"Ought implies can"

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
Starhunter
Senior Member
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 6:14 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: "Ought implies can"

Post by Starhunter »

jlay wrote:I'm really not interested in getting into a law/grace argument with Starhunter, but I do take exception when people start making up their own bible verses.
Starhunter wrote: And He goes on to clarify - if anyone breaks these and teaches others that they are redundant, he will have his name removed from the book of life -(Revelation)

That isn't what Revelation says, and this is just dishonest
Starhunter can't even see that he is guilty of doing exactly what he is accusing, as Paul pointed out. SH is going by his understanding of the law and not the actual law itself. I'm quite tired of the evasive maneuvers. I think I've made my point, and don't see anything fruitful in continuing this discussion with SH.
If you leave the commandment keeping to Christ in your heart, they will be kept, I think you agree of how focus on works is detrimental and dangerous. But that is not the law's fault is it?
Post Reply