Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Baptism and Salvation

Forum Quick Jump

194 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/3/2001 4:10 PM (GMT -6)

Yo 1WAY: Easy does it, boy. Eeeaasssy up.

I was trying to sort of be on your side here good buddy. You know, smooth things over. Mr. nice. Peace lover. That sort of thing.

As I understand it -- which may be wrong (I hold to the principle of "falliblism" , which holds that we must begin and continue all of our reflections with the acute awareness that we could be wrong, and indeed, probably are wrong at least on points) -- Bob and you and co. hold that baptism WAS necessary for salvation, but its no longer applicable. SO, I THOUGHT that in your view the rest of us folk who haven't gotten "the revelation" of how water baptism was for a now-defunk dispensation were, at worst, performing a needless ritual. I disagree with the view that baptism was EVER necessary, but since (I thought) you held that this dispensation is over, our disagreement is little more than a historical curiosity.

And I'm wondering what the big deal is. Are you suggesting that we baptists are worse off than this -- viz. that we may not be saved???? I mean, how importnat is this issue to you guys?

Anyway, I've been round and round and round and round the baptism for salvation thing with the Oneness people for years. You get to the point where you a) resolve an issue in your mind and heart and b) burn out on discussing it. That's pretty much where I've been for 8 or more years.

Given time constraints, I spend time mostly on issues that are "hot" to me, and for which I have fuel. I appreciate that this issue is important to you. And, it seems, its important to others. So have at it. But I have little more than a mild curiousity in it -- unless, of course, you are in fact saying that practicing baptism can damn a person. Then my curiousity goes from mild to semi-interested (but honestly, I would grant such a position as having such a low a priori plausibility factor that I doubt my interest would rise much above "semi" for any extended period of time.

Just being honest. Get in line if you wish to condemn for this. (But be on notice -- the line is a bit long lately).

Blessings

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/3/2001 5:35 PM (GMT -6)

Hello everyone,

I will kep this very short:

1. If dispensationalism (meaning specificly that system which Bob Hill promotes and the method behind it) is something God revealed, as 1way claimed, then 1way has NO CHOICE but to not only consider but OBEY the sexual ethics that I proposed. I can defend them as rigorously as they defend their other dispensations. Try me. Of course, the sarcasm in the presentation is mine, not that of Scripture, but the dspensations themselves are SOLIDLY biblical. If you don't like them, I recommend you find another way of interpreting the Bible than this form of dispensationalism.

2. Greg asked if I count the Old and New Testaments as two different dispensations. No, I do not. But that is another question. Salvation has always been through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, either through anticipation or fulfillment of the pertinent promise. Paul's argument regarding Abraham's faith being reckoned as righteousness is adequate demonstration for me to hold to this view.

I can see that I have offended some of you here. That was not my intention. As Greg suspected, my intention was not malicious, but rather to be boldly comparative. The "flavor" of it was perhaps too much for this public format.

BBBCanada, thanks for reminding me of what I said last time. I am very close to that point here. But I think that this dispensationalism is so dangerous that I will not hand this conversation over to them. Too many people, even if it is one, that's too many who could be deceived into thinking that what these people teach is faithful to the self-revelation of God.

Abbie, I am sorry to offend you, but frankly, it is not me but the Bible that lays out those dispensations--JUST as clearly as Bob's dispensations. Of course the sarcasm was mine, and for that I apologize, but, as a woman, I think that you should be very interested in the sexual ethics of the Bible since most of it is pretty tough on women.

Blessings to you all. This is a serious heresy we are dealing with here, I pray that God's light would penetrate it clearly for those of you tempted to walk that way.

"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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/3/2001 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

THE FOLLOWING FLOWED FROM THE "THE CHURCH STARTED WITH PAUL" THREAD.
BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE HERE TOO.
==============================================

Ironic!

Don't you think it is ironic, 1way?

Over on the Baptism thread you just got done lecturing me on how the differences in Son of Man and Son of God were so slight (Straining at gnats" you called it.) as to not be worth mentioning. you didn't even notice the difference in the verses you'd quoted.

BUT, that is a HUGE difference. Christ is BOTH of these, Son of Man/David and Son of God; and it is because He is both that he is Christ. he is the Theanthropos, God-man. That is not gnat sized.

