I was once a Sinner - and I still Am!

Roger-wil-co.
Jim


(Roger-wil-co some have said comes from the greek root meaning, aknowledged, we will comply with said directive.) Tee-hee

 

Lady Eagle, it was no personal attack at all. I don't appreciate that comment. However, please accept my apology if a personal attack was implied. The tone of your last post sounded snotty to me. If not snotty, then at least belittling. You could at least have replied with "Sorry if my post sounded snooty, that wasn't my intent" or something like that.

As for sticking to the biblical issue, my assertion is entirely scripturally supported, as has already been discussed. Obviously, yours appears to be as well. We differ on interpretation. You shouldn't take such a simple discussion so personally.

 

Well, make up your mind, Johnv, was it

SNOOTY

or SNOTTY???

 

Uhhh, sneither. I thought it was snooty, but it's snot.

 

Some of us don't really care too much for the Reformation either.
It didn't go far enough and the mainstream Protestant Reformation denominations have only succeeded in muddy-ing the water of life.
Most of them have a double-speak definition of baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation.

I don't consider myself a Protestant. I don't protest the Catholic Church, FWIW I reject it and their elitist sacerdotal priesthood (but not rank-and-file Catholics).

How's that for snooty (or whatever other way you want to spell it ).

HankD

 

The question was "Are we 'either/or' or 'both/and'?" The question was not "Let us consider Luther, et.al.

Rather than answer the question. You chose to make a facetious comment about Luther, to which I responded.

In the thread where this all began, we were told to "take a course in soteriology." I have merely presented what that course on soteriology teaches. I have given Scripture. I have even quoted directly from James P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, from Luther, and a Reformed theologian from the modern era. Boyce was one of the founders of Southern Seminary. The SBC uses the Baptist Faith and Message. The use of confessions and abstracts is not foreign or alien to Baptist thought or practice.

Why I am now being told that I am "pushing an agenda?" We disagree on the way we should reach out to a particular population. I have already addressed that issue in this thread. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I've moved on from that. That is not the topic of this thread. I am addressing soteriological claims at this time. What "agenda" am I pushing with relationship to soteriology?

I made no personal criticism of you, LadyEagle. You made a comment that was a fallacy of argumentation. The heading of the forum has the word "debate" in it. "Debate" means just that, or do we use a different definition of the term? I will point out fallacies of argumentation if I see them. They are not personal attacks, they are actual fallacies that get used. .
I did not call you a well poisoner. (As you say of me,"that's your spin on what I said."). I said that your statement was a use of "poisoning the well," a fallacy of argumentation and the genetic fallacy.

Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim

Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
--------------------------------------------
I have made a presentation from systematic theology/soteriology and harmartiology drawn directly from Luther, Boice, and Boyce and Scripture in response to a statement made in another thread about what Johnv should do.

Seminary professors are NOT far moved from reality. One is on this board as a moderator, and at least one communicates with me regularly about what is said on this board. They are very in touch with the real world. Boice, whom I quoted earlier was a prominent theological writer up until his recent death. He was not "removed from reality" by any means. He was the pastor of a very large church in the North. He was "in touch" with reality every day.

 

I respectfully disagree. The definitions and names for the fallacies of argumentation that I use are found at my friend Matt Slick's website, www.carm.org :

www.carm.org/apologetics/fallacies.htm


"Poisoning the well" is one of them as named. I did not invent the term. I did not say LadyEagle is a well poisoner. I said she had used the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well," in her response.

I have presented tradition. However, I have not said we should believe what we believe because of tradition, which is the definition of "appeal to tradition." I have said that it merits consideration. I have simply presented what three different strands of tradition have to say on the issue (Lutheran, Reformed, and Baptist), in addition to Scripture, per the response of another poster in another thread.

LadyEagle is not a well poisoner any more than using the genetic fallacy would make a person a geneticist. Notice that while I am accused of calling her a well poisoner, I am not accused of calling her a geneticist.

To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy of non sequitar: (Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion. ), eg. Bridges said Eagle used the fallacy of poisoning the well, therefore, she is accused of being a well poisoner. Bridges said Eagle used the genetic fallacy, therefore she is accused of being a geneticist. Bridges appeals to tradition, therefore he is a traditionalist, etc. The conclusions do not logically flow from the premises.

I hope I have clarified the issue.

 

I respectfully disagree. The definitions and names for the fallacies of argumentation that I use are found at my friend Matt Slick's website, www.carm.org :

www.carm.org/apologetics/fallacies.htm


"Poisoning the well" is one of them as named. I did not invent the term. I did not say LadyEagle is a well poisoner. I said she had used the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well," in her response.

I have appealed to tradition. However, I have not said we should believe what we believe because of tradition, which is the definition of "appeal to tradition."

LadyEagle is not a well poisoner and more than using the genetic fallacy would make a person a geneticist. Notice that while I am accused of calling her a well poisoner, I am not accused of calling her a geneticist.

To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy of non sequitar: (Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion. ). </font>[/QUOTE]ok, it is all so very clear to me now.
what am i ?
what site should i visit to help me?
what category do i fit in? or is it just my comments?

i think you are going overboard with this carm site and putting people into your definitions

 

Thanks, massdak, for your help. Just let it go. Maybe we can continue the pattern and get this thread closed, too. Let's try the humor forum.

 

I'll bet that you were part of the Debate Team in school, wasn'tcha?

 

You must be right. As the saying goes, God don't make no 'junct.

 

....or sister!

(Dr. Bob, was that a sin of omission?)

 

I haven't looked at the posts here since I posted my message - yesterday I think. I forgot to check the little box you have to check to keep up when people post.

I am not getting into the issue, just want to confirm that "poisoning the well" is the name of a fallacy. It's not personal. The carm site (which is an excellent resource, btw) did not make it up. Gene did not make it up. I learned about it a few years ago before I ever met y'all!

All of the fallacies have names. Most of you have heard of the straw man argument. That's one of them. They are very useful to know -- they have helped me recognize fallacies in people's arguments (in the sense of debating an issue or an accusation, which I get all the time via my website). One fallacy is called "nothing-buttery" and another is called the argument of the beard. I love that one!

 

um........what was the subject?
Jim

 

How about this title:

Yeah, it’s a bit wordy. It’s sort-of a quote (I made it up) from the C. S. Lewis School of, “I shouldn’t use big words when I don’t know what they mean.”

Practically, I think the value in calling oneself a sinner is to remind us to be humble and seek the Lord’s help and guidance continually. We need the continual presence of the Lord to help us resist sin and be gracious in all that we do. To ‘be saved’ is to be led to the knowledge of this. If we are ‘headed for heaven’ we are saints. Unbelievers, on the other hand, DO NOT know they are sinners and desperately need the Lord’s help. The information in GeneM’s posts, at least to me, said the same things (thanks GeneM). Of course, I think other posters would probably agree with this title (maybe?). Sometimes profound truths can’t be said simply and simple truths need more explaining, especially to someone simple like me! - That’s all I’ve got to say about that.

Michael