Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1794Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Response to Rob Bowman on 1 Cor. 8:6

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leonard
    Oct 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Rob,

      I have been following and most answers you give are like this one. You say you have answered and then divert attention to another issue. In this case what Patrick believes.

      That is only an issue if you wish to address something else he believes as a secondary subject. Right now he is discussing what YOU believe about 1 Cor. In other words, you are trying to put him on the defensive, without any in depth defense on your part of what YOU believe.

      While it may be a typical apologetic tactic it really is not proper in a discussion of this nature. The scriptures require that each one make a defense for THEIR faith when called on to do so. He is asking for your defense.

      "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
      Paul,

      You wrote:

      ************ ***
      I have been following this for a bit. One thing missing is any actual
      refutation by you. Yes you say what you believe, yet you do not give
      any substance to your beliefs.

      You do not answer Patrick's direct questions based on scripture and
      history. You appear to divert attention to Patrick's methods, beliefs
      or association, rather than give substantive answers to the
      scriptural points. It is kind of like you can't/won't commit yourself
      to a direct answer and in this way dodge the real issues.

      I am disappointed as this is not the way you have answered others in
      the past. Those reading the posts may well draw the conclusion that
      you cannot answer. I am sure that is not the impression you wish to
      give. Remember Patrick and I do not see eye to eye on all issues, so
      I am not being excessively partisan here.
      ************ ****

      Perhaps you have not been following this exchange for long enough.
      Most of what Patrick said in his most recent post simply repeats
      arguments or objections he raised earlier. I have answered Patrick in
      detail, point for point, in earlier posts in this exchange.

      Furthermore, Patrick has yet to put his objections to Trinitarianism
      into a context of what he personally believes. All I really know for
      sure about his theology is that he does not believe in the Trinity,
      and that he holds that Jesus is the "Son of God" and therefore cannot
      be God. I don't know much at all about what Patrick positively
      believes. I can't very well refute a position that has not been
      presented. Mostly, I know what Patrick is *against*; I am unclear as
      to what he is *for*. Surely it is reasonable for me to ask for such
      larger context.

      The response I did give to his post focused on the major criticisms
      he presented in his previous post. His main arguments in rebuttal to
      me are in fact addressed in my response.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman


    • Show all 23 messages in this topic