User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 58 of 58

Thread: Looking at 2 Pet 2:1

  1. #46
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8606
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Jengo, I answered you. Once again it seems you are incapable of understanding. Perhaps English is your second language?
    My question was "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"
    Your answer to it was that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect or elect. I already acknowledged, in my most recent post, that you answered it.

    You didn't read my recent post, obviously, or you would not have reacted to it the way you just have, since you would have seen that I acknowledged that you finally answered a question I asked you. I specifically said, in that post, #39, "Congratulations, and thank you! That's the first question I've ever asked you that you've actually (sort of) answered." But, you can't even read my screen name, evidently, so why should I expect you to be able to read a whole sentence, let alone a whole post?

    Anyway, that's your answer: that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect, or elect. It, of course, is a lousy answer, inasmuch as you already admitted that you consider Greg Boyd to be a false teacher.

    Observe what you are saying:

    'Greg Boyd is a false teacher, but I do not know whether he is non-elect or elect.'

    You are saying that Greg Boyd might be non-elect, but that, on the other hand, he might be elect. And so, you are saying that some false teachers may be elect. So, it is necessarily the case that you are dividing the class of all false teachers into two sub-classes:

    1. False teachers who are elect,
    2. False teachers who are non-elect.

    See, if you could bring yourself to affirm, instead, that ALL false teachers are non-elect, then you wouldn't have any trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is non-elect, since you already have no trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is a false teacher. But, since you are saying that some false teachers are elect, the only option you leave yourself is to respond to my question--"Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"--in as cautious and politic a way as you think you can, which is to say to me, "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"

    So, it is because you think that some false prophets are elect that you refuse to come out and declare that Greg Boyd (whom you consider to be a false prophet) is non-elect.

    And so, what's really interesting about all this--all you've given me (whether or not you even realized just how much you were actually giving away, inadvertently)--is how it reflects on your Calvinist way of dealing with 2 Peter 2. See, since you obviously think that some false prophets are elect, it leaves you with no basis, whatsoever, upon which to claim, as you do, that the false prophets spoken of in 2 Peter 2 MUST be non-elect.

    Do you now wish to change your mind, and deny, rather than affirm, that some false prophets are elect? That is, do you now wish to affirm, instead, that ALL false prophets are non-elect, and that NO false prophets are elect? If so, then nothing bars you from coming out, forthrightly, and declaring, "Yes, Greg Boyd is non-elect, since he is a false teacher." Your fake piety ploy--"Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"--is utterly worthless, since you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, and that ALL false teachers are elect.

  2. #47
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,528
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 177 Times in 152 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    My question was "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"
    Your answer to it was that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect or elect. I already acknowledged, in my most recent post, that you answered it.

    You didn't read my recent post, obviously, or you would not have reacted to it the way you just have, since you would have seen that I acknowledged that you finally answered a question I asked you. I specifically said, in that post, #39, "Congratulations, and thank you! That's the first question I've ever asked you that you've actually (sort of) answered." But, you can't even read my screen name, evidently, so why should I expect you to be able to read a whole sentence, let alone a whole post?

    Anyway, that's your answer: that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect, or elect. It, of course, is a lousy answer, inasmuch as you already admitted that you consider Greg Boyd to be a false teacher.

    Observe what you are saying:

    'Greg Boyd is a false teacher, but I do not know whether he is non-elect or elect.'

    You are saying that Greg Boyd might be non-elect, but that, on the other hand, he might be elect. And so, you are saying that some false teachers may be elect. So, it is necessarily the case that you are dividing the class of all false teachers into two sub-classes:

    1. False teachers who are elect,
    2. False teachers who are non-elect.

    See, if you could bring yourself to affirm, instead, that ALL false teachers are non-elect, then you wouldn't have any trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is non-elect, since you already have no trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is a false teacher. But, since you are saying that some false teachers are elect, the only option you leave yourself is to respond to my question--"Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"--in as cautious and politic a way as you think you can, which is to say to me, "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"

    So, it is because you think that some false prophets are elect that you refuse to come out and declare that Greg Boyd (whom you consider to be a false prophet) is non-elect.