BUT HERE ON THE "THE CHURCH STARTED WITH PAUL" THREAD...You badgered Kyle about "subjectively eclecticise [sic] and self amalgamate the various circumcision and uncircumcision parts of the Bible, as though they are all synonymous" over his saying things concerning Christ being the unification of that which was fractured in the fall. (KYLE COMMITTED THE SIN OF PUTTING JEW AND GREEK IN A SINGLE SENTENCE.) Christ is SAVIOR! He is the unity of the division of male and female outlined in the curse in Genesis. He is the savior of the whole world. He is the fulfillment of both the law and the prophets. READ Christ's sermon in his home town. (Lk 4:24-27) Do you accept CHRIST's own commentary on scripture? Surely you all have twisted all the very wonderful passages in the Prophets to fit into your neat little boxes. Christ is the savior of all. The "gnat" sized difference between God and Man in your objection is the profoundest thing of all. We need to see that difference first; and then we must see how God is addressing that need.

Chosen versus Goyem is a difference that needed Addressing. Christ did it!

He became ours, for all of us. And He will be all in all.

Lots of this started with the very unusual practice of your of not baptizing with water. What makes me wonder so much is that normal churches practice baptism AND know that it is the Spirit that fits us into Christ. normally this is not seen as a problem. I think that the reason for this is that the tension between our old (fallen) and new (redeemed) selves is so obvious. What more natural practice could there be (Have ANY of you all even explained what practice you replaced baptism with???) than to model on Christ's "fulfilling all righteousness" (as HE told John) and know that by our being buried with Christ in the likeness of his death the Spirit raises us up in His resurrection. Since we ARE Physical as well as spiritual having BOTH real water and the Holy Spirit be part of this all does not present any feeling of discomfort to most of us.

THAT raises the issue of the Virgin Birth.

Make up with Kyle. He seems like a very nice guy!

Watch out for me. I'm beginning to wonder whether you believe in the Virgin Birth. Now way will I accuse you of anything! But I am beginning to wonder. The Virgin Birth is not an issue of whether you believe in miracles. It is a matter of whether you believe that Christ, more than just being human (God could have created another human--even suggested the possibility to Moses, and to Noah.), Christ took on OUR flesh. That "fallen" stuff, that suffers. The Son assumed, by the Holy Spirit, Mary's flesh. Boy, you sure were reluctant to connect Jesus to David in any solid way on the Baptism/Salvation thread. That is what makes me take a cautionary view of what I don't know about you yet. The division between physical and spiritual in the baptism matter would parallel a dualism of distancing Christ from our fallen flesh. Dualisms like that are fairly common. How do I know that your sect does not do that sort of thing.

I'm serious.

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.
------------------------------------------------------
1way: 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[u/].

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.

I'm not "switching" 1way. I'm emphasizing BOTH at the expense of neither!!!

Are you venturing into heresy??? Is Christ only "figuratively" your Savior? Is he only "figuratively" identical in his humanity. Was Mary only "figuratively" the Mother of God? Did one of the Trinity only "figuratively" die? Was Christ only "figuratively" dead? Was the resurrection only "figurative"

Where does the slippery slope begin?

Similarly, Kyle's mentioning Jew and Greek is not an opportunity to eliminate either.

===================

AND..........

I've got to add my total agreement with Modes on the below, and mild surprise to Greg's statement.

quote:
2. Greg asked if I count the Old and New Testaments as two different dispensations. No, I do not. But that is another question. Salvation has always been through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, either through anticipation or fulfillment of the pertinent promise. Paul's argument regarding Abraham's faith being reckoned as righteousness is adequate demonstration for me to hold to this view.

PotOnWheel

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 11/3/2001 7:22 PM (GMT -6)

Brandon: You are totally right; there is much out there that is very positive about dispensationalists. I know some and, while I disagree with them, they are my brothers in the Lord and have been wonderful examples to me. I hope my words did not imply anything different. I am glad you brought that up.
Morey was the man's name you were refering to, by the way. Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 11/3/2001 7:36 PM (GMT -6)

Modes: sometimes sarcasism is needed to make the point and I thought your point was made beautifully. Usually those offended are those whose system is touches.
1way, it isn't about you, its about the system you believe in. It isn't about Bob (or how wonderful a person he is), its about the system of belief. Seperate the two. Defend what you believe, listen to the criticism with decernment and try not to damn anyone to hell. That's my motto. But after reading Mode's questions stated in several different ways, I've about given up hope of an answer. But I'll keep praying. God calls us to love. Its what its all about. John 17:3 Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 11/3/2001 7:42 PM (GMT -6)

1way: "hopefully, I've presented you all with a wakeup call." Wakeup call. Dang, here I was, thinking I was following God, prayin' and all, and I've been asleep the whole time. How come God didn't wake me on up...

