 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Baptism and Salvation | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 8:39 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Modes
There is a very simple general Scriptural outline for the view that Bob Hill is espousing on this thread. What he is dealing with right now is the detail of baptism. Bob's take on baptism is a direct result of the general outline that he sees occurng in the New Testament.
Baptism is not a detail, it is an ordinance, or better still, a sacrament. It is an act of God, not a human act. Period.
quote:
Before this general outline is given though I have a question for you (and Greg or anyone else following this thread if they'd like to respond).
When you think of God's dealings with Israel in the New Testament do you see God as taking one fixed route or do you see God as having different routes available for Him to take based upon Israel's response to His word?
God's routes are God's business. We are generally on a "need to know basis" and this is appearantly something we don't need to know. God will be faithful to God's promises. That is all we need to know about that.
quote:
Bob believes that God had more than one route that He could take. That God had a plan A and a plan B that He could execute based upon the possible responses of Israel to His message. Do you agree with Bob here or do you believe that God had decided that He would go with one route regardless of how Israel responded to His message?
One route HAS been clearly and unequivocally revealed, it is consistent throughout the whole witness of Scripture. A humble, honest, and contrite heart is always welcomed with grace and forgiveness. This message is proclaimed through Jesus Christ, but did not begin there. It has always been present. God desires mercy not sacrifice. Repentence, reconciliation, forgiveness. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law in precisely this way.
Chance and others, there is so much methodological nonsense that one has to overlook in order to take Bob's scheme seriously, until that question is settled adequately, don't expect much sympathy from me with regard to your dispensational "clarifying".
Tell me, precisely when did it occur to God that Christ would have to be sent to die?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/31/2001 1:44:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | MOT - As to quote:
YES! Now I see the problem more clearly. Thanks 1way, your candor helped me tremendously.
Salvation by works. This justifies the search for all the different modes of works that have been required.
I don't know what you are talking about. Please be more specific, and quoting would clarify much than just giving a short paragraph or so of misunderstanding.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Edited by - 1way on 10/31/2001 1:44:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Are you serious?
quote:
....the requirements from God for man's obedience to become saved has changed,
Here's one.
quote:
Jesus taught salvation by works (plus faith) in the most plain and simple terms.
....and another....
quote:
Apparently, you fail to accept the Lord's teaching of the requirement for obeying God's commandments for salvation. In fact, if it wasn't for an accurate understanding of what it means to obey God's commandments, one might mistake these plain teachings to suggest works only for salvation. Of course we all know that works apart from faith is never taught for salvation, and that God commanded works of obedience harmoniously together with faith and love in God. So, if you teach salvation according to God's commandments, you inextricably are also teaching salvation by faith as well
An extensive one there, and as wrong as ever. Do you folks realize that your "novel" interpretations have been dealt with centuries ago? One should learn church tradition, even if you don't have any intention of agreeing. I suppose however, this strategy puts you in the position of treating the church itself as a mission field. Am I right? How sad. There are lots of unsaved people in the world, get grace and preach it to them.
quote:
I think this clearly shows that it was necessary to keep the covenant of law to remain in the vital covenant relationship which would ultimately result in salvation.
Amazing! You really don't understand grace do you?
quote:
The gospel of the circumcision had its basis in the covenant of circumcision. The apostles of the circumcision were acutely aware of its requirements
and again....
quote:
Baptism was essential for salvation under the Baptist's and Christ's ministries: Lk 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Unless you were a thief on a cross. Don't forget the dispensation of only theives on crosses being saved for about 6 hours one friday afternoon....
quote:
Even after the body of Christ began with the salvation of Paul, we see that water baptism still saves the covenant people
If I were ever to write a book length response to something like this, it would be titled: God is Not an Accountant. Or something to that effect. It probably disappoints you that you get glib responses, but let me help you understand. What you say has been refuted and condemned and you act as though you are saying something not only new, but worthwhile. Find out what the church has taught for 2000 years on what a sacrament is. It will truly help you.
quote:
Of course, we have no record of a circumcision apostle evangelizing after Cornelius was saved. The only activity we read about in the Bible concerning the circumcision apostles is their written ministry.
POW is right to react strongly to statements like this. You speak as though we are going to agree with you, that's not even an honest way to start. Start like this: I know that church tradition has not recognized the distinction I am aboutto make and that most of you will find this completely irrelevent. But let me assure you, salvation depends on getting this stuff right. The Chruch has never been faithful, I am here to tell you the Truth. Now...."Of course, we have no record of a circumcision apostle evangelizing after Cornelius was saved. The only activity we read about in the Bible concerning the circumcision apostles is their written ministry."
