 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Baptism and Salvation | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/3/2001 3:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | 1way....First re-read writerdad's request (and that of many):
Harold: ...However, I am interested as well as how he (Bob) would defend his methodology. Its a fair question and regardless of whether or not he is being "attacked," it is obvious that Modes' questions are ones being asked by many others. I would suggest he address them.
Now, for my taking YOU to task.
Here was my original question, to which I'd love an answer:
quote:
Dear 1way,
In your quotes above you allowed a switch between Son of David (Son of Man) and Son of God. Reading it seems like they are the same for you. (response?)
The wonderful thing is how these go together. I don't think that they indicate different "dispensations." They do indicate something else, though. And they have a history, where one was used more, to accent one thing; and then the other was used more when there was something else that needed emphasizing. It is good to recognize that they are both referring to Jesus. But those two terms say A LOT. Merely having their full significance being to designate boundaries of dispensations is to close the Bible too quickly.
PotOnWeheel
You plainly ignored the verse I challenged you with. Your own verses. (The part that that you re-inserted in blue wasn't scripture, so I'd taken it out for clarity)
Here are the corresponding versed portions of scripture:
quote:
Mt 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David."
43 He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him `Lord,' saying: 44 `The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"'? 45 "If David then calls Him `Lord,' how is He his Son?" (loud baffling silence) 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.
Ro 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
Instead answering my question and observation....you acted VERY RUDE and JUDGMENTAL towards me and most of those who have posted on this thread. Let your statements be judged in context, of course, but let everyone read carefully too. Here is a sample.
You claimed that everyone MUST agree with you: "1way: I'm quite sure that the willfully objective person wouldn't need such a correction."
You ignored the scripture and the question. So much for dialog, or discussion, or collaboration! Instead you merely said of these verses, that to YOU:
quote:
It was not a point in support for dispensationalism, it was a point for the importance of right contextual understanding prior to claiming to understand the details, and perhaps also how relationally dynamic yet easily overlooked they can be.
So, in the "context" (show me) of these verses, GOD was not really talking about Christ, He was talking about YOU and YOUR issue of making EVERYTHING an argument about how to squeeze everything into your own "right contextual understanding"? (Lucky you.)
As a college teacher of ten years and a high school teacher of four I'm going to correct you! What you are talking about is NOT CONTEXT-UAL. Not when you actually ignore context!!! What remains is just "right understanding" which drifts in the sea of "personal truth."
YOU don't see it that way. You say:
quote:
"1way: The task is plainly to first generally understand God's word as a whole, and then secondly to allow the details to fit into it's own natural context accordingly."
But you are deciding on what it means to you before you read it. And if someone comes to the Word of God faithfully and disagrees with you, you CONDEMN THEM....IN YOUR HEART!!!
1way: it is right and good to call certain people swine, and so on
Repent! Join the conversation!
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/03/2001 09:05:25 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 11/3/2001 3:59 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way: So please stand corrected as you must realize, or soon will, that Bob generally entertains any and all respectful and sincere interactions.
Dear Bob, respectfully and sincerely, do you interpret scripture, or do you consider it self-evident?
Blessings,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/3/2001 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes and Harold and Greg and Meph Man and others...
First, this is a thread on Baptism which has now turned into a debate that hinges on the question of methodology. So, before addressing the question of baptism you first have to answer (hash through) dispensationalism.
You know you 'taint gonna get an answer to the methodological question since these weren't answered the first time 'round way back in the day. You know that don't you? My strong feelings on this? I don't think they have one.
I think Meph Man was right on target. My thoughts? There are a lot of well meaning dispensationalists as Meph points out. They take the Bible seriously, as most of us do, however as Greg showed and as Modes has pointed out when he addresses, "Bob and followers" there is a certain cultic strain that runs through many dispensational circles. This seems to be what is done here by rote. Read Boyd's, "Oneness Pentecaaaaastels and the Trinity" to get the gist of this sort of thing happening. By the way, do you guys remember that guy who visited here a few months back whom Greg felt he was banging his head against the wall when he debated him and this guy took everything out of context and crap like that? He complained one time to the administrator, that his post didn't get posted? What was that guys name again? Anyhoo...this is the same kind of mindless stuff happening here. I think it is almost useless to try and dialogue with some of the members here Modes-I think you should listen to your own advice "...is like bangin' yer head on a lonely concrete wall that's left over from a torn down building. You're better off just going around it and stating your project somewhere else.
