Hey Bert,
Re: Clark, re: Hoeksema.
And where is the ad hominem there?
Scope this out:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... n&ct=title
Definitions of ad hominem on the Web:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
attacking your opponent personally rather than her/his argument. Ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.
an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak.
when people can't find fault with an argument, they sometimes attack the arguer, substituting irrelevant assertions about that person's character for an analysis of the argument itself.
appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason); "ad hominem arguments"
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument [aimed] at the person", but usually translated as "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.
that may help.
David
The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9097
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
Or maybe this one:
[quote]Thats it, Sean? Thats all you have, that and insults?
Sheesh... here is something from Clark:
God´s relation to the sinful acts of men, the stumbling block that so many people find in Chapter 3, is considered again in 4 of chapter 5. The sphere of providence extends to the first sin of Adam and to all other sins of angels and men. God´s relation to sin is not that of bare permission; in fact as Calvin shows in his Institutes, 2.4.3, and 3.23.8, permission in the case of the Almighty has no specific meaning. Gordon Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1965), p., 67.
And then later:
This first section also states that God, in his own glory as previously explained at length, was pleased to permit our first parents to disobey his command.
Most people would say that the word permit is a softer expression than the word ordain. Some would even say that permission half puts sin out of God´s control. But we cannot permit anyone to suppose that chapter 6 contradicts chapters 3 and 4. Not being infallible, the men at Westminster may have fallen into some slight inconsistency somewhere; but it can hardly be maintained that they anywhere contradicted the doctrine of the divine decree.
It is better to understand the word permit as merely a convenient linguistic expression. Indeed, permission as it is used in human affairs is in appropriate to the divine omnipotence and sovereignty. Of course, it is quite true to say that God permitted Adam to sin; but if by this we intend to deny that God foreordained Adam´s sin, we are quite mistaken. God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.
For reasons such as this, John Calvin wrote: "œHere they [those who object to the divine decrees] recur to the distinction between will and permission, and insist that God permits the destruction of the impious, but does not will it. But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will?"
[quote]Thats it, Sean? Thats all you have, that and insults?
Sheesh... here is something from Clark:
God´s relation to the sinful acts of men, the stumbling block that so many people find in Chapter 3, is considered again in 4 of chapter 5. The sphere of providence extends to the first sin of Adam and to all other sins of angels and men. God´s relation to sin is not that of bare permission; in fact as Calvin shows in his Institutes, 2.4.3, and 3.23.8, permission in the case of the Almighty has no specific meaning. Gordon Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1965), p., 67.
And then later:
This first section also states that God, in his own glory as previously explained at length, was pleased to permit our first parents to disobey his command.
Most people would say that the word permit is a softer expression than the word ordain. Some would even say that permission half puts sin out of God´s control. But we cannot permit anyone to suppose that chapter 6 contradicts chapters 3 and 4. Not being infallible, the men at Westminster may have fallen into some slight inconsistency somewhere; but it can hardly be maintained that they anywhere contradicted the doctrine of the divine decree.
It is better to understand the word permit as merely a convenient linguistic expression. Indeed, permission as it is used in human affairs is in appropriate to the divine omnipotence and sovereignty. Of course, it is quite true to say that God permitted Adam to sin; but if by this we intend to deny that God foreordained Adam´s sin, we are quite mistaken. God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.
For reasons such as this, John Calvin wrote: "œHere they [those who object to the divine decrees] recur to the distinction between will and permission, and insist that God permits the destruction of the impious, but does not will it. But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will?"
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9097
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
Ah, I see, if you say it, it is true, and thus not ad hominim. If I say it, it is false, and thus ad hominim. Got it now.Flynn schreef:Hey Bert,Bert Mulder schreef:So this is an ad hominim statement, then?:
Oh, by the way, sorry David, but there is only one PRCA member here. You are not beleaguered
No thats not an ad hominem either, because 1) what I said was true, not only in terms of what I reported, but also in terms of my wider perception and experience. And 2) it was journaling my experience and reflection on you telling me to shut up, your comment that I was blind, and your even bringing into doubt my salvation. However, I never tabled that as an argument against any of your arguments against me. To be clear, I never used any of that to dismiss you, or your arguments, to you or to anyone.
