Understanding God’s election

[studier]

In other words, weak Ad Hominem attacks are how you answer Scripture that disagrees with your theory. Couple that to a Red Herring fallacy and an Argument of Repetition fallacy.

@GWH might say your Thesis was addressed with my Antithesis and now potential Synthesis is sabotaged by fallacious argumentation.

 

[Rufus]

In other words, weak Ad Hominem attacks are how you answer Scripture that disagrees with your theory. Couple that to a Red Herring fallacy and an Argument of Repetition fallacy.

@GWH might say your Thesis was addressed with my Antithesis and now potential Synthesis is sabotaged by fallacious argumentation.

Not weak! Factual. You just CANNOT answer the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23 because God has not graced you with the courage to do so. Answer the question and then I'll demolish your "proof text" that you allege disagrees with my "theory".

 

[studier]

I can hardly wait.
More of the same fallacies.
Proof-texting? You don't note the tie between Scriptures of Paul speaking of the time he was persecuting the Church of God and how Acts elaborates about God's very special event of saving grace in Paul's experience? Then you didn't note my mention about His being an Apostle by grace?
Let's see some actual Scriptural work apart from the obnoxious fallacies, if you can do either.

 

[fredoheaven]

How so? When Scripture says there are none good, does it mean some are good but we will ignore that for now? When Scripture says we all fall short, does it mean we all fall short, or does it mean there are some who meet God's standards, but we are not talking about them right now? When Scripture says, "The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned..." Does it mean the natural man can understand the spiritual things of God? Does it mean he really can understand the gospel message even though it is heard as foolishness to him as Scriptures say? Is the natural man gifted with wisdom even though he has no fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom, according to Scripture? Will the lover of darkness come into the light even though Scripture says he will not, because he suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness and is a lover of darkness, is actually defined as darkness itself, hates the light, and is a slave to sin, blinded to the truth and captive to the will of the devil, which many define as being free? Is the heart of the natural man, the stony ground that it is, fit for receiving and growing the Seed of God's Word into faith? Will that incurably wicked heart choose of its own accord to believe? Do you know how many here say everyone hears even though that contradicts what Jesus said? So odd to see so many claim when these verses about the natural man are given, claim they are being taken out of context when they are universal axioms.

 

[Rufus]

I can hardly wait.
More of the same fallacies.
Proof-texting? You don't note the tie between Scriptures of Paul speaking of the time he was persecuting the Church of God and how Acts elaborates about God's very special event of saving grace in Paul's experience? Then you didn't note my mention about His being an Apostle by grace?
Let's see some actual Scriptural work apart from the obnoxious fallacies, if you can do either .

Blah, blah, blah, says the blather expert. You have the unmitigated, arrogant chutzpah about my "obnoxious fallacies".

Give us the "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question asked in Jer 13:23 and I'll show you how easy it is to demolish your "proof text". Why are you such a coward. Don't you know that God is not very fond of cowards?

 

[Magenta]

 

[GWH]

In other words, weak Ad Hominem attacks are how you answer Scripture that disagrees with your theory. Couple that to a Red Herring fallacy and an Argument of Repetition fallacy.

@GWH might say your Thesis was addressed with my Antithesis and now potential Synthesis is sabotaged by fallacious argumentation.

ping-

 

[GWH]

Not weak! Factual. You just CANNOT answer the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23 because God has not graced you with the courage to do so. Answer the question and then I'll demolish your "proof text" that you allege disagrees with my "theory".

-pong

 

[Rufus]

-pong

Not surprised at all that your head is full of ping and pong noises. This accounts nicely for why nothing good can come out of you.

 

[Magenta]

In other words, weak Ad Hominem attacks are how you answer Scripture that disagrees
with your theory. Couple that to a Red Herring fallacy and an Argument of Repetition fallacy.

Mirrors

 

[Rufus]

Mirrors

Not to mention the planks Studier has also coming out both of his eyes!

 

[studier]

@GWH actually I'm the ponger to the pinger. I tried the Antithesis to the Thesis but all I got in response was a nasty ping.

@Rufus you really don't have much capability do you. Just fallacious arguments and trash-talk. Post a Thesis, get an Antithesis response, go directly to trash-talk and remain there getting worse. I suppose this is your demolishing my use of Scripture to compare to your post of a couple verses of Scripture. We should both probably do an extended study on grace that you were trying to teach us about. Care to undertake one?

#14,131 pot & kettle.

 

[Rufus]

@GWH actually I'm the ponger to the pinger. I tried the Antithesis to the Thesis but all I got in response was a nasty ping.

