Shepherd's Chapel from Gravette, AR

I’ll try to keep that in mind when talking to “you”, but let me suggest to you that methods of debate which rely on short little rhetorical comebacks through the use of only partially gathering some incomplete information from a thought…(OK, try to stick with me here, I know it can be difficult)…result in “a type of argument” that serves no real purpose in the goal of dealing with legitimate claims, issues, and the truth or falsity in a conclusion.

In short, there are different types of arguments.

Some think of the word “argument” as two people having a feud.

Or fussing about something.

Some arguments amount to nothing more than a list complaints.

Often these are accompanied with the sole intent to insult.

Sometimes they are simply meant to persuade.

But, they do not actually support their conclusion.

There is a difference in types of arguments.

Arguing that a dog has fleas is quite different than explaining what caused the fleas.



Some types of arguments have a different goal.

They attempt to support a conclusion.

But they are different from the type of argument we were just talking about.

They also get a little deeper.

The type of arguments I value tend to focus on different things than what we were just talking about.

They basically begin with two parts.

This includes “premises” which provides “reasons” for thinking a “conclusion” is true.

Now, don’t let me get ahead of you.

I’m coming back to your problem with long sentences in a moment.

The more support the premises of an argument provide for a specific conclusion, the stronger the argument is said to be.

Often this involves many issues.

It also involves many claims.

There are also good “deductive” arguments which are said to be “valid”.

And there are good “inductive” arguments which demonstrate and focus on the conclusion.

They support it.

So you see, there are many issues and claims in the types of argument that I value.

This sometime leads to longer sentences.

There are ways to break up these sentences which help lead to finding out the truth in a claim that keeps focus on the conclusion.

You seem to have a problem in this area.

I’m sorry that you do.

There I go again! Using a “wilderness of words” to try to make a simple point with you. I do this because you seem to think this point is very important in what seems to be your favorite type of argument. And this after me saying “In short”…tsk ..tsk.. I'm so sorry. And all this to deal with a “complain type of argument” that had nothing to do with the things I find more important. Well…this is a whole other topic isn’t it? We’ve had this discussion before. I’ve tried to explain before that I don’t have the time or energy to break this all down for you. But I hope this little measure of patience helps explain why I might not answer to the type of argument you would like to engage in with me and the way that you would like me to. It’s alright if you would rather just ignore me. I won’t take it personally.

 

Sounds Like Dr. Gene Scott is Back From the Dead???

Dr. Scott made millions of dollars off a lot of well meaning people. The truth is, he decieved the masses, and if what you say here is true, it sounds like we have another Dr. Scott on a secular-religious network.

And yes, I've seen the show adveritsed on my cable television guide. I just never stopped by there to see what was going on. However, you have gotten me curious, and I may watch a show or two to see what they're selling as the gospel truth???:sleep:

 

On Second Thought...

... I think I'll skip watching it. I believe what you say, and I don't have the time to listen and be disgucted with another television evangelist/teacher/pastor/etc...:wavey: Thanks for letting us know about this guy.

 

Your humility quotient is about empty.

 

Ben, please address the above from a prior post of mine.

 

The above is from my 39th post on this thread which you haven't dealt with Ben.

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary
heretic
HER'ETIC, n.

1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.

2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.



Murray is a heretic.

There. I said the "h" word.

 

Rip, I didn’t bring up the charge of “cult”, others did. I said, I consider “Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism” just as dangerous and false teaching as any methods or systems Arnold Murray espouses. I got my opinions you got yours, we differ, and so be it, my opinion stands.

Now, you try to use a tactic of bringing the charge of “heresy” into the discussion. There have been treads about defining “heresy” before, it is a deep subject and is open to many interpretations and opinions. You know full well the rules of board do not allow for the calling other’s heretics; you may believe these rules may allow for some bias making it acceptable for one set of doctrines and not the other according to personal preferences. Consider “groupthink fallacy” or "nationalism fallacy” if you want to take advantage of any biases which you may perceive are here, but I don’t join in with those “types” of clubs. You may want to play games with the usage of the word “heresy”, but if so, in doing so make my point.

I already suggested that if some want to attack Arnolds Murray’s doctrines to go ahead, I have no problem with it, (same goes for Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism) and I might join in, but don’t expect me to play your little games of who it is allowed to brand as a "heretic" here and who is not.