I didnt present any inaccuracies or untruths. Right?
Btw, and I didnt say or feel beleagured. Far from it, Bert.
As to only 1 PRCer, ah, okay I mistakenly thought Gallio was a PRCer. Sorry Gallio.
Take care,
David
You gotta get your terminology straight though. How can a convicted hypercalvinist like me, ever admonish a reprobate, which you accuse me of calling you.
Mr. David Ponter, I have not, nor will I ever call you a reprobate.
And quit flattering yourself. This (english part of the) board was doing fine until you showed up.
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Hey Bert, this is getting out of hand. You can email me directly or message me. I dont believe what is happening now is edifying anyone or directing focus to the issues tabled. Its again making it personal.
Bert:
You gotta get your terminology straight though. How can a convicted hypercalvinist like me, ever admonish a reprobate, which you accuse me of calling you.
David: Did I say you said that? I said you brought into question my salvation. I believe that is so when you cited the verse from Isaiah.
Bert: Mr. David Ponter, I have not, nor will I ever call you a reprobate.
David: I dont recall saying you did.
I would love to see the rules in English. I am sincerely not trying to step outside their bounds. But each day I am being called to defend myself personally.
David
Bert:
You gotta get your terminology straight though. How can a convicted hypercalvinist like me, ever admonish a reprobate, which you accuse me of calling you.
David: Did I say you said that? I said you brought into question my salvation. I believe that is so when you cited the verse from Isaiah.
Bert: Mr. David Ponter, I have not, nor will I ever call you a reprobate.
David: I dont recall saying you did.
I would love to see the rules in English. I am sincerely not trying to step outside their bounds. But each day I am being called to defend myself personally.
David
Personally I'm not fluent in English; I just write some kind of stone coal Englisch, as you may see.Flynn schreef:I would love to see the rules in English.
Perhaps one of you (Bert or David) can occupy yourself with translating the forum rules.
Just mail the result to me or another moderator or administrator.
Thanking you in advance!
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9097
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
Working on a translation for you, Tib.Tiberius schreef:Personally I'm not fluent in English; I just write some kind of stone coal Englisch, as you may see. :wink:Flynn schreef:I would love to see the rules in English.
Perhaps one of you (Bert or David) can occupy yourself with translating the forum rules. :D
Just mail the result to me or another moderator or administrator.
Thanking you in advance!
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Hey Tiberius,Tiberius schreef:Personally I'm not fluent in English; I just write some kind of stone coal Englisch, as you may see.Flynn schreef:I would love to see the rules in English.
Perhaps one of you (Bert or David) can occupy yourself with translating the forum rules.
I dont speak Dutch, so I am no use to you. If Bert translates the rules, can we get a neutral third party to check out his translation? ;-) <==smilie
David
;-)
Don't worry: I'll set myself up as a neutral third party.Flynn schreef:Hey Tiberius,Tiberius schreef:Personally I'm not fluent in English; I just write some kind of stone coal Englisch, as you may see.Flynn schreef:I would love to see the rules in English.
Perhaps one of you (Bert or David) can occupy yourself with translating the forum rules.
I dont speak Dutch, so I am no use to you. If Bert translates the rules, can we get a neutral third party to check out his translation? ;-) <==smilie
David
;-)
Hi Flynn,
I'd like you to take a thorough look at the Forum Rules as written in this topic.
Furthermore I'll advise you to ask yourself the reason for posting all those English discussions, which are mainly opposed to the PRCA and her theology.
We will not offer space for Amyraldian doctrines.
Have a nice day,
Tiberius
I'd like you to take a thorough look at the Forum Rules as written in this topic.
Furthermore I'll advise you to ask yourself the reason for posting all those English discussions, which are mainly opposed to the PRCA and her theology.
We will not offer space for Amyraldian doctrines.