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 11/3/2001 8:16 PM (GMT -6)

POW,

I was working on my responses to Doc for some time, then got a flu shot. I don't know if the flu shot gave me this cold, but I'm just getting over it.

I've searched this forum for the questions you asked me, and I can't find them.

Would you please ask them again? Don't ask me too many at once. I will try to answer them.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/3/2001 9:30 PM (GMT -6)

Doc - So you disagree with us, but at the same time, you don't understand very well what we believe as evidenced by your questions and complete lack of response to our biblical presentations. No, we don't believe that Baptist's aren't saved, just on the issue of being confused about water baptism. As to the relevance of importance, I think I can understand your perspective, except that it concerns salvation and our personal security in it. Your presuppositions are holding you back from the discussion, sorry to hear that, but you have no fears about our suggesting that baptism today is sending people to hell, it's just that as is the case with all false teachings, it is helping those who are already going to Hell, go there with just that much more confusion about God, as well as robbing saved people from better eternal rewards in Heaven. I guess if accuracy and faithfulness to the gospel unto salvation can't get you aroused, you must really be an advanced thinker. I do appreciate your honesty, I hope you don't mind mine as well.

Specifically if you have no suitable remarks to offer about "eis", given your, and Bob's, personal investment (yours entrenched in publicized writings and continuing sales I would imagine) and Bob's given to you here online, I hope you don't miss the way this could damage your personal integrity as an expositor of God's word, and as an objective and fallible person. Or is the fallibility precept spread thicker on everyone else?

Smile, shaking my head caringly, we aren't expecting you to cry out and don sacloth and ashes, or to write another book. I just think it is a reasonable request for a little thoughtful assistance here, after all, since we are fallible, and according to you what we believe is wrong, then believe it or not, we'd like our fitting correction. However, after carefully reading Bob Hill's treatment of your suggestion, I almost have to assume that His argument is right and yours is wrong, yet I don't want to judge from a position of ignorance simple because Bob made such a thorough and convincing presentation, and showed how you apparently didn't consider key biblical examples. A story sounds right until his neighbor chimes in on the other side. Your counterpoint is welcomed and may well shed much light on your personal integrity towards your own correct-ability, and or, your caring about others correction as well.

As to getting in line to labor to condemn, I am almost without words. It's not about that, if we are wrong, we simply want to know, and if you are wrong, we were hoping that you would too.

On behalf of Bob and co., what angle or topic do you feel is something more important to talk about? Or is our company more-less outside of your interests altogether, and your welcoming us here is more accurately stated, your welcome here to be as wrong as you like. And please indulge us, which of the open theists have you been "burnt out" upon the issue of baptism? And are we to suppose that others besides our camp hold that water baptism was at one time a part of the requirements for salvation? If not, then I fail to see the relevance. Then again, it appears that you've been holding a lot back from us anyway, except for ensuring your comfort zone, and the lack of necessity to enlighten us on these bible issues. (chuckles --> ) Postulating your apparent motto towards us wayward souls -- Let them remain in their contradictory error so long as it seems like they are not causing too much (eternal) destruction. God will certainly burn up their false teachings anyway, why help them before it's too late, the poor suckers, they seem so happy and set in their ways.

Having said all that, I would greatly regret it if I didn't stop the admonishment and pleading for some mutual effort and caring, at least pausing just long enough to say how very much I appreciate what a strain it must be as a noted and public proponent of the open view. Your Biblical fortitude and convictions have taken you quite a long way beyond the standard fair, and I honor you for that. I hope that the open view issue will become as huge as I think it should be.

Peace

Edited by - 1way on 11/04/2001 02:37:07 AM

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/3/2001 10:01 PM (GMT -6)

Pot - I will take a day or so to respond. In the meantime, I suggest that you reacquaint yourself more "accurately" with what I said, as well as which forum we are in right now. Your misunderstandings are quite unnecessary and hopefully self corrective, although they are rather "extravagant". Frankly, I've seen a lot of misunderstanding (and lies) in my time, but to be honest, I think you take the cake, and the ice-cream, and the party favors, etc. Here's hoping for better.