Also, I hate when people have this particular air of certainty about such matters, (Oneness have it, dispensationalists have it, Fundamentalists have it, Calvinists have it, Arminians have it, Christians have it, atheists have it, evolutionists have it, creationists have it (especially young earthers), inerrantists have it (read Goldingay's book "Models of Inspiration/Interpretation(?) haven't got it in front of me, pretty sure it is Inspiration though"), theologians have it, Rush Limbaugh has it, **the police have it**, my grandma baking her apple pie has it. As don't they know, that it is human nature to get it wrong at least 10 or more % a time. Again read, Modes recommendation and Goldingay's book.
Bob and 1way, answer Modes question concerning methodology please. Or do you have one? Put up bra...put up.
A Sidebar to Harold
When you say:
quote:
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.
While I don't think you intended or even necessarily implied this, it is not necessary to implicate dispensationalists with scenarios and timelines and charts and crystal ball gazing. While this kinda of popular theology is mostly spawned in this branch of millennialarinism (sp?), there are dispensationalists who do not defer to any of this is their writings and they themselves realize this is sort of thing is corny-whacked (Read "Four Views of the Rapture). I say this because I don't want to take away from the positive aspects of dispensationalism through guilt by association. I am not saying you are doing this, but the potential is there.
There are some good points to dispensationalism though, for example, we gotta credit that they "rightly opposed the notion that believers in other epochs needed to believe in the coming Savior in order to be saved. These people trusted in God, even though the content of their theology differed from our own. Charles Ryrie states it well when he says that, "The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in various dispensations. (Pinnock in "A Wideness in God's Mercy, quoting Ryrie, "Dispensationalism Today")
And lastly, I would recommend reading (especially the DD {dispensationalist dude}fellow, Bob Hill) Stanley Grenz's book, "The Millennial Maze" for both positive and negative evaluations of your (dispensational)system.
The church is like a flower bed with many different species of flowers that all contribute to the beauty of the garden. Even dispensationalism can be a part of this.
Brandon
Edited by - BBBCanada on 11/03/2001 11:14:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/3/2001 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is something which maybe both Disp. and non-Disp. might discuss. It is commentary directly on Scripture by a well known and respected Christian. We are welcomed to argue with him; but then we must do so from Scripture--as he does.
(quoted in IVPs "Ancient Christian Commentaries--MARK")
John the Baptist: (as quoted by Mark): I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Jerome: The Distinction Between Water and Spirit-- He is drawing a comparison, therefore, between the law and the gospel. Farther, he says: "I ahve baptized you with water," that is, the law; "but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit," that is the gospel.
Jerome(in "The Dialog Against the Luciferians"): The Perfection of Baptism -- No baptism can be called perfect except for that which depends on the cross and resurrection of Christ.
That IVP series of commentaries is neat!
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/03/2001 12:07:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | PoT - You are straining at a gnat, and the wrong one at that! quote:
In your quotes above you allowed a switch between Son of David (Son of Man) and Son of God. Reading it seems like they are the same for you. (response?)
and then, after I hoped you would present a more thoughtful response, instead you said quote:
You plainly ignored the verse I challenged you with. Your own verses. (The part that that you re-inserted in blue wasn't scripture, so I'd taken it out for clarity)
while saying other things to slander me. No, I did not make a switch. quote:
Ro 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
V.3 speaks of Jesus as being in the blood line of David. The way that David, by the spirit, called his quote unquote son "Lord", is because of two things. First, Jesus Christ was obviously not his personal son, Jesus is his son by way of promise and extended family, very extended. Perhaps that was among God's greatest honor, to portray and show honor and likeness to particular people like David (a type of Christ) speaking of them as in this case, owing Christ's (sonship) lineage to David. So Christ was his son in an extended and more less figurative fashion.
