Replies

You're not even trying to have a real conversation anymore, are you?

You're the type of poster I generally steer clear of because the discussion drags down into who said what and not the subject itself. And sarcastic rejoinders are unproductive, even though you populate your posts with them.

I simply repeated your statement made to OrthodoxPresbyterian in your post #875, asking for clarification, and you accuse me of "bearing false witness."

Buggman: "One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God after He has extended His initiative. "

If you now retract that statement because seeing it again in black and white reveals the error of it, fine. Do so. But kindly stop haranguing me.

You're the type of poster I generally steer clear of because the discussion drags down into who said what and not the subject itself.

My friend, I would absolutely love to keep this on the subject. However, no honest discussion can take place so long as you continually misrepresent what we are saying in order to take cheap, mocking shots at the strawmen of your own making.

For example, compare again these two statements:

Me: "One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God after He has extended His initiative." (post #875)
You quoting me: "One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God"
You: "According to Buggman, man is saved by his own choice to trust God."

Do you not see where you chopped off an important part of my sentence in order to change its meaning? Do you not see that your response is not geared to what I wrote, but to your truncated version of it? You made it sound like I believed that Man's faith apart from God's initiative (from the Cross to the conviction of the Spirit) could somehow save us.

Furthermore, you not only chopped that sentence up, you lifted it competely out of its greater context--that being all of the other posts I have made on this subject where I have plainly explained my views on salvation. Not only did I explain with that sentence that God must take the initiative before Man can be saved, or even have faith, I have explained throughout my many posts just what I mean by God's initiative.

Furthermore, you tried to tie a belief in free will with gnosticism, demonstrating your ignorance of what gnosticism really was. I've also seen accusations from your side that "Arminianism" was Jesuit plot, attempts to tie it into Pelagianism, etc. etc. May I introduce you to the fallacy of guilt by association. I know making that kind of attack is easier than actually debating the issue on the basis of Scripture, but I'm candidly fed up with it.

And now suddenly you want to stand up on your soapbox and try to tell me, "You're the type of poster I generally steer clear of because the discussion drags down into who said what and not the subject itself"?

Or, "And sarcastic rejoinders are unproductive, even though you populate your posts with them"? Here's the difference, Doc: When I use sarcasm, it's to drive home the point of a larger argument that I have carefully built on a logical exegesis of Scripture in an extended post, and I think it's pretty evident to any neutral observer that I do read your posts and try to make sure that I understand your arguments before I give rejoinders. You continually use sarcasm in place of presenting an argument, and since you use almost nothing but, heck if we can see that you actually understand what our beliefs actually are.

In short, demonstrate that you actually understand what is being posted and present a logical, Biblical counter-argument (as Harley and I have been doing for the duration of this thread--and you'll notice that I'm not the least irritated with him; on the contrary, I have a great and growing respect for him as a result of our exchanges), and I have no problem with you, nor will I with the use of aggressiveness, irony, sarcasm, jokes, or following an idea to its logical conclusion (provided that we avoid "slippery slope" fallacies).

But as long as you attack strawmen, make false guilt by association accusations (and when was the last time you accepted the argument that Calvinism is wrong because of what happened to Severius?), engage in theological intimidation ("Heresy!"), attempt to change the subject rather than concede a lost point (my exchange with OP earlier in this thread), etc., I'm going to call your BS.

And if that causes you to stop responding to me, oh well. There are too many others here that provide quality debate and Christian discussion for me to mourn the loss of your sarcastic comebacks.