"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/4/2001 8:06 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Bob Hill,

Does 1way represent the sort of character and dialogue skills that you hope to instill in your students?

If not, may I suggest you correct your pupil for his own sake as well as the credibility loss that you inevitably incur by being so associated with him.

At least inform him that he need not refer to you with a capital H when employing a second person pronoun, usually only God is so priviledged.

"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

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/4/2001 8:25 AM (GMT -6)

MoT - As to

quote:
At least inform him that he need not refer to you with a capital H when employing a second person pronoun, usually only God is so privileged.

Any such grammatical mistake was just that, a mistake, I have even at times not capitalized God's pronouns, it is my habit to capitalize God's pronouns and have found it a strange error of mine to inadvertently continue that practice with other pronouns from time to time. Other than that, I find your remarks consistent and false.

"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Abbie
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 7

Posted 11/4/2001 9:04 AM (GMT -6)

Modes,

Thanks for the apology. My problem was not with the satire on dispensationalism but rather with the inclusion of sexual matters in the joke. I know that it doesn't seem to have bothered other people; but since it was bothering me, I decided to say something about it.

If your point was that you can create dispensations out of just about anything in the Bible, you are right. You can do that. The set of dispensations that we use is based on the major changes that God made in His dealings with man, changes like the addition of the Law. My guess is that if you make up dispensations for specific things, you will find that the changes in what God said about those things will correspond with the general changes He made. You will find changes when God instituted the Law, when Christ came to earth, and when God set aside the nation of Israel.

Salvation has always been by faith (Heb 11:6), but it has not always been by faith in Christ. Peter says that the prophets did not understand what they were saying when they prophesied about Christ's death and the glory coming after it (I Pet 1:10-12). Not even the twelve disciples understood that Christ would die (Lk 18:31-34). It wasn't until after Christ's resurrection that they finally did understand (Lk 24:44-46). Before Christ's death, men believed whatever message God gave them to believe. Noah believed that God would send a flood (Heb 11:7). Abraham believed that God would give him a land and descendents (Acts 7:3; Heb 11:8; Gen 15:4-6, 18). Works come into play when the message men were to believe required works. Noah could not have believed that God would send a flood without building the ark. Even though salvation has always been by faith, there were times when faith could not have existed without works (James 2:20-24). Now that God has told us that salvation is by faith alone and not by works, working for one's salvation is a sign of unbelief (Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9).

The words "testament" and "covenant" are used to translate the same Greek word, and the word "testament" is used to speak of what the OT calls the covenant (Ex 24:8; Heb 9:19-20). In Jer 31:31-34, God tells Israel that someday He will make a new covenant with her that is not like the covenant that He made on Mount Sinai. Christ called His blood the blood of the new testament (Matt 26:28). If the covenants/testments were the same, God would not have made a distinction between them.

If God had never made any changes, wouldn't we still have to worry about doing no work on the Sabbath (Ex 16:29; 20:9-10)? God commanded that a man be stoned when he was found simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-36).

In my Father's love,
Abbie

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/4/2001 9:11 AM (GMT -6)

For Bob and 1way...

Modes and others have said enough. I now know more about dispensationalistic systems than I thought I'd want to know. good stuff on I don't see any fruit in Dispensationalism; and there is so much fruit in the Lord's vineyard. I'm going looking for things that are nutritious.

I wonder (read: "doubt") whether I will desire to visit this thread again.

I'm sure the subject of Baptism will come up again elsewhere, in a more orthodox light.

Springs, you are good to exchange with. See you around.

PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/04/2001 4:31:31 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/4/2001 6:03 PM (GMT -6)

I WAY, I'd really encourage you work on communicating in softer ways. I say this only to help. Seriously. I fear that your potential as a thinker and communicator for the Kingdom will be somewhat undermined because your style is more abrasive than it need be. Always ask the question -- have I spoken in such a way that my audience has had their infinite worth as people for whom Jesus died AFFIRMED, or NEGATED. This is especially important to do if your audience are opponents. You'll be much more effective, I suspect, if you practice this. Please don't be offended. I'm AFFIRMING you as a potential thinker and communicator for the Kingdom -- but I hate to see potential needlessly compromised.

That being said, I'm sorry you feel my integrity is compromised and that I strke you as a person who is -- well, all the things you accused me of -- because I'm no longer invested in the issue of what exactly "eis" means. I STILL don't get why this is so important since in your understanding the entire debate is merely a historical curiosity. It doesn't even affect whether or not we should be baptising people today. It only concerns what it meant for the original Christians to baptize people.