See, at least then the framing is correct and we can appreciate the full impact you intend to have. It's too bad God didn't drop the Teacher's Edition of the Bible in the hands of the Early Church. We had to wait for you all to get it. Ancient mail services REALLY did stink.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/31/2001 2:08:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | MOT - Chance said quote:
When you think of God's dealings with Israel in the New Testament do you see God as taking one fixed route or do you see God as having different routes available for Him to take based upon Israel's response to His word?
To which you said quote:
God's routes are God's business. We are generally on a "need to know basis" and this is apparently something we don't need to know. God will be faithful to God's promises. That is all we need to know about that.
So you are claiming ignorance in the light of Chance's expectation of knowledge/understanding over the matter. i.e. You know that you don't have knowledge over such things and why it supposedly is that anyone else should also not know it. I think God's word is clear about both paths that God could have taken with Israel, it's s shame you apparently want to deny it. (Jer 18 and every Biblical example of God altering His course of action according to a people's response to Him.)
As to quote:
Chance and others, there is so much methodological nonsense that one has to overlook in order to take Bob's scheme seriously, until that question is settled adequately, don't expect much sympathy from me with regard to your dispensational "clarifying".
Tell me, precisely when did it occur to God that Christ would have to be sent to die?
There is a good deal of ambiguity you present with your phraseology. If God deals with the future in a similar way we do, which many here apparently believe He does, then we need to make a distinction between
a forethought plan for the future which necessarily involves future contingencies
and
knowledge and understanding based upon absolutely no contingencies.
I believe God had both contingent and non-contingent occurrences of foreknowledge about the eventual necessity of Christ's foreknowledge. Plainly, God knew such things at various times but predominantly, He knew them at or before His creation, God is a wise God.
But frankly, I have a hard time understanding your emphasis of consequence to the discussion we were having, please explain what you are trying to get at.
BTW, this is really a shame, in light of our reasoning over the Bible, we really need to be seeing objections based upon biblical apologetic responses instead of so much philosophizing.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 10/31/2001 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Doc,
You asked:
quote:
If you believe baptism was necessary for salvation before Paul, what do you do with the theif on the cross? Also, do you think all non-Jews who weren’t baptized (including several heros of the faith in Heb 11) were damned?
First the easy answer: The thief on the cross was saved without water baptism and without doing the works of the law because Christ said he was. But, more in line with your question, the thief on the cross was saved because God looks at the heart. Jer 17:9,10 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it? 10 I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.” Since there was no possible way for the thief on the cross to be water baptized, God was merciful. He says in Jam 2:13, that “mercy triumphs over judgment.”
Further, the thief on the cross was saved because the Law is mostly negative, and he did not break any commandments after he believed Christ. According to Christ, the most important law of all of them, was one the thief kept while he hung on the cross with Christ, “Love the Lord with all your heart.”
I believe people are saved in every dispensation by God’s grace, their belief and Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for sin even though those in the OT did not even know of Christ’s death except as it was implied in passages like Isa 53. The way God requires man to express that belief changes in some dispensations. Works of the law and baptism were important requirements in many dispensations, but because God is God, He can save someone anyway, by making an exception. He made an exception for David according to Rom 4:5-8 “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.’” David deserved to die for his crimes, but God graced him out. Therefore, I believe the thief was saved by God’s grace, the thief’s faith and the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
All other non-Jews who had faith or believed what they saw according to Psa 19, but who were outside of God’s dealings with Israel, I believe also were saved. I believe Col 1:5,6 & 23 shows that. Col 1:5-6,23 “. . . which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit . . . 23 . . . the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”
Those you mentioned in Heb 11 were probably Abel and Enoch, who pleased God. Then, in verse 6 it says, “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Then there was Noah, Abram/Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob. The significant thing was that they, in v. 13, “all died in faith”. Then in v. 22, “by faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel, and gave instructions concerning his bones.” Moses’ parents are listed, because of faith. In v. 24, Moses, himself, lived a life of faith. In v. 30, those who encircled Jericho for seven days did it by faith, and in v. 31, by faith the harlot Rahab showed faith. All of these expressions of faith were before the law of the red heifer was instituted for Israel. The Bible explicitly says in verse 9 that “the ashes of the heifer . . . shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin.” The symbolism from our viewpoint, pointing to Christ, is graphic. If a person did not follow these regulations, verse 13 says, “That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him.” Again, in v. 20,21, it shows the solemnity for Israel: “the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. 21 It shall be a perpetual statute for them.” This is why I believe Christ replaced the red heifer. Many OT types were fulfilled in Christ.