 

You said of the former that it :"does more to fit the bill of cultic teaching and is more damaging than Murray's [doctrines].

You still haven't identified who in your estimation holds to hard determinism/hyper-Calvinism. I gave you some choices and I'll give you yet more. I already mentioned Hoeksema and Gordon Clark. Do John Gill ,Robert Reymond and James White fall into your category of cultic teaching that is worse than Murray's stuff?

It's no tactic -- it's just common sense. If you want to call certain teachings cultic those doctrines as a matter of course must indeed be heretical by your frame of reference. How can something be cultic on one hand, but not heretical on the other? Use your vaunted logic once in a while Ben.

 

Rip, I’ve adequately addressed this, including your obvious further attempts at types of arguments I have no interest of engaging in and about posting your “short little comebacks through the use of partially gathering some incomplete information from a thought” (post #41).

You don’t like my opinion that I thoroughly and adequately addressed in post #49 and frankly, that’s your problem. You’re obviously showing yourself to still be engaged in the tactics I mentioned in post #49 and are using a “type of argument” (feuding and fusing) that I further addressed, in short, in post #41. I can only gather that you either don’t comprehend the philosophical fundamentals I discussed, which have much to do with practical and meaningful purposes, goals and values in “argument types”, (once again, I don’t have the time or energy to break this all down for you) don’t care or choose to ignore what I have articulated, but I’m not going to start repeating myself for the sake of your disenchantments with my opinion while contributing to your continuing schema of preferential type of debate.

 

No, you quite clearly are being evasive. I like a straightforward approach. but that's not your style. You do not answer frank questions.

You didn't express your opinion and your many contradictions. You just blow smoke and do not answer honest questions.

You are so pompous. Just answer my questions.

You enjoy hearing yourself talk. Simplify your sentences. You just used 83 words for no good reason.

You have categorized those who in your view hold to hard determinism/hyper-Calvinism as being worse than the teachings of Murray. The former are regenerate;the latter is not.

Until you name representatives of this "hard determinist/hyper-Calvinist" position I will have to say you are full of hot air. It is more than likely that John Gill,Herman Hoeksema,Gordon Clark, Robert Reymond and James White are of this stamp according to your faulty view.Yet these people were/are regenerate and fully orthodox godly men of God -- Murray is considerably in the heretical vein. To insist that those holding to what you referenced (and did not define) as "hard determinism/hyper-Calvinism" are cultic, and hence heretical is in fact reprehensible on your part.

If you don't have the ability to distinguish between heretical doctrines and those holding to orthodox teachings -- you need to drop your prolix style and study more.

 

No I’m not, it is quite clear that you just like don’t like my answers which don’t fit your style.

No, you like senseless argument.

Wrong, I just don’t like playing your favored type little senseless games of tit for tat argument. (I’m making an exception here... just for you )

I clearly addressed the argument, and they are not contradictions. You just hope to look for contradictions through trying to have me repeat myself. Your only hope is that maybe you can cut a part out and make it appear that I’m saying something that I’m not. Your style and motives are shamefully deceptive.

You don’t ask honest questions, you clearly ask deceptive ones while having no idea how to draw out the truth in a matter.

Your arguments are childish.

The only thing that you would consider answering your question is if I were to start labeling some of your buddies as heretics; very childish of you. But I have clearly noted your deceptive goal and stuck to my opinion. (post #49) You are unable to comprehend that any legitimate argument would have to focus on “Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism” doctrines and not on Ad Hominem toward individuals.

You must be looking in a mirror.

I did, but that didn’t seem help you see the err in your cause.

You can say that again!

Yep, that’s the way I see it.

Prove it.

LOL… like I didn’t already recognize your childish argument…ROFLOL (post #49 my friend)

If the view I have of the doctrines of Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism shoe fits…OK

I made a comparison concerning doctrines, never called any individual “cultic”; you are being deceptive in your desperation of sticking to your senseless argument. BTW, you said to drop the definition of “cult or cultic” (a term I did not originally bring up) because “heretic” was a better term and then you tie the two together. But even if you were to make up your mind here your senseless goal of producing a labeling contest wouldn’t fly as a legitimate argument. Again, the answer to “your important question of defining” is in post #49.

If you don’t have the ability to reason logically and distinguish the difference between that and “fussing and feuding” you should stop trying to argue with me.

