Transgressor from the womb
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
beloved57
Well-known member
Again Your question doesnt make sense to me.
True believers are never blotted out of the Lambs's book of life. But phony Christians will find their names blotted out if they do not get saved, and their names will be blotted out for choosing the love of sin over submission to God when presented the clear choice by the Holy Spirit.
Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Doesn't make sense?
It's a very simple question, B57.
Or is it that you're afraid of answering?
beloved57
Well-known member
I actually think thats a foolish question sir.
Well, again, you're making a dispensational error here. The fact is that in the dispensation of grace, there could be no way to blot out a name that was never in the book to begin with nor does the book in question have anything to do with believers in the age of grace. BUT - that is entirely beside the point. The point is that anyone who goes to Hell, I don't care when or how, it wasn't BECAUSE their name was blotted out. Their name was blotted out for the same reason they're going to Hell. In other words, the blotting out of names and the going to Hell do not have a cause and effect relationship between them. Rather they both share the same cause. That cause being sin, as the verses you've quoted in previous posts explicitly state.
Translation: I'm in a corner that I can't think of a way out of. I must therefore discredit the validity of the question by calling it foolish. I don't need to explain why it's foolish, all that is necessary is for me to proclaim it foolish and the job will be done.
Classic - textbook - ad hominem argument!
I think you are wrong. God will blot out of His book the names of people in the present age who wickedly monkey around with His Word.
Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Appeal to the stone (or appeal to ridicule, I suppose) rather, but yes, a fallacy nonetheless!
Your personal opinion means nothing to me.
Revelation was written to Jewish believers. Believers who were (will be) under the law.
Of course, you wouldn't know that because your doctrine came directly from God Himself , right?
I will NOT discuss the dispensational issue with you any further. It is not relevant to the discussion at hand. I repeat....
The point is that anyone who goes to Hell, I don't care when or how, it wasn't BECAUSE their name was blotted out. Their name was blotted out for the same reason they're going to Hell. In other words, the blotting out of names and the going to Hell do not have a cause and effect relationship between them. Rather they both share the same cause. That cause being sin, as the verses you've quoted in previous posts explicitly state.
Now, if you'd like to address that point, we can continue. Otherwise, I'll assume you either agree or are unable to answer it since your own proof texting has gone to support the point.
You're correct, it is definitely an appeal to the stone fallacy but that is usually just another, more indirect, form of ad hominem.
Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd and proves this assertion by stating that the argument is absurd, which is PRECISELY what B57 has done.
"Ad hominem" means "attack the person" This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
He calls it a foolish question without explaining why (stone) but what he intends to communicate is that the person asking the question is a fool and can therefore be safely ignored (hominem).
Kudos for even knowing what an appeal to the stone fallacy even is, by the way! Most people have never heard of that one. I don't think I've ever heard it referrence more than once or twice and I don't recall having ever seen it referenced here on TOL. Very nice! It almost makes me wish you and I had something we disagreed about! That would be fun!
Fair enough.
Yeah, I'm usually pretty thick skinned (or maybe just thick-headed, haha) so I'm not affected by indirect attacks on my person, or I just don't even notice them to begin with.
I've used it a bunch here on TOL in the Politics section, mostly when I'm in a discussion with people like Arthur Brain and eider and others like them, because they usually end up resorting to fallacious arguments when they find out they can't defend their position rationally.
There are a few things we disagree on, iirc. But nothing worth mentioning here, haha.