    And so, what's really interesting about all this--all you've given me (whether or not you even realized just how much you were actually giving away, inadvertently)--is how it reflects on your Calvinist way of dealing with 2 Peter 2. See, since you obviously think that some false prophets are elect, it leaves you with no basis, whatsoever, upon which to claim, as you do, that the false prophets spoken of in 2 Peter 2 MUST be non-elect.

    Do you now wish to change your mind, and deny, rather than affirm, that some false prophets are elect? That is, do you now wish to affirm, instead, that ALL false prophets are non-elect, and that NO false prophets are elect? If so, then nothing bars you from coming out, forthrightly, and declaring, "Yes, Greg Boyd is non-elect, since he is a false teacher." Your fake piety ploy--"Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"--is utterly worthless, since you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, and that ALL false teachers are elect.
    Do you own a pretzel maker? You have done an amazing job with this one.
    Do you imagine all of the elect speak infallible words of God when they teach? Do you imagine the elect never disagree?

  3. #48
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8606
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Do you own a pretzel maker? You have done an amazing job with this one.
    Do you imagine all of the elect speak infallible words of God when they teach? Do you imagine the elect never disagree?
    Here's a fun little syllogism for you:

    Maj. Prem.: ALL false teachers are non-elect,
    Min. Prem.: Greg Boyd is a false teacher,
    Ergo,
    Conclusion: Greg Boyd is non-elect.

    You affirm the major premise, no?
    You affirm the minor premise, no?

    So, when you respond to the question, "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?", by saying "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?", it's here, plain for all to see, your lying foolishness, and your antipathy to logic--your hatred for GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE from premises accepted as true. If you can accept that both the major and the minor premises of this syllogism are true, then you have no excuse, whatsoever, to stonewall against affirming the conclusion of this syllogism, viz., that Greg Boyd is non-elect. For, if both premises are true, this conclusion MUST be true.

    If you deny one, or both, of the premises, then say which one(s) you deny, and say why you deny it/them.

    Do you wish to deny the major, that ALL false teachers are non-elect? For you to deny that is for you to affirm that SOME false teachers are elect.

    Do you wish to deny the minor, that Greg Boyd is a false teacher? Bear in mind that you have already affirmed that Greg Boyd is a teacher of open theism and Pelagianism. You have already affirmed that Greg Boyd opposes, denies, teaches against Calvinism, which you hold to be truth, and the very gospel, itself.


    Stop being a lying, intellectual coward; out with it, now:

    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

    In your very next post that is a direct reply to this post, you are to submit nothing other than the word 'Yes', if your answer to this question is 'Yes', and submit nothing other than the word 'No', if your answer to this question is 'No'. Failing to do so, you will not have answered the question, and you will still be a lying, intellectual coward.

    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

    Enjoy the syllogism!

    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

  4. #49
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,528
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 177 Times in 152 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Here's a fun little syllogism for you:

    Maj. Prem.: ALL false teachers are non-elect,
    Min. Prem.: Greg Boyd is a false teacher,
    Ergo,
    Conclusion: Greg Boyd is non-elect.

    You affirm the major premise, no?
    You affirm the minor premise, no?

    So, when you respond to the question, "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?", by saying "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?", it's here, plain for all to see, your lying foolishness, and your antipathy to logic--your hatred for GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE from premises accepted as true. If you can accept that both the major and the minor premises of this syllogism are true, then you have no excuse, whatsoever, to stonewall against affirming the conclusion of this syllogism, viz., that Greg Boyd is non-elect. For, if both premises are true, this conclusion MUST be true.

    If you deny one, or both, of the premises, then say which one(s) you deny, and say why you deny it/them.

    Do you wish to deny the major, that ALL false teachers are non-elect? For you to deny that is for you to affirm that SOME false teachers are elect.

