tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post6528167334849845219..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Lupine Outing Update - "Fred"'s Response RebuttedTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-21047935500550470662007-05-09T14:33:00.000+01:002007-05-09T14:33:00.000+01:00Fred, rather than bury my response at the bottom o...Fred, rather than bury my response at the bottom of these comments, I'll start a new blog post to handle them.<BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-51067028023109923862007-05-09T14:29:00.000+01:002007-05-09T14:29:00.000+01:00Dear Tim H.,Good point.The comment ought to have r...Dear Tim H.,<BR/><BR/>Good point.<BR/><BR/>The comment ought to have read:<BR/><BR/>Salvation by works => Legalism <BR/>Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works<BR/><BR/>Ergo<BR/>Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the correction.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-65049630669757162812007-05-09T13:51:00.000+01:002007-05-09T13:51:00.000+01:00T-fan -- if the arrows symbolize logical implicati...T-fan -- if the arrows symbolize logical implication, then I think your first premise under (1) needs to be reversed (at least for the inference to be valid).Tim Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01615652504717037122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-32160186435913128772007-05-09T06:03:00.000+01:002007-05-09T06:03:00.000+01:00Hello again! Fred here.You say: I'm surprised you ...Hello again! Fred here.<BR/><BR/>You say: <I>I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.</I><BR/><BR/>Why? I'm surprised that you would be surprised :-) You have said nothing by way of an actual demonstration up to now, and it remains to be seen whether you could win the debate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if you could do so, though such a victory obviously would have no Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-67183366898493765762007-05-09T00:10:00.000+01:002007-05-09T00:10:00.000+01:00Fred:I'm surprised you would choose to continue th...Fred:<BR/><BR/>I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.<BR/><BR/>1) Try to follow the argument.<BR/><BR/>Legalism => Salvation by works<BR/>Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works<BR/><BR/>ergo<BR/><BR/>Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism<BR/><BR/>2) Yes, the Roman Catholic dogmatic definition is concerned with the Reformation slogan.<BR/><BR/>E.G.:<BR/>CANON IX.-If any one Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-38939840257619013042007-05-08T23:07:00.000+01:002007-05-08T23:07:00.000+01:00Hello Turretinfan. Fred here.You say: Consistent R...Hello Turretinfan. Fred here.<BR/><BR/>You say: <I>Consistent Roman Catholics are legalists, which means that they deny Sola Fide.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a question-begging response, since you have assumed a particular definition of "legalism" which has nothing to do with the Catholic understanding of justification - which is unconcerned with Reformation slogans. In actuality, the usual definition Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com