How you concluded that people are being needlessly confused and damned because the modern church continues to baptize people utterly escapes me. Worst case scenario: we are offering public illustrations of the meaning of dying and rising with Christ. Not too terrible, is it?

Regardless, my main point is that you'd have a greater influence on people if you didn't systematically insult them. You may not believe in water baptism today, but I'd encourage you to baptize all your thoughts and words in the love of Jesus Christ before you share them with other -- for your sake, for their sake, and for the sake of the Kingdom.

Just trying to help you out good buddy.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/5/2001 12:07 AM (GMT -6)

Mr. Boyd - Please don't call me "good buddy". I prefer just about anything else but "late for dinner".

So, I should not be "systematically insulting". Mr Boyd, you risk perverting into wrong what I have presented for good. I object to false accusations and (mild) slander and lately even a huge lie (mostly P&M). I object because I desire better understanding and more Christ like relations. As for my treatment towards you, the pattern is becoming ever more consistent, 1way does that which is wrong, and Doc is above suspicion. Hello out there, it was you who started this whole deal, and created the disappointments because of your own actions. You also clearly demonstrated your own personal view towards importance over the issue of baptism with a poster who happens to agree with you. But, when it comes to us errant dispensational folks, all of a sudden baptism is no long an important and easy to speak about topic.

We naturally followed up on your motion to share because of your insightful questions. Then, after a good deal of effort was made on our part, all of a sudden, you head for the door in a hurry, and it's, "shucks, look at the time, ,,, sorry, can't talk now, got to run, ,,, (oh ya, darn, they know where I can be reached, hmmm) and don't call me, I'll call you!". (slightly overdone on purpose) I suggested that this was your party, it was at your occasion, and we hadn't even really begun, yet you were already leaving and other than a few half hearted questions, you already judged the occasion as unproductive. It's bad enough getting kicked around by POW AND MOT. (You say) I'm too harsh, my behavior is a problem, I'm compromising my Christian witness. And I say that you are less than helpful, your evasive, and perhaps misleading, as well as (in my personal opinion) wrong about the place of baptism in salvation. (All right already, so we each share some personal animosity. We probably each would rather emphasis Christian unity and love. Then things should getting better, I'd expect.)

This little wayward baptism issue matters to me because I hope that others may see ever more clearly the truth from God, and why they should trust in Him. You (apparently) (?) understand how it frustrates and persecutes God and His will whenever people teach false doctrine, like the closed view for example. The reality alone of the synonymous terms of "fate" and "destiny", as spoken of as biblical truth, elicits huge fruits towards hell. And I assume you also know that false doctrine is what leads people away from salvation, not into it. It is the truth that sets us free, not otherwise. I thought that you really cared about such things, I thought that when you heard that guy speak about the necessity for water baptism as a requirement for salvation, that you thought that the truth in that example really did matter. You exclaimed with much feeling and conviction what to do about such a very false idea.

So which is it, a right understanding about water baptism is overtly "run like mad away from that guy" important,

or is it the "please don't bother "me" with your unimportant trivialities?

I confess, I'm guilty of pushing your buttons, and perhaps too intensely. But I waited to push then until after you presented so much "turning". You needed not take offense at my expectations for following up on your own suggestion of mutual sharing, and you certainly needed not take offense at my disappointment of your thorough and perhaps callous rejections and subsequent interpersonal belittling. I certainly didn't mean to offend, my objections was intended towards setting things right, not upsetting things, (POW and MOT and gang included).

Edited by - 1way on 11/05/2001 05:18:29 AM

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/5/2001 12:24 AM (GMT -6)

Could someone please edit POT's post or something, his long line makes reading difficult. I suggest good old fashion directions (like that forum, and thread, and page, post dated, etc.) would do the trick instead of the link coding which has made the page way longer than the width of the browser.

"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/5/2001 1:46 AM (GMT -6)

1way....

Dr. Boyd's words to you are well chosen--from both heart and head.

As to the LINK you have difficulty reading--don't read it. You will notice that it is highlighted in light blue. When you POINT your curser (the only kind of curser you should point on this board ) you will see the link appear in the bottom or top of your browser. The CLICK, that let the Internet take care of the rest. No need to type it all in.

You can make those yourself too! Just type/drag-drop/copy-paste any http address between an "<" and a ">" -- like . Fun!