    Do you wish to deny the minor, that Greg Boyd is a false teacher? Bear in mind that you have already affirmed that Greg Boyd is a teacher of open theism and Pelagianism. You have already affirmed that Greg Boyd opposes, denies, teaches against Calvinism, which you hold to be truth, and the very gospel, itself.


    Stop being a lying, intellectual coward; out with it, now:

    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

    In your very next post that is a direct reply to this post, you are to submit nothing other than the word 'Yes', if your answer to this question is 'Yes', and submit nothing other than the word 'No', if your answer to this question is 'No'. Failing to do so, you will not have answered the question, and you will still be a lying, intellectual coward.

    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

    Enjoy the syllogism!

    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?
    Am I obligated to play your little game? Shall we call it, Pretzel Making or Twirl the Spaghetti?

  5. #50
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8606
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Am I obligated to play your little game? Shall we call it, Pretzel Making or Twirl the Spaghetti?
    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

  6. #51
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,528
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 177 Times in 152 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?
    Ask God. I'm sure he knows.

  7. #52
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8606
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Ask God. I'm sure he knows.
    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

  8. #53
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,528
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 177 Times in 152 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?
    Ask God. I'm sure he knows.

  9. #54
    TOL Legend beloved57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    18,745
    Thanks
    596
    Thanked 1,850 Times in 1,767 Posts

    Blog Entries
    14
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    50999
    Quote Originally Posted by TestedandTried View Post
    Could you expound maybe and using Scripture to back up your doctrine?
    I have already, I have maybe a dozen or more threads on this forum to back up my beliefs, so if you are truly interested look them up and read them and we can discuss what you read from them.
    "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
    preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
    called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
    a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

    Charles Spurgeon !

  10. #55
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1845
    No thanks...perhaps I'll encounter more on your thoughts later some day.

  11. #56
    TOL Legend beloved57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    18,745
    Thanks
    596
    Thanked 1,850 Times in 1,767 Posts

    Blog Entries
    14
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    50999
    Quote Originally Posted by TestedandTried View Post
    No thanks...perhaps I'll encounter more on your thoughts later some day.
    ok
    "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
    preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
    called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
    a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

    Charles Spurgeon !

  12. #57
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8606
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Am I obligated to play your little game? Shall we call it, Pretzel Making or Twirl the Spaghetti?
    Have you ever heard of syllogisms? Have you ever heard of deductive reasoning? Of course you have, you liar.

    So, given that you believe that ALL false teachers are non-elect, and given that you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, you show yourself to be a bald-faced liar, and coward, when you refuse to say to me "Greg Boyd is non-elect."

    Your refusal to deal plainly with me, and your refusal to own the necessary consequence of two premises that you believe, flow from the fact that you love your irrationality so much--your Calvinism--that you are willing to lie to me, and to others, on behalf of it.

    If it's true that ALL false teachers are non-elect (which you, indeed, believe is true), and that Greg Boyd is a false teacher (which you, indeed, believe is true), then as a necessary consequence of those two things being true, it MUST be true that Greg Boyd is non-elect. So, say it, coward: "Greg Boyd is non-elect!"

    Why do you hate logic?

  13. #58
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,528
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 177 Times in 152 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Have you ever heard of syllogisms? Have you ever heard of deductive reasoning? Of course you have, you liar.

    So, given that you believe that ALL false teachers are non-elect, and given that you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, you show yourself to be a bald-faced liar, and coward, when you refuse to say to me "Greg Boyd is non-elect."

    Your refusal to deal plainly with me, and your refusal to own the necessary consequence of two premises that you believe, flow from the fact that you love your irrationality so much--your Calvinism--that you are willing to lie to me, and to others, on behalf of it.

    If it's true that ALL false teachers are non-elect (which you, indeed, believe is true), and that Greg Boyd is a false teacher (which you, indeed, believe is true), then as a necessary consequence of those two things being true, it MUST be true that Greg Boyd is non-elect. So, say it, coward: "Greg Boyd is non-elect!"

    Why do you hate logic?
    Why do you hate the Bible? God gives you the answers. Start looking.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us