Secondly, and more importantly, David, by the spirit, called his "son" "Lord", because the Christ is God. Christ's true father is none other than God the Father, it is not literally David, it is only figuratively David. A truth I don't think you are objecting to. So both aspects were alluded to in Mt, Jesus' humanity and His divinity, and Roman's does the same, no switching going on, just consistency. So I fail to see your seemingly invented switch. Please explain.
Pr 6:16 These six [things] the LORD hates, Yes, seven [are] an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren
Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
Eph 5:9 (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
Pr 15:21 Folly is joy to him who is destitute of discernment, But a man of understanding walks uprightly.
23 A man has joy by the answer of his mouth, And a word spoken in due season, how good it is!
"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 | | |
|
Abbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 11/3/2001 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | I know I am new here, but I have a couple things I wanted to say. I thought the question about methodology was a good one, but I am not familiar enough with how methodologies differ to know what it was that needed defending. I was waiting to say anything until I thought I could say something that would be helpful. Modes, I found your system of dispensations to be offensive. I don't mind humor, but I didn't see anything humorous in that post. After reading it, I lost any desire to say anything.
I also wanted to say a couple things about Bob. He is not one to show respect of persons. He has treated me with more respect than anyone else I have known and has always respected everything I've had to say. That means a lot to me because I have sometimes felt like other people don't take me seriously since I am young and female. Bob has never seemed to care about that. He is not looking for followers. He is more concerned with making sure people support what they believe out of the Bible. He is the most gracious person I have known. He doesn't agree with all of my theology, but he still responds with love and kindness. He is one of the few people with whom I would feel safe discussing certain theological questions. I have learned a lot about God's love by watching it flow through him. It is more beautiful than words can express.
In His love,
Abbie | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Abbie - Say, that was close, looks like I beat you by one second, see the time date stamp on our posts.  And thanks for presenting an objective review over some pretty dark behavior. Blessings.
Semeia - As to quote:
Dear Bob, respectfully and sincerely, do you interpret scripture, or do you consider it self-evident?
That is a great question, but poses a serious problem if we accept your presumption. I say that truth is self evident, you imply that it may not be. By way of one example, God's word says quote:
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
If people suppress the truth, it is evident that they are responding to it, it is known to them, but is rejected by them. Truth is like light, you can't say it doesn't exist, you can only try to suppress it, which is darkness. And God is the light of the world, all that has been created makes man without excuse before God because man knows so much about Him (Jn 1, Rm 1-2).
So I say that interpretation and self evident truth are hand in hand, they are not exclusive.
Edited by - 1way on 11/03/2001 12:46:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 11/3/2001 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way, Thanks for responding. Do you think I asked my question respectfully enough for Bob to answer?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | Semeia - Don't you think that my response to you deserves a corresponding response? | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | In other words, are you simply seeking to hear of some new thing, posing as sincerely wanting to learn the truth while never obediently attaining it? If you are sincerely seeking the truth, then it is incumbent upon yourself to demonstrate your own personal subjection to it. And Bob, nor I, nor God for that matter, will not cause you to learn anything if you are not willing to be objective and obedient to the truth. I hope your lack of response to what I claim to be the truth is not going to become indicative of you. Therein lies the conundrum and heart of the matter, is the questioner honestly subject and obedient to the truth, or not.
As for myself, I welcome the possibility that I am wrong. Because, it is only when I realize that I am wrong that I can learn to stand on the truth instead. I don't doubt your personal integrity, I just wisely desire to understand prior to making any judgments. But in all other ways, and from the little I know of you (like the last several posts, I see you've posted quite a bit), you have been respectful and reasonable, most people respond favorably to such things. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia - Just curious, what does your handle mean? In your bio and favorite quote, you pose two highlighted and perhaps strange thoughts. I thought I'd try to get a better light on them.