That opinion only serves to demonstrate how childish your type of argument is and how ignorant, undiscerning and unproductive your debate style is while reinforcing my belief that it is useless to engage with you in logical debate. The more I study Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism doctrines, methods, and systems, along with the logical conclusions to what those who hold to it espouse, the more I am repulsed by the doctrine, so your point is not valid.

All the fussing and feuding you get, my friend, I have better things to do.

Peace

 

To which Ben retorted with :"Yep, that's the way I see it." Ben still fails to see how it is inconsistent for him to assign those holding to "hard determinism/hyper-Calvinism" as being worse than the serious errors of Arnold Murray.

And of couse he never bothers about defining his terms -- just shuffles his cards and moves legit Chrstians into a realm beyond the heresies of Murray. How cavalier of him.

And in reference to the above Ben merely says :"If the view I have of the doctrines of Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism shoe fits ...Ok." No, Ben's hot-air balloon has been filled.

That's right Rip. Ben is deficient in the area of spiritual discernment.

 

My "style" may not be to your liking, but my motives are pure. You are in the wrong here by charging me with being shamefully deceptive. You have not answered my direct questions. They have been plain and quite understandable; especially for one who has such self-proclaimed logical prowess.

You are lying.

That's right. But you don't want to engage in legitimate arguments -- do you?

You didn't answer any of my questions in any of your posts.

You freely used the word cultic as early as post number 9. That's where you said :"To be frank... Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism does more to fit the bill of cultic teachings, and/or is not teaching the true Word, and is more damaging than Murray's ...stuff in comparison."

How can the two terms not be tied together?

I didn't say to drop the definition -- just the use of the word cult and cultic. But again, it silly in the extreme for you to claim that someone can be cultic yet not a heretic. And it is even more absurd for you to say that a group which is even more cultic than Murray's cannot be considered heretical.

Does any legit Christain scholar have your wacky view? "Yeah, that group's cultic, but I wouldn't dare say that they are heretical." I'm sorry to break it to you Ben, but any cultic group is heretical. Name just one non-heretical cult group. Can't do it can you? Come to your senses.

My perfectly valid point was that you are pompous and use run-on sentences regularly.

The more you study... and you still haven't even defined what you are against. You have not fleshed it out or named any individuals holding to whatever it is that repulses you.

 

“Hard Determinism/Hyper Calvinism” defines what I am against. You simply don’t like the terms or my opinion of it. It is apparent that you would take any further clarification of these terms (which would be another tread) as personal and center any argument on the personal aspects. All your childish antics involving the efforts to bring in the fallacy of Ad Hominem into the discussion and your reliance on this tactic clearly shows your lack of understanding in how to reason logically and demonstrates your only alternate and preferred recourse (feuding and fussing like a troll while drawing off of engaging others in competitive personal attack offensives). Again, I do not care to engage in your type of debating. My efforts here to explain my objection to making this discussion personal has fallen on deaf ears and only served to feed your efforts to keep it going.

I believe your blatant style of arguing by reliance on these tactics of personal attacks, finger pointing and commonly stretching the debating rules of this board in this area to focus on this fallacy should be dealt with.

 

Naming is not defining. the term hyper-Calvinism,for instance has a number of connotations across the board by professing Christians. Some have even said that any who hold to T.U.L.I.P are hyper-Calvinists (as absurd as that charge is).
You still have not defined what hard determinism/hyper-Calvinism is.You still have yet to name any persons who hold (or have held) such a view.
The problem is that perfectly orthodox Christians such as James White and Robert Reymond may be of the type that you think belong to your designation.
You have said that the teachings of the above are more extreme (extra-cultic) than even the heretical doctrines of Arnold Murray. Your "if the shoe fits" line was very revealing.
This demonstrates your poor sense of discernment.Your faulty view is actually sinful.Brothers in the Lord are cast in an extra-heretical category when they are even more orthodox than you can ever hope to be.

You certainly are challenged by clarifying anything. You just enjoy throwing grenades.

Arnold Murray is a heretic. He has been named and identified as one. His teachings have been dicussed and fleshed-out. But no, you will not do the same for your personal extra-heretical grouping.That's called inconsistency.

Yes, my mean old tendency of having you define your terms is so cruel of me.

 

Yeah, Murray says some off-the-wall stuff. From what I understand, he teaches Cain was Eve's son thru Satan.