1 on 1 Discussion (Please all others stay out)
(scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
My debate with Swamp Jew regarding these 5 things:
Are the Jews cursed, and enemies of God and the human race even up to the present? I say yes. Swamp Jew says no.
Is the Old Covenant still ongoing? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is OSAS true? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is the "Hebrew-roots Christian" movement actually Christian? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is the Talmud anti-Christian? I say yes. Swamp Jew says no.
Nice dissertation, bro. Too bad the other guy doesn't seem to care to do much more than try to control the frame of the debate. You're a more patient man than I, continuing to humor him that long.
Hi again, still love your username.
If you read it all on both sides, you'd see that by refusing all alternate definitions or any synthesis toward discovering additional truth, and refusing all questions, u/CrusaderPepe is doing a lot more frame-controlling than me. I just try to keep things on track so that a conclusion can be reached instead of just having (say) two unanswered dissertations.
The fact is that he's mostly speaking accurate Catholic theology that I don't disagree with (as I document in this thread). My own theological viewpoints are inaccessible to him because he's not willing to admit that any other definitions exist; so there's no point in my explaining my views on baptismal regeneration or Dake's 1,050 NT commands until he can settle that core. But by going to the full-press ad hominem he's basically, um, shutting things down.
I trust you can see that my strategy accomplished my goal of bringing his true epistemology into the light for God to convict him on.
Pretty sure your viewpoints are inaccessible to him because you're holding back. Maybe you stated them in a different thread? You called his theology "mostly" accurate, but when I skimmed through the thread yesterday I only saw you talking about points of agreement and asking him to further clarify his positions. Why not go ahead and lay out the bits you don't agree with?
Because I laid those out in detail at c/Christianity. I'm happy to provide complementary truth to a person who might be interested in receiving it, but he didn't want truth to be shared in either direction, he wanted to lay out his imagined truths and then to declare himself victor by fiat, which he has now done. I wanted to agree on terms by which we could jointly arrive at truth, which he flatly refused. If he refuses all alternate definitions, propositions, and questions, he's the one controlling terms of debate.
Just to give you a little context, I could freely lay out the case that the RCC, while it teaches in no uncertain terms that you can lose "sanctifying grace", does not in any place seem to teach authoritatively that you can lose regeneration. Rather, it teaches that regeneration presupposes faith and that there is false faith, which logically entails that some appearances of regeneration are false, which logically permits that you cannot lose regeneration. This explains all the Bible passages that imply this, which Catholics have to reinterpret when they look at them because of their plain meaning. However, why should I waste time developing this teaching additional to sanctifying grace doctrine if there is no one to hear it? I freely teach this for your benefit, but I proved there was no benefit in teaching anything to him because of his method presuppositions that prevent him from accepting truths by that path.
I did disagree on two points: I told him I never called him names, to which he replied by interpreting my words with false equivalence, defending his putting his interpretation of my words in quote marks as if I ever called him that. Plus, I told him I disagreed on Hebrew roots because thousands of Catholics in Jerusalem (the St. James Vicariate) share my view, and he said that they weren't really Catholics, that they ought to be investigated for excommunication. So if he will slice up his brothers so freely, and his pope and his bishop whenever they disagree with his interpretation of what truth has been established, it's no surprise how he treats me.
I then showed that all points whatsoever are only in dispute because he sets himself up as his own authority instead of submitting to God's authority. So the conclusion of the debate is that he's revealed where he stands: he affirms his authority to judge as infallible rather than God's authority to reveal his judgments infallibly. He cements this by his declaring me an enemy and son of satan and (just now) demanding, as the sole term of peace he would permit, that I call myself a "Jew" when he's defined that to mean a denier of Christ. We all know who asks people to deny Christ.
Would you like to join with me as a second witness in approaching him?