15 Jun 05
Originally posted by NordlysIf I were a literalist and still wanted to be logical about it - I would not come up with froggy's syllogism:
I understood it the same way frogstomp did (in fact, we posted the same idea, although put into different words, at exactly the same time 🙂 ), and I still don't see how anyone could understand it in a different way without being a literalist. And if you are a literalist, the first part of RBHILLs statement doesn't work.
* Everyone has lied.
* All liars will go to hell.
* Therefore everyone will go to hell.
Because this assumes that:
* ALL who lie are liars. (which RB did not say)
And it is accepted as true by Christians:
* NOT everyone will go to hell.
therefore
* ALL who lie are not liars.
Simple logic tells me that RB's statement does NOT imply all who lie are liars.
Y'all just misunderstood. 🙂
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiNo, he would be a Christian.
If a Hindu can have faith in the redemption found in Christ alone, then he can be saved from all of his sins. But then would he be a Hindu?
So, you believe that all Hindus go to hell?
You believe that your faith holds sway over all mankind in the sense that all people of other faiths and beliefs are put into hell by your God?
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightNot my God, but the one and only God. I don't make up the rules, God does. I believe what He says in scripture - there is only one means of salvation - faith in Christ. No excuses, no alternative paths.
...You believe that your faith holds sway over all mankind in the sense that all people of other faiths and beliefs are put into hell by your God?
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiSo, all Hindus are predestined to go to hell?
Not my God, but the one and only God. I don't make up the rules, God does. I believe what He says in scripture - there is only one means of salvation - faith in Christ. No excuses, no alternative paths.
All Mulims?
All Agnostics?
All Atheists?
Etc?
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightYes. That is the logical consequence of "predestination".
So, all Hindus are predestined to go to hell?
All Mulims?
All Agnostics?
All Atheists?
Etc?
If you would like to argue about the doctrine of predestination - you need determine if you believe in the reliability of scripture. If your reject scripture, then you can not logically address the issues of predestination, justification, or any other questions of Christian doctrine.
Do you believe in the reliability of scripture?
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI'm asking the questions here.
Yes. That is the logical consequence of "predestination".
If you would like to argue about the doctrine of predestination - you need determine if you believe in the reliability of scripture. If your reject scripture, then you can not logically address the issues of predestination, justification, or any other questions of Christian doctrine.
Do you believe in the reliability of scripture?
And, I now know enough about this.
Predestination?
I doubt it.
😉
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiHe most certainly can. since one of Christian doctrines is the reliability of scripture.
Yes. That is the logical consequence of "predestination".
If you would like to argue about the doctrine of predestination - you need determine if you believe in the reliability of scripture. If your reject scripture, then you can not logically address the issues of predestination, justification, or any other questions of Christian doctrine.
Do you believe in the reliability of scripture?
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompThe reliability of scripture is prior to the doctrine of predestination. One must either agree to it (or assume it is a true premise for the purposes of debate) in order to show if predestination is a valid Christian doctrine. To say predestination is wrong because scripture is unreliable is begging the question. It would be fine to debate predestination within the framework of reliable scripture in order to show it is right or wrong.
He most certainly can. since one of Christian doctrines is the reliability of scripture.
16 Jun 05
Originally posted by telerionI was making pun of your spelling.
Is there a pun here on excepts/accepts?
Can it read both ways?
Are those nuts? No forgiveness for nutty muffins. (Oh boy, this is not good)
I guess if you except (woops...) Jesus, more ways will be revealed to you.
No, they are white chocolate chips. Is there forgiveness for chocolaty muffins?
17 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiWow. An astounding display of arrogance. Bravo!
Yes. That is the logical consequence of "predestination".
If you would like to argue about the doctrine of predestination - you need determine if you believe in the reliability of scripture. If your reject scripture, then you can not logically address the issues of predestination, justification, or any other questions of Christian doctrine.
Do you believe in the reliability of scripture?
To paraphrase:
"If you don't believe that my book contains the Word of God, then you are unqualified to debate its' authenticity or accuracy."
17 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiIt would be nice to actually have reliable scripture as a framework, however without a reliable framework any argument made from it is also unreliable as would be any resolution.
The reliability of scripture is prior to the doctrine of predestination. One must either agree to it (or assume it is a true premise for the purposes of debate) in order to show if predestination is a valid Christian doctrine. To say predestination is wrong because scripture is unreliable is begging the question. It would be fine to debate predestination within the framework of reliable scripture in order to show it is right or wrong.