Once baptism was made mandatory for the Israel of Christ’s time, anyone who could be baptized but refused, was condemned. That’s why the religious hierarchy was condemned in Luke 7:30: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will [tayn boulayn] of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” As you know, they rejected God’s counsel of 2 Pe 3:9 - that they would have room for repentance.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | MOT - I was having a discussion over what God's word teaches, presenting scripture references throughout, while you seem content to primarily restrict yourself to the sphere of your own personal understandings and preconceptions, especially in the light of our consistent apologetic demonstrations from God's word. So far, your response has been to strip me of my Biblical references, which was the foundation of my points. Such diversionary tactics can not lead to productive conclusions.
Do you deny the centrality and ultimate authority of God's word? If not, then please act accordingly.
And please don't get me wrong, I greatly affirm interpersonal sharing, it's the only way to learn of our individuality and personal needs and strengths etc. But after we all get a feel for our differences of opinion (you personalized objections have been clearly understood by constant repetition), the time comes for the righteous place of the truth from God's word. It's such a joy to the Believer to take in God's word, looking forward to you sharing in that as well.
Edited by - 1way on 10/31/2001 2:50:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
MOT - Chance said quote:
When you think of God's dealings with Israel in the New Testament do you see God as taking one fixed route or do you see God as having different routes available for Him to take based upon Israel's response to His word?
To which you said quote:
God's routes are God's business. We are generally on a "need to know basis" and this is apparently something we don't need to know. God will be faithful to God's promises. That is all we need to know about that.
So you are claiming ignorance in the light of Chance's expectation of knowledge/understanding over the matter. i.e. You know that you don't have knowledge over such things and why it supposedly is that anyone else should also not know it. I think God's word is clear about both paths that God could have taken with Israel, it's s shame you apparently want to deny it. (Jer 18 and every Biblical example of God altering His course of action according to a people's response to Him.)
Did you not notice that I did say some more things about ONE route God did reveal clearly and consistently? Grace?
quote:
As to quote:
Chance and others, there is so much methodological nonsense that one has to overlook in order to take Bob's scheme seriously, until that question is settled adequately, don't expect much sympathy from me with regard to your dispensational "clarifying".
Tell me, precisely when did it occur to God that Christ would have to be sent to die?
There is a good deal of ambiguity you present with your phraseology. If God deals with the future in a similar way we do, which many here apparently believe He does, then we need to make a distinction between
a forethought plan for the future which necessarily involves future contingencies
and
knowledge and understanding based upon absolutely no contingencies.
I believe God had both contingent and non-contingent occurrences of foreknowledge about the eventual necessity of Christ's foreknowledge. Plainly, God knew such things at various times but predominantly, He knew them at or before His creation, God is a wise God.
But frankly, I have a hard time understanding your emphasis of consequence to the discussion we were having, please explain what you are trying to get at.
You are jepordizing the Gsopel itself by mixing it in with Law. I recommend the history of the church's discussions to you on this because they too read the Bible and dealt with heretical thinking drawn from it. Such as you own. Luther illuminated two uses of the Law, Calvin saw a third. All three are generally acknoledged today. This alone would undo your proof-texting established logic.
THE WAY you use the Bible is so out of sync with the roots of the texts and the applications of the church that it leaves us with very little to discuss.
quote:
BTW, this is really a shame, in light of our reasoning over the Bible, we really need to be seeing objections based upon biblical apologetic responses instead of so much philosophizing.
If that was too philosophical for you then answer these easy questions:
1. Did God know that Jesus would have to die on the cross before the creation of the world or not. This is easy: yes, or no will do just fine.
2. Do you beleive that the most of the self-proclaimed Christians in America today need to hear what you are teaching in order to be saved?
3. If no to that, do you beleive that the Lutherans (most radical on sola gracia) are condemned because they reject your works salvation? Yes, or no.
4. If no to both of these: What are you trying to prove? Why?
5. If Yes, to #2 and #3, then how do yo uaccount for God's lousy communication skills?
6. I asked many more questions in my last post than you actually answered. If you expect to be taken seriously you'll have to do better at responding to those questions. most of your responses have been to a greater or lesser extent smokescreens. I have not employed an undue amount of philosophy here at all, for instance. I only assume a basic awareness of Church history from people who propose to overturn it. That seems fair. Doesn't it?
7. Tell me what you think a sacrament is please.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
MOT - I was having a discussion over what God's word teaches, presenting scripture references throughout, while you seem content to primarily restrict yourself to the sphere of your own personal understandings and preconceptions, especially in the light of our consistent apologetic demonstrations from God's word. So far, your response has been to strip me of my Biblical references, which was the foundation of my points. Such diversionary tactics can not lead to productive conclusions.