@Rufus you really don't have much capability do you. Just fallacious arguments and trash-talk. Post a Thesis, get an Antithesis response, go directly to trash-talk and remain there getting worse. I suppose this is your demolishing my use of Scripture to compare to your post of a couple verses of Scripture. We should both probably do an extended study on grace that you were trying to teach us about. Care to undertake one?

#14,131 pot & kettle.

You also need to beg, borrow or steal some reading skills. AGAIN: I'll be very happy to defend my interpretation of 1Cor 15:9-10 as soon as you give me a straight "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23. (Comprende?) Meanwhile, go and play ping pong with your buddy who has as few answers as you do. There aren't two peas in a pod more deserving of one another than you two heretics who will stoop to anything to advance your perversion to the true Gospel.

 

[Magenta]

@Rufus you really don't have much capability do you. Just fallacious arguments and trash-talk. .

plank

 

[Rufus]

More on the Efficacious Nature of God's Saving Grace

In addition to the oft-overlooked passage in 1Cor 15:9-10 wherein Paul describes the effects of the sanctifying grace that dominated his Christian life on an ongoing basis, we have these two Pauline passages as well:

2 Cor 8:1-5
1 We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, 2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, 4 begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— 5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us.
ESV

Three huge takeaways to this passage:
1. God's grace (v.1) is equated with His perfect will (v.5)
2. God's grace resulted in the Macedonians freely giving even out of their "extreme poverty"
3. The Macedonians, by the power of God's grace (His will!) turned to the apostles.

God's perfect will is truly compatible with man's will. The Macedonians freely chose TO give generously as a result of God's grace (will). Likewise, they freely gave themselves TO the apostles because it was God's will for them to do that, as well. Therefore, they gave themselves by the efficacy of God's grace! What God willed for them, they willingly performed, which nicely gives affirmation to this text:

Phil 2:13
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
ESV

Paul gave all the credit and glory to God for their generosity and eagerness to help due to the surpassing [power] and indescribable gift of His grace that was poured out so abundantly upon the Corinthians (2Cor 9:14-15).

In anticipation of a FW objection to 2Cor 8:1-5 on the grounds that the Macedonians first gave themselves to the Lord, and then [subsequently] by God's will to the apostles, this objection begs the question. For implicit within such an objection is that God played either no role in their lives when they turned to Him; or even worse, that it wasn't God's will for them to turn to Him! Both of these implications are absurd since they cannot survive scriptural scrutiny.

 

[GWH]

@GWH actually I'm the ponger to the pinger. I tried the Antithesis to the Thesis but all I got in response was a nasty ping.

@Rufus you really don't have much capability do you. Just fallacious arguments and trash-talk. Post a Thesis, get an Antithesis response, go directly to trash-talk and remain there getting worse. I suppose this is your demolishing my use of Scripture to compare to your post of a couple verses of Scripture. We should both probably do an extended study on grace that you were trying to teach us about. Care to undertake one?

#14,131 pot & kettle.

Actually, you might be Brer Rabbit.

 

[Rufus]

Actually, you [Studier] might be Scared Jack Rabbit.

FTFY. After all, Mr. Wanna-be Smart Guy is very obviously too scared to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question in Jer 13;23.

 

[studier]

Actually, you might be Brer Rabbit.

Responded to that comment some posts back.

 

[Magenta]

FTFY. After all, Mr. Wanna-be Smart Guy is very obviously too scared to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question in Jer 13;23.

Their theology falls apart if they answer honestly.

 

[Rufus]

Their theology falls apart if they answer honestly.

Yes, indeed. FWT dies an ugly, agonizing, ignoble death. That sharp, pointed rhetorical question in Jer 13:23 puts FWers between the proverbial rock and hard place. If they answer "yes", they look like fools. If they answer "no", then that answer applies logically to part "b" of the verse as well, which means Israel, who was accustomed to doing evil, had no power to change their conduct in order to do good. Talk about megabytes of irony! How come no FWer can't get their all-powerful "freewill" to kick in to answer the question? I mean...we're talking about a will that can supposedly self-restore life to dead souls, that can cure satanic blindness, that can overcome hatred for God, his Law, His Word, His Son, and can overcome enslavement to sin, the world and the devil, as God sits in the heavens as a passive spectator wringing his hands and sweating bullets hoping that sinners make the right choice so that He can repay them back for being so spiritually astute. This will of man can supposedly do MIGHTY things -- but it can't get any FWer to answer the question the prophet asked.

Pathetic!