The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

PotOnWheel

(By the way -- this thread is about Baptism and Salvation, not Dispensationalism. ANY of us are free to discuss Salvation or Baptism here without addressing Dispensationalism AT ALL, or to even pay attention to Dispensationalistic claims. IF at a given moment anyone thinks of a topic that seems central to them they may address it directly; without having to link it to the interests of any other member on this board. Fair is fair. Personally, I think that the Subjects of Salvation and Baptism are strongly linked to Christology. So, while I might connect discussion of Christology to many things discussed here--including Dispensationlism--UNDERSTAND that the discussion need not revolve around D. Nor do any of us have to keep returning to it. For instance, if I find ABBIE's statement "Salvation has always been by faith (Heb 11:6), but it has not always been by faith in Christ." interesting or unusual, my old Linguistics teacher Prof. don Larson--with the Lord now--would say that I have THREE (3!!!--someone put this there!): I can collide in disagreement; I can pass right by and ignore; or I can interchange where each of us can speak from our own persepctive, or where we can discuss a third position and thereby begin to undersand each other--even if not necessarily every aspect of everyone's systems! I could drag Abbie down on the carped and try to checkmate her theologically--which wouldn't be nice!!! I could ignore what struck my eyes and ears as peculiar. Or I can, and probably WILL begin discussing Christology and let Abbie join if she wishes! But THAT will have to be another day...)

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.")

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/05/2001 06:47:58 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/5/2001 2:34 AM (GMT -6)

Modes (to Bob Hill): "Does 1way represent the sort of character and dialogue skills that you hope to instill in your students? If not, may I suggest you correct your pupil for his own sake as well as the credibility loss that you inevitably incur by being so associated with him. At least inform him that he need not refer to you with a capital H when employing a second person pronoun, usually only God is so priviledged."

Doc: Modes, in my opinion this comment is not fair. If everything every former student of mine said and did reflected on me -- including students who might appreciate me as much as IWay does Bob Hill -- I'd have to be judged very negatively. I don't believe you should even intimate that anything 1Way says or does reflects on Bob, nor that Bob is obligated to correct IWAYS behavior. I WAY is an adult who stands or falls on his own.

I WAY: I object to false accusations and (mild) slander and lately even a huge lie (mostly P&M).

Doc: I take it you didn't think my advice that you'd have more influence if you softened your tone was on the money?

I WaY: I desire better understanding and more Christ like relations.

Doc: We're on the same page there.

IWAY: You also clearly demonstrated your own personal view towards importance over the issue of baptism with a poster who happens to agree with you.

Doc: How does someone elses post reflect my views?

IWAY: when it comes to us errant dispensational folks, all of a sudden baptism is no long an important and easy to speak about topic.

Doc: Nothing is all of a sudden. As I've said, this hasn't been an issue I've not had energy over in almost a decade. I have less energy toward your particular version of it since you aren't even arguing that its necessary for salvation TODAY. You simply hold that once upon a time it was necessary. I can't for the life of me imagine why this is such an important topic for you.

I WAY We naturally followed up on your motion to share because of your insightful questions... I suggested that this was your party, it was at your occasion, and we hadn't even really begun, yet you were already leaving and other than a few half hearted questions, you already judged the occasion as unproductive.

Doc: I popped into the discussion to simply ask a few clarifying questions out of curiosity, and to help the conversation along. That's all. I appreciate Mr. Hills answers. In fact, I learn something from all his positings. I now understand your view better. Thanks. I walk away thinking, "hmmm, curious historical position." I feel under no obligation to now try to go back and research stuff to refute it. So long as its just a quesiton of historical curiousity, I don't care if Mr. Hill is 100% right.

My major problem with the view thus isn't about baptism, but (as several have pointed out) with the whole dispensational methodology. This way of reading the Bible has such little plausibility for me that any necessary aspect of it (like a historical curious view of baptism) has a little plausibility for me just by being associated with the system. But I feel that the weakness of the dispensational method has been sufficiently raised on this thread.

IWAY: I say that you are less than helpful, your evasive, and perhaps misleading, as well as (in my personal opinion) wrong about the place of baptism in salvation.

Doc: You have every right to your opinion, but as a brother in Christ I'd humbly ask you to seriously consider taking to heart my encouragement to baptize your words in love. It really IS good advice.

IWAY: Alright, so we each share some personal animosity.