Do you deny the centrality and ultimate authority of God's word? If not, then please act accordingly.
And please don't get me wrong, I greatly affirm interpersonal sharing, it's the only way to learn of our individuality and personal needs and strengths etc. But after we all get a feel for our differences of opinion (you personalized objections have been clearly understood by constant repetition), the time comes for the righteous place of the truth from God's word. It's such a joy to the Believer to take in God's word, looking forward to you sharing in that as well.
Edited by - 1way on 10/31/2001 2:50:48 PM
In other words, you either don't understand my questions or cannot answer them? please explain.
Yes, I take the Bible to be the final authority in matters of faith. But the way you use the Bible is not warranted, hence the methodological questions. What is so hard about this? Please be more precise in your rejection of my questions so I can rephrase them in a way that seems relevant to you.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
MOT - I was having a discussion over what God's word teaches, presenting scripture references throughout, while you seem content to primarily restrict yourself to the sphere of your own personal understandings and preconceptions, especially in the light of our consistent apologetic demonstrations from God's word. So far, your response has been to strip me of my Biblical references, which was the foundation of my points. Such diversionary tactics can not lead to productive conclusions.
I challenged you on the basis of the history of people like me and you reading the texts together in communities of faith and coming to conclusions that are relevent to our discussions. In other words, tradtion. I am not interested inyou continuing to do what I object to in order to show that my objection is wrong. That's why I asked methodological questions as well. The Bible is not to be broken down into simple propositions and then arranged in a fashion that suits you and what you are trying to say. Please justify agruments from silence, as Boyd pointed out, please tell me why I should acknowledge the category of circumcision apostles as opposed to other kinds of apostles. Please tell me how you get all these different gospels when Paul speaks of one Gospel, on baptism one Lord and so forth. I am asking you to get your head far enough away from the page to recognize that the Bible may not be written to answe the kinds of questions you are asking of it. That is a question of method. If you are unwilling or able to answer that question or engage me in that discussion, then I have nothing further to say to you. You simply abuse the texts by extracting things from it in ways in which were never intended. That's my claim. Refute it.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/31/2001 3:03:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | MOT - quote:
Did you not notice that I did say some more things about ONE route God did reveal clearly and consistently? Grace?
Yes, that was not what my comment was about, it was about your clearly explained ignorance over God's prerogatives.
As to quote:
You are jeopardizing the Gospel itself by mixing it in with Law.
and so much in kind subjectivism, I've presented my views enough to get a contextually relevant response by now, my views are based upon sound Biblical observations and unfortunately, I continue to see you emphasizing just about all else. quote:
Luther illuminated two uses of the Law, Calvin saw a third. All three are generally acknoledged today. This alone would undo your proof-texting established logic.
THE WAY you use the Bible is so out of sync with the roots of the texts and the applications of the church that it leaves us with very little to discuss.
More examples of your apparent inability to discuss Bible observations, and using the Bible as a reference point, while alarmingly at the same time, you constantly raise the importance of manmade writings like Luther and Calvin and the historical church's writings to the forefront. Jesus Christ denounced such similar "proofing" and reliance upon supposed authorities other than His own word. No offense, but no stack of seemingly impressive errant information will dissuade me from the truth from God's word. Only showing how my understanding of God's word is wrong according to God's word, will I be convicted.
Let every man be a liar and God be true.
I may respond to your questions after you respond to my last two posts, glaringly your first item demonstrates that I already answered you, if you would but read for comprehension's sake, instead of so much bitterness and neglect.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 10:18 AM (GMT -6) | | in what way did you answer me?
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/31/2001 3:19:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way or Bob, or chance can one of you please tell me what constitutes your methodology? Tell me about your theory of interpretation, for instance. Or you theory of inerrancy. That ought to cut to the chase.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | MOT - In my complete answer to you. quote:
There is a good deal of ambiguity you present with your phraseology. If God deals with the future in a similar way we do, which many here apparently believe He does, then we need to make a distinction between
a forethought plan for the future which necessarily involves future contingencies
and
knowledge and understanding based upon absolutely no contingencies.
I believe God had both contingent and non-contingent occurrences of foreknowledge about the eventual necessity of Christ's foreknowledge. Plainly, God knew such things at various times but predominantly, He knew them at or before His creation, God is a wise God.
But frankly, I have a hard time understanding your emphasis of consequence to the discussion we were having,
According to my understanding, your question is ambiguous. Secondly, in full understanding of it's ambiguity, I still responded, plainly, God knew such things at various times but predominantly, He knew then at or before His creation.