Have a nice day,
Tiberius
Tiberius, that's very cowardly a reaction! Bert is pushing all these hypercalvinistic themes on this forum. He is continually bringing these issues here to challenge the participaters. And you are not going to allow the others to point out the position of sound theologians like Ursinus! And calling the quotations of Calvin and Turretin amyraldic? Come on, reconsider on your own stand here! And let our eyes read the sound doctrine of the reformation.Tiberius schreef:Hi Flynn,
I'd like you to take a thorough look at the Forum Rules as written in this topic.
Furthermore I'll advise you to ask yourself the reason for posting all those English discussions, which are mainly opposed to the PRCA and her theology.
We will not offer space for Amyraldian doctrines.
Have a nice day,
Tiberius
Just let the participant argue with simple arguments. And if anyone becomes personal, you have got to warn him once or twice and if he does not restrict to objective reasoning, exclude him.
Can't you see that David is just engaged in sheer reasoning and that Bert takes it to the person time and again?
Regards,
Polemicus.
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9097
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
Esteemed Polemicus,Polemicus schreef:Tiberius, that's very cowardly a reaction! Bert is pushing all these hypercalvinistic themes on this forum. He is continually bringing these issues here to challenge the participaters. And you are not going to allow the others to point out the position of sound theologians like Ursinus! And calling the quotations of Calvin and Turretin amyraldic? Come on, reconsider on your own stand here! And let our eyes read the sound doctrine of the reformation.Tiberius schreef:Hi Flynn,
I'd like you to take a thorough look at the Forum Rules as written in this topic.
Furthermore I'll advise you to ask yourself the reason for posting all those English discussions, which are mainly opposed to the PRCA and her theology.
We will not offer space for Amyraldian doctrines.
Have a nice day,
Tiberius
Just let the participant argue with simple arguments. And if anyone becomes personal, you have got to warn him once or twice and if he does not restrict to objective reasoning, exclude him.
Can't you see that David is just engaged in sheer reasoning and that Bert takes it to the person time and again?
Regards,
Polemicus.
I have not, and will never, call the teaching of Calvin, Turretin, and for that matter Paraeus amyraldian. That is putting words in my mouth.
Au contrare, your friend Flyn is the one who is placing those theologians who I highly esteem as espousing the Amyraldian heresy. And Turretin being no less than the opponent of the Amyraldians and school of Samur.
At the same time also he is slandering the name of Paraeus, by giving place to the teachings of Baxter, and having him quote Paraeus, and reading IN to his words.
As you well know, Polemicus, I have always been open to fair debate. I will not be party to 'debate a la Flyn', which is not only unedifying, but also drags the name of eminent Divines through the mud, such as Paraeus, Turretin, Calvin and Ursinus. That is using their writings to support evil deeds.
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Entamate this with Tiberius, I didn't.Bert Mulder schreef: Esteemed Polemicus,
I have not, and will never, call the teaching of Calvin, Turretin, and for that matter Paraeus amyraldian. That is putting words in my mouth.
Let him bring forth the evidence right from Ursinus and Paraeus themselves, like he did correctly from Turretin in the debate around prof. Engelsman. You didn't give one syllable contra-evidence.Bert Mulder schreef:Au contrare, your friend Flyn is the one who is placing those theologians who I highly esteem as espousing the Amyraldian heresy. And Turretin being no less than the opponent of the Amyraldians and school of Samur.
At the same time also he is slandering the name of Paraeus, by giving place to the teachings of Baxter, and having him quote Paraeus, and reading IN to his words.
Fair debate ... that's what I am waiting for. Bring forth your arguments from the devines, like you did before in te debate on Calvin and the well meant offer of grace. Just bring them forth and adstruct them with quotations.Bert Mulder schreef:As you well know, Polemicus, I have always been open to fair debate. I will not be party to 'debate a la Flyn', which is not only unedifying, but also drags the name of eminent Divines through the mud, such as Paraeus, Turretin, Calvin and Ursinus. That is using their writings to support evil deeds.