LPC has left a new comment on your post "Cannot Spell, Cannot Write, Cannot Grasp Justifica...":
Dr. Greg.
I read this from Jack Kilcrease --- Part of Rydecki's problem is that he does not understand that the word "justification" is being used differently when applied to OJ and SJ.
Is Kilcrease being serious? Aren't theologians also good at philosophy? I could not believe this guy ever said this.
I could not stop LOLing. I am now ROFLOLing.
Jack does not know what an equivocation is. Ohhhh, now I get it ha.... IT IS NOW RYDECKI's fault because Rydecki does not want to follow the equivocation on justification followed byf UOJers eyh?
A while back some moons ago, I alluded to Jack that I am concern about what his students are learning from him.
I won't recommend people go to his university to study.
LPC
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Do Not Play Games with Words - Or With the Word of...":
Yeah, Jack Kilcrease just admitted in his post that he and fellow UOJers practice equivocation.
We all know that but to be bold enough to "justify" themselves in their equivocation is not something I have seen so far.
People, equivocation is not a good thing.
I refer people to the book by Irving Copi, a classic in Logic 101, p.76-77.
Really UOJers should stop posting and stop arguing at this point, they should not go out of their homes until they have read this book on logic.
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Do Not Play Games with Words - Or With the Word of...":
LPC -
I admire your courage to visit the Kilcrease site. I have not been there and never intend to do so.
But, be that as it may; I can't help but think that after this published Ichabod comment posting (of yours) about Kilcrease's self-admitted "equivocation," - he will now kilcrease that posted comment of his.
Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org
A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "Cannot Spell, Cannot Write, Cannot Grasp Justifica...":
What about this statement: "Rydecki seems to be operating with the rather odd perspective that the language set down by the Formula of Concord is authoritative for all time. "
Why wouldn't it be? "we have no intention of yielding aught of the eternal, immutable truth of God for the sake of temporal peace, tranquillity, and unity (which, moreover, is not in our power to do)." - FC, Election.
So then..the language set down by the scriptures might be authoritative, but the doctrine drawn from them can and has changed???