"Dead letters from the beginning of time" (very dark and negative connotation), juxtaposed by life and love stuff (very light and positive connotations). What "dead letters from the beginning of time" are you referring to? And why assume that time had a beginning?
As to quote:
Any preconception about the way things "ought to be" always interferes with your sense of reality; it prevents you from seeing what is actually going on...In this respect attention to reality goes far beyond the realm of values...
What "ought to be", is the heart of ethics, the way people should behave, the way things ought to be (handled). Your statement is a statement of ethical evaluation, it strives to place value on the way things ought to be. Therein your statement attacks itself and thus it is illogical and can not be true. In effect, it is plainly saying what people should do, namely, that people should not say what people should do.
The truth matters. 
Edited by - 1way on 11/03/2001 2:32:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 11/3/2001 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way,
1way: Semeia - Don't you think that my response to you deserves a corresponding response?
Yes I do.
It was not my intent to imply that truth is not self-evident. I must confess that I am a little confused by your reply. Are you saying that scripture = truth = self-evident? If so - then what is the role of interpretation?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/3/2001 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Just wanted to peek in for a moment and say
a) Sorry I haven't responded to Bob's response to my questions. My nose has not been above water. But also, and quite frankly, the baptism/dispensational issue just isn't an issue that's on "the front burner" for me.
b) I thought Mode's sex-dispensation satire was clever, hilarious and insightful. But I can also see how Bob Hill and others who share their view could be offended by it and decide it's time to check out. The point could have been made without the sarcasm.
c) I think non-dispensational folk need to be a wee bit careful here. Modes, I bet you also are a dispensationalist of sorts. You hold to TWO testaments don't you? Yes you have reasons for coming to this conclusion (I'm assuming), and its not wrong to ask for Bob Hills reasons for holding to his dispensations. But note, the issue is not WHETHER OR NOT GOD WORKS IN DIFFERENT DISPENSATIONS. Anyone who holds to two different testaments agrees with this basic point.
d) Welcome to all the newcomers! Nice to see you.
e) Bob, I hope you haven't checked out for good. I really like your input here, whether or not I agree with it all (which I know you're okay with). I know I speak for many. Yes, we all sometimes jibe each other, perhaps a bit too aggressively. But I know Modes, and it wasn't meant maliciously.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia - quote:
It was not my intent to imply that truth is not self-evident. I must confess that I am a little confused by your reply. Are you saying that scripture = truth = self-evident? If so - then what is the role of interpretation?
Your question placed self evident truth and interpretation as exclusive to each other, you said, is it this, or is it that?
I simply disagreed with the presumption that "interpretation" is exclusive to "self evident" truth.
Scripture is truth, yes, and truth is self evident, yes. But next we need to take man into better account.
Man = self errant, but can also know the truth. quote:
1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
So man needs to use proper interpretation in order to rightly understand (objective) truth, otherwise his proneness to error will lead him astray.
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I hope you know Him personally, if not, understanding His word accurately is more difficult.
"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 | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 11/3/2001 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way:
quote:
Semeia - Just curious, what does your handle mean?
It’s Greek for “signs”. Not in the “revelation” sense, but in the semiotics “meaning” sense.
quote:
"Dead letters from the beginning of time"
Poetic allusion to stars.
quote:
As to
quote:
Any preconception about the way things "ought to be" always interferes with your sense of reality; it prevents you from seeing what is actually going on...In this respect attention to reality goes far beyond the realm of values...
What "ought to be", is the heart of ethics, the way people should behave, the way things ought to be (handled). Your statement is a statement of ethical evaluation, it strives to place value on the way things ought to be. Therein your statement attacks itself and thus it is illogical and can not be true. In effect, it is plainly saying what people should do, namely, that people should not say what people should do.