I sometimes make significant edits after I post, it is a part of my personal proneness to error, especially when posting is such a rapid fire succession. So please allow me sufficient time to round out my thoughts. I intend on not being drug into so much repetition. If you are willing to take an objective review of what I have said (including Bob Hill and Chance, etc.) then I will consider proceeding. Secondly, you should stop extra-biblical argumentation, and remain in God's word because of it's ultimate authority. I will not be persuaded by anything less, and since my arguments are based from God's word, you are constrained to deal with me there if you are to become relevant to the discussion.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Is there anyone else out here who feels that some methodological justification is warranted for the exegetical strategies that are being employed by Bob, 1way and chance? Is that too much to ask really? I mean, we are being asked to take their subjective readings of the texts as authoritative over and against the other subjective readings of these texts. Do we trust these readers to be more enlightened than say Luther, Calvin, the Early Church Fathers, or even comtemporaries like Dr. Boyd or whomever? WHY pick Bob Hill's interpretation over Barth or Piper?
You see 1way, it is not the Bible verses erroneous people, it is rather Bob Hill's interpretation of the Bible verses the many other faithful attempts to discern God's will from these sacred texts. Your misconstrual is yet another smokescreen.
Either justify your method of interpretation or give us a break. But at least stop acting like you don't have one. Unless we are to make you Pope? But even the Pope has a clear method. You see, I am questioning the authority with which you seem to speak without even being aware of the problematic assumptions you seem to have about that authority.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes - I will answer in short as I respect your desire to hear from my constituents, and I also desire for you to become more responsive to what I have already said. I feel that you will do well to take in all our accounts as I know I clearly have week points, and perhaps the others as well. I am quite certain that I have studied less (reading books, doing more thorough and comprehensive studying) than Chance has, and not even a fraction of what Bob Hill has, he is a remarkable person and deserves way more attention than he has been given, even if only for the amount of apologetically presented Biblical support he has presented.
Methodology and interpretation and inerrancy. At it's foundation, mine is simple:
God is true, God's word is true.
It behooves us to align ourselves with that truth as much as it is possible. I think it is best to let God's word direct every aspect of our lives, including methodology and interpretation and inerrancy and so on. There simply is no higher authority nor truth to be understood. Very importantly, I get that idea from God's word it's self, so it's more of an observation of the truth in reality, than it is my own personal philosophy. And in case you are wondering, I do believe in the fellowship of believers, that we should be subject to one another within the Body of Christ in the process of understanding God and His ways. That makes me keenly aware of several things.
Most people are going to hell, which in tern means that the majority have (and promote) false understandings of God. Since so much of "Christianity" has been a component comprised at least in part by unsaved people, and certainly many confused saved people, it behooves us to be internally vigilant against internal apostasy. In America alone I think that over 80% of the people still claim to be Christian to one extent or another. And the fact may well be that only the few, perhaps as low as 20% or so are truly saved. Regardless, the point is that popular or traditional or so called orthodox views have to show Biblical relevance or else be subject to what the Bible proclaims is errant man-made doctrines.
Secondly, despite whatever problems all that may entail, God is clear that it is best that we each learn from within the body of believers within your appropriate dispensational grouping (i.e. circumcision-uncircumcision, bound-free, under-not under the law, etc.). This togetherness and grouping is intended to foster whatever edifies, and to guard against whatever is false.
God's word is the ultimate authority, man's word is always of less authority. Do you agree with at least that much?
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | The truth from God's word is what I thought we were discussing, not so much personal subjectivism. I'll happily wait and hope for discussions based and focused on the truth from God's word. We have rested our position's base and focus therein, as for myself, I do not intend on basing my faith elsewhere.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Edited by - 1way on 10/31/2001 6:33:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/31/2001 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way says: God is true, God's word is true
This REALLY reminds me of the phrase my Old Testement teacher quoted, where the Jews said: "The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord."
What presumption!
(But these guys actually think that those Pharasies (sp?) are saved in their own dipensation, I'll bet.)
STOP PUBLISHING MULTIPLE GOSPELS!!!! (albeit some 'inactivated' temporarily)
THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS CONDEMNS THAT!!!
Do you actually need me to give you chapter and verse on that? (Or can you look it up yourself?)
HERACIES WERE CONDEMNED WHEN THEY STOOD A CHANCE OR LEADING PEOPLE TO HELL. YOU ARE SCARING ME!!! (LEAVE THE GOSPEL ALONE!)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 10/31/2001 4:52:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Methodology and interpretation and inerrancy. At it's foundation, mine is simple:
God is true, God's word is true.
Granted.
quote:
It behooves us to align ourselves with that truth as much as it is possible.
