. Change will bring hope. Hope will bring change. And change is not staying where we are but moving forward with hope. Hope is not hopeless, because hope is hopeful. And it brings change, which is not hopeless because it brings hope.

I am assuming that you are being sarcastic here, and mocking BO's argument which is only affirming the consequence. Which is it; will Barack bring change or will hope bring change? If hope is not hopeless only because it brings change, what is the foundation of hope?

Argument by euphemism is argument without substance - the same as Barack's platform. Change in and of itself cannot provide the substance of hope. Hitler changed Germany, but he provided nothing but eloquent rhetoric and blamed all of the country's woes on a particular race. His only solution was to direct all of the country's resources to defend what he thought was the race that had been oppressed thus justifying an ethnic cleansing . Do you see a correlation here?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
He's neither a good Christian or Muslim.
[URL=http://www.ihcc.org/images/booklets/pdf/L118.pdf]]]Homosexuality[/URL]

You're right, and also, B. Hussein Obama is in a win-win situation. If he does well as President, it was because he had to excel and be better than anyone else before him. If he does poorly, it was because he had more pressure to excel and be better than anyone else before him. When you are in this situation, you can do what you want. Who can criticize?

Just listening wrote:
Dr. Phil...
Of course you will not agree with C.H.S. on the posted comment you believe in Infant Baptism.
. . .
Truth suffers nothing from free discussion, it is indeed the element in which it most freely exerts its power. We have personally known several instances in which sermons in defence of Infant Baptism have driven numbers to more Scriptural views, and we have felt that if Pædo-baptists will only preach upon the subject we shall have little to do but to remain quiet and reap the sure results. It is a dangerous subject for any to handle who wish their people to abide by the popular opinion on this matter.
C.H.S.