1way, I disagree with your interpretation of this quote. What it means to me is: when we invoke our “judge” to focus on how things “ought to be” we make it impossible to see what really is. This does not imply an “ought”. It is simply a factual statement that one may agree or disagree with. It seems to me that you added the “ought” to this statement, and therefore made it illogical for yourself.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 11/3/2001 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way,
quote:
So man needs to use proper interpretation in order to rightly understand (objective) truth, otherwise his proneness to error will lead him astray.
What I hear you say here is that yes, we interpret scripture to understand the self-evident truth that it points to. And that we must be careful in how we interpret scripture because we are fallible, even after being saved. Am I understanding you correctly?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | GregBoyd - quote:
a) Sorry I haven't responded to Bob's response to my questions. My nose has not been above water. But also, and quite frankly, the baptism/dispensational issue just isn't an issue that's on "the front burner" for me.
Bob is not just bringing up baptism as a dispensational issue, it concerns a right understanding of the gospel unto salvation, and for personal edifying assurance therein. God comforts us with His truth, and since we contradict each other, someone is teaching against God's word. As for me, I care about that sort of thing in a "front burner" sort of way.
You might be busy, and you might have an inner distaste for dispensational thought, but especially in the case of the obviously contrary considerations of "eis", and Bob's implications of Baptism for salvation, I would think that your involvement would include a bit more interest and personal effort.
As to quote:
b) I thought Mode's sex-dispensation satire was clever, hilarious and insightful. But I can also see how Bob Hill and others who share their view could be offended by it and decide it's time to check out. The point could have been made without the sarcasm.
I think you miss the point. The offense is not primarily over sarcasm, it's over the constant aversion to apologetic biblical review and reasoning, while at the same time exulting manmade reasoning instead. Granted that apparently we disagree on our biblical interpretations, but it is not a fun loving matter to: - falsify what others are saying = slander (Mode's sex dispensation satire is an outright disgrace to God's establishment of dispensational thought)
- place manmade reasoning over God's word = leans towards idolatry, apostasy, false doctrine, etc.
Bob (and our group as it were) have not made a case for "dispensationalism per say", so please don't levy that against us. We were discussing baptism from a Biblical standpoint. The issue of dispensationalism has it's implications, but is not the focus.
So we are left not having much of a clue as to your thoughts about Bob Hill's correction to your views - about "eis" and how Bob offered a comprehensive rebuttal against your view, including a remark that you did not take into account a clearly relevant example of it's use,
- and about a better biblical understanding of the place of water baptism in personal salvation, that it was for a time a requirement of salvation.
Moreover, these sorts of issues are somehow not on the front burner. "Disappointing" might be an understatement here, but don't worry, we're used to disappointment. How common it is to show interest when you can be the man in leading the way of truth and understanding, and how humbling it can be when others suggest that you are (perhaps) wrong. The truth matters.
"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 11/3/2001 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | | Doc - Where's my manners, thank you very kindly for the welcome. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 11/3/2001 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | From an outsider who is truly interested in hearing both sides of the issue, I must step in and say my peace.
1way, you can come to this board and share thoughts about issues. BUT, your interpretation of Scripture is nothing more than your interpretation. EVERYONE HERE AGREES THAT THE TRUTH IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING, AND JUST BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM A HERETIC.
quote:
falsify what others are saying = slander (Mode's sex dispensation satire is an outright disgrace to God's establishment of dispensational thought)
place manmade reasoning over God's word = leans towards idolatry, apostasy, false doctrine, etc.
Modes was attempting to be humorous, and was probably wrong in doing so, but was also making a very distinct point that by the way Bob Hill defines a dispensation (go to his website if you want the definition it is biblicalanswers.com) that virtually anything could be made into a dispensation, and that the dispensations are clearly MANMADE. If you can't be critical of your own beliefs, then there is no point in even posting here, because a pompous attitude won't win converts.
This is ridiculous guys, can't we all just try to calm things down a little bit and discuss these things without so much bias?
Kyle Essary
Edited by - Kyle Essary on 11/03/2001 4:51:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia - As to quote:
It is simply a factual statement that one may agree or disagree with. It seems to me that you added the "ought" to this statement, and therefore made it illogical for yourself.