Granted. But you have skipped a critical step here. Bob Hill's interpretation and application of that truth or Greg Boyd's? OR mine or yours or the Pope's? You see, itis right here already that we have to deal with HOW we will go about understanding God's word and what exegetical strategies will be used. THEN we still have the ambiguities involved in what to do with whatever "data" we are able to secure with some degree of confidence.
quote:
I think it is best to let God's word direct every aspect of our lives, including methodology and interpretation and inerrancy and so on.
Sorry, but the Bible does not give us an exegetical strategy with the sort of clarity you seek.
quote:
There simply is no higher authority nor truth to be understood.
Again, granted. But the nature of this truth is personal, in fact, it is a person. Jesus Christ. It is this that the Bible bears witness to. All else is secondary. The Bible gives us a person, not a puzzle. Only a person who is God can save us, not our unravelling an endless string of knots.
quote:
Very importantly, I get that idea from God's word it's self, so it's more of an observation of the truth in reality, than it is my own personal philosophy.
You'll need to explain what you meant here. I truly don't know what you are referring to.
quote:
And in case you are wondering, I do believe in the fellowship of believers, that we should be subject to one another within the Body of Christ in the process of understanding God and His ways. That makes me keenly aware of several things.
Most people are going to hell, which in tern means that the majority have (and promote) false understandings of God.
How did you get from one paragraph to the next? How does your fellowship prove to you that most people are going to hell?
quote:
Since so much of "Christianity" has been a component comprised at least in part by unsaved people, and certainly many confused saved people, it behooves us to be internally vigilant against internal apostasy. In America alone I think that over 80% of the people still claim to be Christian to one extent or another. And the fact may well be that only the few, perhaps as low as 20% or so are truly saved.
I don't see how you can know this. The Bible gives us warnings and threats, but nowhere does it tell us what percentages are going to hell. Actually it gives us good reason to hope that it may not be very many at all (all will be saved according to Romans 5:18 and this example also illustrates the fallaciousness of single verse prooftexting) or that it may be few after all (as in other passages that suggest wide is the path to destruction and narrow to eternal life...).
quote:
Regardless, the point is that popular or traditional or so called orthodox views have to show Biblical relevance or else be subject to what the Bible proclaims is errant man-made doctrines.
You see, the difference here is that they have thought the thoughts you are thinking, thousands of years ago. And there is some wisdom in hearing their testimony as well. Yes, their readings are probably flawed, but I assure you, so are yours, Bob's, Greg's and mine. You need to get really real with that. Just because a view has been influential and considered orthodox is no reason to count strikes against it! That's absurd. Rather attention should be paid to see what it was that was so convincing about their interpretations. Who knows, you might learn something. You also are an "errant man-made doctrine" writer, so is Bob. Lining up passages like they were dominos is no proof that what is implied by the overall "line of reasoning" has any merit at all. After all, you are the ones who lined them up that way.
quote:
Secondly, despite whatever problems all that may entail, God is clear that it is best that we each learn from within the body of believers within your appropriate dispensational grouping (i.e. circumcision-uncircumcision, bound-free, under-not under the law, etc.). This togetherness and grouping is intended to foster whatever edifies, and to guard against whatever is false.
This assumes that your dominos are lined up correctly. I don't think that they are. In fact, I am convinced (by God's word, not other people) that what we are looking for is not a line at all.
quote:
God's word is the ultimate authority, man's word is always of less authority. Do you agree with at least that much?
Of course. And God's word, as is made plain in John 1, is none other than Jesus Christ.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/31/2001 5:04:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 10/31/2001 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Wow, haven't been here in awhile. Another debate on baptism and salvation! Nothing to add but this. I always draw up a white flag when someone says "I just believe the Bible," or something to that effect. Hey, we all interpret the Bible through our own lenses. Playing such a trump card doesn't do anything but alienate. Most of us believe in the authority of scripture. Its not whether scripture is true, its whether YOUR interpretation of it is true. Everyone should keep that in mind.
As for me, I don't buy Bob's, Chance's take on it for a couple for reasons (there are others, but these are the easiest to write...and Modes are doing a better job than I can anyway). First, their interpretation of scripture is too much like the people who believe in the pre-trib rapture (the "left behinders"). I always say "what?" when I hear them pull one verse from here and another from there. Second, what must I do to be saved? Paul was pretty simple about it. I think we should try to be as well. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/31/2001 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | As I have explained and unlike POW's and MOD's consistent misunderstandings, I simply will not continue entertaining their relentless extra-biblical focus, and I will continue to wait and hope for discussions based (and focused) on the truth from God's word.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 2:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As I have explained and unlike POW's and MOD's consistent misunderstandings, I simply will not continue entertaining their relentless extra-biblical focus, and I will continue to wait and hope for discussions based (and focused) on the truth from God's word.
