You made an excellent exposition. You always do. Even if whatever you said was completely inaccurate, Allan's comment would still be dishonest.
It's the same thing with me. I spend a lot of time and effort to make my position know honestly anticipating some honest feedback from the opposition and they give no response. Then they give comments like the one Allan just made.
And they wonder why I accuse them of being intelligently dishonest.
And they also wonder why I point out the ridiculousness and basically humor myself with what they come out with.
They give me nothing else to do. They want to be taken seriously, but they refuse to be serious inquirers.
And I suppose you were also those that campaigned for that rule to be implemented so that I can no longer give a clear exegesis of a passage. Noone cried about it for years when Walt cutting and pasting the WCF. But when someone needs a few posts to actually exegete the Scriptures, all of a sudden everyone cried foul played. It did not take long for SA to comply.
I agree with you, according to the Calvinist standard SA has been too tolerant of me. I have heard your complaints of allowing disenters of Calvinism to post here for a long time. Your right, I should have burned at the stake like Servetus a long time ago.
Unfortunately, SA can't simply just cut me off without getting into litigation problems. We are in the modern world of democracy, not the old Calvin state-run religion.
SA is free to do what it pleases. Unfortunately, they have no jurisdiction over the internet and unfortunately, I did not sign anything bindable that states I had to comply with anything.
Thus, the only thing I have to comply with is God's word.
But, of course, the fact that I have been complying for the last month escapes you. Now you are complaing about me using the quotes option to quote references!
Alan H wrote: You know, Yamil, one of the things which troubles me the most concerning your posts is the fact that you always say more than you need to say, and that which is beyond necessary is usually unworthy either of reading or of response.
That's what you call an SA perk. You should be happy that I do so for free. That's why I am the Weapon of Mass Instruction. Otherwise I would be the Weapon of Minimum Instruction. And if I were, I suppose I would then be criticized for not saying enough.
Alan H wrote: You can't seem to brake free of the bondage of ridicule and scorn even for a moment can you?
Ridicule, yes. Scorn, never. To avoid ridicule is very simple: don't say anything ridiculous.
Alan H wrote: You, JD, Abigail, and a few others on these threads are very dishonest in your often over-rehearsed and repetitive misrepresentations of Calvinism.
I asked you in the last post to give me an example. I am still waiting for one.
Alan H wrote: The greatest portion of the content of your posts ...
Last time I gave you a 16 post exegesis, neither you or your friends offered a rebuttal.
When you find an instance when I have been intelligently dishonest then, I would concede to you. I am not afraid of admitting when I am wrong. Unlike many of you here, there has been a few times that I apologized for my error.
In fact what makes me deadly to your theological system is that I am not afraid to be proven wrong.
To many on your side of the fence, the truth is a threat and so your most fanciest ideas that have no scriptural warrant are defended at all costs even if it means disrespecting the Word of God.
R. K. Borill wrote: I am just amazed at you guys admiration of your own abilities to prove something where no proof has been shown.
I asked you where in the Scriptures does it state that grace can be resisted and you told me that you had none. You were gracious enough to offer some deductive reasoning, but I rejected it. I happen to have the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice, not deductive reasoning.
R. K. Borill wrote: I clealy asked you "what is faith", a very short and simple question but I see no answer to the question. I tried to help you a little, but it seems that the question is bankrupt of an answer from you.
I guess you must've conveniently missed the part when I said: "No. It is not so with me. But yes, I agree with your analysis, although you did not even answer your own question."
Just like the rest of the bunch; you do not have the least amount of decency to (inspite of our disagreements) be intellectually honest.
R. K. Borill wrote: Only ad homenim reponse as usual.
Like the "world," "all," and "whosoever," you may also what to add "ad hominem" to the list of words you need to look up in the dictionary.
R. K. Borill wrote: As I said before, "been there, done that".
Been there done that myself. All the while it gets more and more easier to demonstrate my position. I would think that it would be the same for you. But I guess what you are trying to say is that you could not find it then and odds are now you also do not have any scripture that explicitly declares your position.
I figured that.
Since I proved to the reader once again that the Calvinist position is scripturally bankrupt, then I think I can humor you in your desperate attempt to change the subjet. Hopefully you can find a simple declarative statement to prove your view on the following topic.
R. K. Borill wrote: If you care to move on to another subject, here is a question for you since our topic before us is Justification by faith alone:
What is faith?
It may be said that faith cannot be known except by experience, and when it is known by experience logical analysis of it, and logical separation from other experiences, will only serve to destroy its power and its charm. In your opinion is this so with you?
No. It is not so with me. But yes, I agree with your analysis, although you did not even answer your own question.
R. K. Borill wrote: The last point that I think I remember that I was on with Yamil or WMI was Irresistible Grace. But like I say their favorite methods to argue is "Needling", "Ad Nauseum", and mostly "Ad Homenim". Other than that you will not get much else from them.
How about a simple declarative statement from Scripture:
"For God so loved the world..."
Sometimes, I doubt that will suffice you.
If you would be honest (which you are not) before you went on the ad hominems and illogical fallacies fallacy you were still looking in the Bible to the answer to my simple question:
Where in the Bible does it state that Grace can be resisted?
I think you had enough time to stall with your red herrings. Let me try to help you out. Read the following statement slowly and allow it to sink:
R. K. Borill wrote: Hey "Mass", What took you so long to respond? Did you have to attend "Mass"? Regarding your response:
Ok. This must be the Calvinistic disease starting to eat away at his brain. We can only hope that it leaves a piece left before the night is over.
R. K. Borill wrote: "Argument By Repetition" (Argument Ad Nauseam): If you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it.
The only thing worse than someone who overuses the logical fallacy arguments is someone who does so without having an idea of what they trully mean.
R. K. Borill wrote: Regarding your request for Biblical pearls from me - forget it. Been there and done that! Do you think I will continue to let you trample them under foot? Grade F
I guess that is his way of saying that he could not find any verse that clearly states his position. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that there was nothing there that proved his position to begin with.
I prescribe him three doses of the chill pill and one long nap. After waking up, instead of picking up the WCF, pick up the Bible.
Out of the kindness of my heart, the prescription is free.