Doc: I WAY, I can give you my word that I have absolutely no sanimosity toward you or anyone on this board. I'm sorry if I came across as such (objective listeners out there: did I come across like this to IWAY? If so, I apologize).

I WAY: You (apparently) (?) understand how it frustrates and persecutes God and His will whenever people teach false doctrine, like the closed view for example.

Doc: I don't think I understand this as well -- or at least as intensely -- as you. If absolute correctness on every point is crucial to God -- to the point of wagering salvation on it -- I think a) Jesus' living portrait of God is inaccurate and b) we are all toast.

I WAY: So which is it, a right understanding about water baptism is overtly "run like mad away from that guy" important, or is it the "please don't bother "me" with your unimportant trivialities?

Doc: Given those two options, I'll choose B. (I can't say I understood your first option).

IWAY: I confess, I'm guilty of pushing your buttons, and perhaps too intensely.

Doc: I WAY, I'm sorry, but I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. On the one had you accuse me of not caring much about this issue (which is pretty accurate), on the other hand you say that I have this "animosity" and that you've pushed my buttons. Friend (not "good buddy" -- got it), the only real concerned I've had on this thread is to help you improve your communication skills -- and THAT on one post!

IWAY: You needed not take offense at my expectations for following up on your own suggestion of mutual sharing, and you certainly needed not take offense at my disappointment of your thorough and perhaps callous rejections and subsequent interpersonal belittling. I certainly didn't mean to offend, my objections was intended towards setting things right, not upsetting things,

Doc: What the?????? You are interesting IWAY. You really think I'm offended??

Okay, look. I WAY, you've got a lot of passion. I really like that. So I offered some advice to help you channel it. Apparently it wasn't welcome. Indeed, you seem to see it as an attack. I think this is unfortunate, for your sake. But be that as it may. I've already spent far more time in this dialogue than I can presently afford. And I don't see that its helping. So on that note I must bow out.

I wish you the best. I hope you can at some point in the future come to question the filters through which you interpret others people input into your life. It will really help you.

Blessings to you.

Doc

Edited by - 1way on 11/05/2001 05:18:29 AM

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Abbie
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 7

Posted 11/5/2001 4:54 AM (GMT -6)

POW,

I would gladly discuss my statement about salvation with you. I would not believe what I do if I did not think that God has at times changed the way He has worked with men. So it is probably impossible to keep dispensationalism out of the conversation. I do understand the necessity of keeping discussions on topic and therefore will try to limit what I say to what is relevant to the topic. I hope you don't mind my handling it in that way.

In His joy,
Abbie

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 11/5/2001 5:16 AM (GMT -6)

1Way (and any others who ask for Doc's input on a particular issue),

I am a good friend of the Doc's, and I would just like to insert a little background perspective into this conversation. First, a little historical piece: Doc did not originally intend to spend much time on this discussion board when it was first set up. He just doesn't have the time to spare. But he has chosen to participate on the level you now see because he genuinely has gained a lot of insight from the conversations taking place here. He likes the intelligent give and take that goes on here.

Now, let me fill in a little more in terms of his time commitments. He is a professor at Bethel, the pastor of an enormous church, public speaker, author, husband, father, friend. The guy barely sleeps. If you suspect he is not replying to a specific post of yours for some personal reason, chances are he hasn't even seen it.

I'm saying all of this because he never would. I am constantly amazed at the amount of time he chooses to spend on this discussion board. It is a testament to his love of learning and love of people. Please (and I want to stress that I am addressing this to everyone, not just 1way) do not get offended if Doc does not show up when you address something to him. Don't take it personally. It's just about how busy he is and nothing more.

Mouse

"The opposite of being in despair is to have faith." Anti-Climacus

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 11/5/2001 5:46 AM (GMT -6)

1way: is there a way in which you might answer questions without using words such as "slander," or make judgments such as,"I thought you really cared about such things." Discussion can be without personal attack and certainly the questions asked you are legitimate. In regards to Doc's mutings, is there something wrong with someone giving a Christian brother friendly advice without turning defensive. In my experience, when given well, constructive criticism can truly help one grow.
AS far as truth, I think everyone should adknowledge that only God knows all truth. Also, it should be adknowledged that while we should always strive to be truthful in all situations, some truths are more important than others. There is, for instance, a truth about whether or not the fruit bitten in the garden was an apple, but it is not a very important truth. Time should be invested in the truths that allowed us the growth nesseccary to draw closer to God. The greatest truth, of course, is Jesus Christ. He should be concentrated on above all. If you feel your method of interpretation is how each of us can draw closer to him, I would put aside everything else and prove it. Otherwise, admit you can't and go. But in your pursuit of truth, try and recognize that some truths are vastly more important than others. Otherwise (just a little friendly advice), one can end up like the Pharisees, dotting the jots and the letters and missing the big of God. Hope this won't be see as "slander," or that you won't be "frustrated," by this. If so, remember, in the end, it isn't what we know but who we know. John 17:3 Harold