I just thought that when you said quote:
interferes with your sense of reality; it prevents you from seeing what is actually going on...
that you implied it was better to not have such interference that prevent you from seeing what is going on. I can allow for that line of thought too.
Your statement is contradictory to it's self because it manifestly asserts "the way it ought to be" in order to understand what is going on. Considering your advice, if I don't take it, I will have problems because of interference in understanding what is going on.
Hence, your teaching does assert "the way it ought to be" if I want to understand what is going on.
While at the same time teaching, that if we want to understand what is going on, we must not entertain "the way what it ought to be".
Implicit and explicit assertions exist just as forcefully, and in this case, illogically.
"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 | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 11/3/2001 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | See that was a nice post, and it even had a smily face! Can't we all just get along? hehe.
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 11/3/2001 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | 1way,
Why do you want to argue about the meaning of this quote? I could give you a lengthy response explaining why your interpretation of it is incorrect based on the context of the book that it comes from, but I don't see the purpose of doing that. It seems like a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the questions about your methodology that have been posed to you.
All I attempted to do in joining this thread was to encourage Bob to answer Modes questions, because I was interested in the response.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 11/3/2001 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Kyle - Sorry brother, I'm not the scape goat. But I welcome and very much appreciate you attempt at getting back to more productive discussions. As to quote:
It is by no means fair of you to sarcastically attempt to ridicule people with a "holier than thou" attitude, and then get angered at them for attacking something you believe in. EVERYONE HERE AGREES THAT THE TRUTH IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING, AND JUST BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM A HERETIC.
You misunderstand, that is not my position and that is not what I have done. BTW, apparently your presentation to me was overtly sarcastic, ridiculing, (somewhat) holier than thou, and takes personal exception to me because I disagree with you. The truth sets us free. But this is only the natural result of more foundational errors.
I have no problem with folks disagreeing with me, it's when falsehoods, neglect and slander happen that any reasonable fool would object. As to quote:
Modes ... was also making a very distinct point that by the way Bob Hill defines a dispensation (go to his website if you want the definition it is biblicalanswers.com) that virtually anything could be made into a dispensation, and that the dispensations are clearly MANMADE.
I realize that, and I appreciate and respect that. Again, having a difference of opinion is not in the least my objection, it is the falsifications and bitter slander that I object to. As to quote:
If you can't be critical of your own beliefs, then there is no point in even posting here, because a pompous attitude won't win converts.
I can and am critical of my own beliefs, and I welcome and encourage critical review from others as well, that is why I am hear. Don't misunderstand what I have said. All I ask is for folks to not become so carried away with bitterness and spite, as to present so much false accusations. Just ask yourself one simple question, of all topic matter in the world, what topic does every single person know and understand most intimately? The answer is manifest, it's what you believe. So, whenever another person violates or misunderstands or misrepresents what you believe, it is the easiest thing in the world to discern.
As to quote:
This is ridiculous guys, can't we all just try to calm things down a little bit and discuss these things without so much bias?
I believe "calm down" is the operative productive word, and I agree. After I get a respectable audience, I'd be glad to address any reasonable questions, like the point you feel that Modes made for example.
In the mean time, I have hopefully presented a wake up call to you all. Stop the interpersonal rhetoric, and manmade exaltations, and deal with the apologetically presented Biblical arguments that have been thoughtfully offered to you. So far, it seems that only us dispensationalists bring our Bibles to the forefront of Christian discussions. I can understand the reluctance because of the turmoil generated. Maybe if someone orders a couple of our favorite pizzas, we can sort of digress away into better pastures.
"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 | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 11/3/2001 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Maybe if someone orders a couple of our favorite pizzas, we can sort of digress away into better pastures.
WOOT! You just helped me decide what to have for dinner!
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 11/3/2001 1:34 PM (GMT -6) | | 1way,
I hope you haven't found my questions to be disrespectful. I will stay off this thread so you don't feel so ganged up on.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | 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 3:34 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 |
|
|