Then you deny that you interpret Scripture?
It seems you are simply being stubborn. I asked fair quesions above and you have ignored them. Please don't waste any more of our time until you come clean about what you are really up to. I've been to your site and have seen the charts and passages that you folks cut up and and lay side by side to try to make your points. There is some sort of method to it, why not just say it up front rather than make me go find it?
Let me ask you this, am I a part of your training at Derby now? I see that examinations are done by interegation. They drill on what you are supposed to say until you can repeat all the right answers. Is that why when I ask questions you are not trained to answer you have nothing to say?
I too read the Bible. But I am at least honest enough to recognize what we can expect to learn from it and what some of its limitations are. It seems Derby School of Theology is unconcerned with acedemic honesty even though it aspires to be very rigorous in its efforts to support its conclusions. It has no use for accredation. It is not recognized by any accredited institutions of repute. In short, its most honest claim is that it is Biblicistic. But most Christians recognize that that title is not a postive one! Biblicism means an overly literalistic reading that refuses to acknowledge the complications of the texts and the problems involved in rendering those texts with perfect clarity into our contexts. When you keep repeating this claim that we just need to look a the way you are going to lay out these texts for us and demonstrate your system, you are asking us to give you a degree of authority that is unwarranted. We see this because we see that it is YOU that is making the various connections for us.
Some simple rules to avoid biblicism:
1. A text must remain in its context.
2. Texts certainly had a certain meaning in the mind of their authors. That should be attended to primarily; in terms of exegesis.
3. In terms of interpretation, we must consider the context into which we hope that the text might speak.
4. Equally importantly, we know that as God's word, we must trust that the Spirit of God will have an important role in the application of texts for our time.
5. The history of the application of texts should be an important part of the conversation. Since we can assume generally that many Christians before us, with the help of the Holy Spirit, also applied these texts in obedience to God's leading. To ignore this is to place yourself above those who preceed you in faith. Very bad form indeed.
6. What IS new for us is our context. The word must be heard again, with a fresh leading of God for today.
7. Regardless of what version of the doctrine of infallibility you hold to, you are telling lies about the Bible if you don't recognize that we do not have the original autographs and so we do not have inerrant FORMS of the texts before us. Hence the multiple translations and debates on textual issues. SO, let's stop telling lies about the Bible.
Gimme some feedback so far 1way.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - modesofthought on 10/31/2001 7:30:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/31/2001 4:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Okay, I give, dispensational methodology it is.
Bob Hill has chosen to do 12 dispensations of salvation (though he admits as few as 3 to as many as 37 are possible), here's my 18 dispensations for biblical sexual ethics:
*Gen. 2 initiates the dispensation of nudity which is very brief. More of a flash really.
*Gen 3 introduces the dispensation of physical hiddenness which endures through until the resurrection where we will receive transfigured clothes and be asexual like the angels. 2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3 are also examples of prohibitions against nudity prior to the resurrection. To accidentally violate this command warrants a curse (Gen. 9:20-27).
*Gen 3 also intiates the dispensation of sexual tension (3:15) which is accompanied by the curse of childbearing pains for the woman (16).
*The dispensation of Patriarchy begins when Adam is punished for submitting to his wife (3:17 says, "because you have listened to the voice of your wife…") and this is not lifted until Gal. 3:28 but it is then reinstated again in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2. This period between Gen 3:17 and Gal. 3:28 is to be understood as the dispensation of marital strife which is followed by a very short dispensation of marital harmony (Gal. 3:28 through 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2). After that the strife reensues. Natural enough under the dispensation of marital strife is the allowance of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). But this is forbidded by Christ (Mark 10:1-12) presummably because our ability to keep the sexual ethical laws has increased over the many generations practice. This in some ways anticipates the immenent dispensation of marital harmony.
* Dispensation of hospitality Under this dispensation the sexual integrity of one’s daughters is understood to be subordinated to that of guests whom you may have. This is evidenced by the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29) in which Lot was willing to give up his two daughters so that the men of Sodom could do as they please. "Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." (Gen. 19:8).
*The Dispensation of Male Gay Bashing (quite literally) began with the giving of Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (NRSV). (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." The dispensation of female gay bashing (or alternately, the dispensation of universal gay bashing ) didn’t start until Paul wrote Rom. 1:26.
* the dispensation of "keep it in yer pants" the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered equivolent to abortion or murder. This dispensation is still in effect so far as the text is concerned (BUT this one does not apply to women. Who says the Bible is TOTALLY patriachal?).