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 11/5/2001 5:51 AM (GMT -6)

Doc, it seems that the lines of authority are a bit more rigorous from Bob Hill to 1way than from say you to any number of your students (take me for example). It was to the potential influence that Mr. Hill could have for the good that I was pointing. Perhaps it was wrong-headed, but only a closer examination of the structure of relations between Hill and his students could show that. It seems to me that deference is quick and responses are verbatum to Hill's work. Hill has shown exemplary character so far, though he has been hugely elusive on issues other than laying out his own view in his own way.

My hope was that perhaps:
1. 1way would be embarassed into rhetorical reform.(Very long shot.)
2. If needed, Mr. Hill, who, presumably 1way would listen to, might point out some wee little problems 1way seems to struggle with.

I only intended to give opportunity for one of these two to happen. Obviously something needs to happen.

"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 11/05/2001 11:05:17 AM

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 11/5/2001 6:07 AM (GMT -6)

Abbie! Your ideas about salvation are more than welcome one the "The Church Started With Paul?" thread! Please come join in the discussion. 1way, it's gonna take a rather long post to explain to you why I stand where I stand on the dispensationalism issue, so I will have to refrain from it today since I don't have time. Hopefully tomorrow I will be able to answer that question for ya.

Kyle Essary

Edited by - Kyle Essary on 11/05/2001 11:08:09 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 11/5/2001 10:41 AM (GMT -6)

Modes said:

quote:
BBBCanada, thanks for reminding me of what I said last time. I am very close to that point here. But I think that this dispensationalism is so dangerous that I will not hand this conversation over to them. Too many people, even if it is one, that's too many who could be deceived into thinking that what these people teach is faithful to the self-revelation of God.

Bang-your-head. Bang for God. You`ll probably get as far as one would in trying to win over a Oneness to their trinitarian position. Worth the try though.

I find the DD more cordial than uno numero way, however, I think Greg is right.

Numbaaaar One (Capt. Piccard): Engaaage (conversation)! Do not systematically theologize us to death. Persuade.

Brandon

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/5/2001 11:20 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
POW,
I would gladly discuss my statement about salvation with you. I would not believe what I do if I did not think that God has at times changed the way He has worked with men. So it is probably impossible to keep dispensationalism out of the conversation. I do understand the necessity of keeping discussions on topic and therefore will try to limit what I say to what is relevant to the topic. I hope you don't mind my handling it in that way.
In His joy,
Abbie

Abbie. That would be great to discuss.

On a practical side, since there is much to do around her this week, how about following up on Kyle's invitation to the "Church...with Paul" thread? Please post, if you wish, and I'll check it out. But my own initiation on the Christology theme will have to wait a bit--but not too long.

That is fine with me if Dispensationalism comes up. Things overlap. AND I hope you will understand if, now that I have read up on that tradition, that I will not try to fit what I am saying onto a Dispensationalistic foundation. Rather, I will/should try to make the foundation which my posts build upon be evident to your eyes; sympathetic or not.

Maybe we can show all how that is done--with civility, acuity, and creativity.

Christology is what interests me. Let the overlap fall where it may.

May I ask that you begin with what I quoted of you above. "Salvation has always been by faith (Heb 11:6), but it has not always been by faith in Christ." If that pulling of a single sentence distorts your meaning you can proceed from there. To me, to say that salvation is ever, even from before the foundation of the world--a very long time!--in any way, not IN CHRIST is the worst form of heresy. But I'll not call you that! You may begin with the knowledge that I will read carefully and not rush to judgment!!! And if it seems "off" I will ask questions. (If I don't, call me on that.)

Your turn.

P.S. If you post there please leave a short note here to point the way.

PotOnWheel

(Gotta leave with this one--you find the citation: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Jesus--Creator, Redeemer and Friend)

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/06/2001 06:12:22 AM

194 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:40 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual