1794Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Response to Rob Bowman on 1 Cor. 8:6
- Oct 8, 2007Hi 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,
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
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,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>