* The "keep it clean" dispensation was initiated in Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24 where it was now competely disallowed to have sexual intercourse during the woman’s menstrual period. Violators where to be cut off but this penalty was not in effect during whatever time period it took Moses to get from Lev. 15:19-24 to 18:19. This dispensation insured you "ain’t gonna get none" for about half of the time. One week of the month PMS, the next MS, the rest is fair game.
* The dispensation of stoned adulterers began with the writing of Deut. 22:22. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both. However, it was not possible, during this dispensation, for a man to commit adultery against any of his own wives, only agianst a wife of another man. So unmarried nonvirgins were fair game. Female virginity is the issue here, male virginity is not relevent. Jesus put an end to this dispensation with the incident of the woman caught in adultery in John’s record. While I recognize that this passage is questionable in terms of textual integrity (it does not appear inthe earliest manuscripts) I assure you it is best to keep it IN the canon, if for no other reason than that it fits my dispensations so well.
* The Dispensation of Polygamy is one of the few universal dispensations that the Bible never retracts. Included in this dispensation is the Leverite Marriage which also is universal in scope. (Jesus mentions this practice without criticism in Mark 12:18-27).
* Another universal dispensation is the dispensation of unclean sex (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse makes you unclean until sundown and this is never retracted.
*The Dispensation of Prostitution was in effect (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7) until Paul undoes it 1 Cor. 6:12-20. Again only the woman is to be regarded as sinning in prostitution during the dispensation of prostitution, whereas both are sinners after this dispensation comes to fulfillment.
For a very short period we see that Paul carried the dispensation of celebacy (1 Cor. 7). Even though it was regarded as aberrant in the Old Testament and considered heretical in 1 Tim 4:1-3. In this last instance it is clear that it is the demons who "forbid marriage".
* The "No Low Blows" Dispensation was intiated by necessity in Deut. 25:11f. "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity". Another universal dispensation from that point forward.
* The Dispensation of using female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual objects is supported by 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18. The justification for these practices is not clearly recinded in the either Testament.
Since I am new at this please forgive me for not having this all charted out just yet. Eventaually, I surely could have these on a time line with the institution times, the time they come to end, and the way of proper relatingbetween people during the given dispensation.[ I acknowledge significant indebtedness to Walter Wink's research and commentation on this topic.]
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 11/01/2001 11:11:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 10/31/2001 7:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Good humor!!!!
Somebody is having way too much fun.
-S
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/1/2001 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | BACK TO BAPTISM!
_air___air___air___air
______Spirit_______
_air___air___air___air
_air___air___air___air
_air___air___air___air
,.,.,.,.,.,water,.,.,.,.,.,
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/01/2001 06:46:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/1/2001 2:12 AM (GMT -6) | | A nice thing about this board is the variety of topics AND the variety of people. And we all have ways that we are most comfortable in laying ideas "out there" for others to view and handle. We learn that what for one person is a "long pass" is an easy trot and grab for another. I, particularly, have been treated wonderfully. This board, then, is a pretty neat training ground for how we can engage, and not avoid or clash with all sorts of people. All sorts of people can be found near, rather than far. Discussions on this board help me to be better involved with the variety of folk in my own church. And what is so neat, is that techniques that were never taught have been learned for helping some of those homies unfold and show their beauty!
A recent story: A friend, the wife of a friend who has a pre-schooler at a Lutheran school asked me on Sunday for an idea of an art project on Baptism. Hard request. And for pre-schoolers too. (If Kindergarten is scissors and glue 101, this is "pre" that!) I came up with a Dove; folded and out of a piece of typing paper folded the "hamburger direction" Two circles and an angle, two folds, done. They can put a shiny sticker on it to hole a piece of white yard and REALLY feel that they made it themselves. They can cut a heat to add to the angle-beak and learn "I cut the circle round, I cut the circle round, I turn the paper as I go, I cut the circle round." (Farmer in Del tune!)
Why?
(LAST TIME, I *DON'T* NEED TO CITE WELL KNOWN VERSES THAT ANYONE CAN EASILY LOOK UP...BUT THAT i EXPECT EVERYONE TO BE FAMILIAR WITH ANYWAYS!)
(1) Baptism, being "buried with Christ" is the entrance into the Church, Christ's Body, through the work of the Holy Spirit. (2) The Theophany of Christ's Baptism was when the Spirit descended as a Dove and revealed the Sonship of Christ.
(It was either that or use a round Mister Coffee filter and let them swirl white and blue paint to make water. All I could think of. How do you picture the invisible?)
Simple.
I hope they enjoy it!
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
| | Back to Top | | |
| 194 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:47 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|