ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
I'm forever grateful to Les, I heard the gospel from him on the radio in 2003 and believed. There are some minor things I would disagree with him about.
I am thankful that God has used an imperfect vessel with an imperfect view to reach your precious soul with the gospel. You were saved by trusting in grace through Christ, not by adopting the other teachings that few other gospel-saved Christians even know about (the gospel, not dispensationalism, was the instrument; this is why MAD should not be quick to negate grace in the lives of non-MAD).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
March 23rd, 2012, 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
I am thankful that God has used an imperfect vessel with an imperfect view to reach your precious soul with the gospel. You were saved by trusting in grace through Christ, not by adopting the other teachings that few other gospel-saved Christians even know about (the gospel, not dispensationalism, was the instrument; this is why MAD should not be quick to negate grace in the lives of non-MAD).
What is the big bee in the bonnet with Penty? Are you implying I might be an 8 point Wesleyan Calvinist because I do not agree with Penty assumptions, even though I have a sound Christology/soteriology, etc.?! If so, we are done...talk to the hand.. I reminded you that Penty is is selective history, not didactic, and that there was an, incipient nature (hence, don't proof text and eisegete your view into a text or two). Penty is a minority view that is problematic. There are a variety of Penty views. I am not an expert on the numerous views and do not feel compelled to engage you like a doctoral thesis since I pointed out 'what is the point'? Iit is moot and academic as to whether there was a benny Hinn gospel. in church history. I am not going to spend hours trying to win an argument with you when you will not change your thinking anymore than will.sound exegesis.It's a free country, at least here in Texas.. Don't try to make me communist.
I find it more fulfilling to deal with Penty cults or to help those who are open to biblical hermeneutics, as these understand these issues. To reason with dogmatic, divisive Penty or Paul Crouch-only(vs. Jan) types becomes frustrating and fruitless.
Penty is contrary to Scripture, not balanced, credible, and not consistent with it(proof texting; eisegesis).
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
March 23rd, 2012, 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
The Word of Truth includes great truths of the Christian faith and the Word of God. It is not an allusion to a modern hyper-disp view with no roots in Scripture or church history. Other groups have proof texted the same verse/phrase to justify their wrong views.
The Deity and resurrection of Christ is a salvific issue taught in the Word of Truth. Stam, Bullinger, Feldick, Enyart, etc. theories on one of many disp views is not what it is talking about (Paul was not MAD).
Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.What does your screen name mean?So, either your question is moot, or the real issue is normative hermeneutics. Perhaps the question/scenario is flawed.I do not see a coherent explanation. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.
Are you an annihilationist? Atheist? Universalist? Do you like having your cake and eating it too? Do you have dementia , as you do not see your argument is invalid. Until you look at every use of the word in every context, you should not be dogmatic about simplistic conclusions. In your false humility, you also confuse the myriad subjective interpretations of Scripture (hence all the divisions in Christianity) with the objective truth of Scripture.Your view is metaphysical and divorced from a reconciled, reciprocal relationship concept).God does not grade on a Bell Curve,(logical fallacy: argument of the beard....a beard is different than a whisker on an extreme continuum).Your view is metaphysical and divorced from a reconciled, reciprocal relationship concept..
I once accepted uncritically traditional, unbalanced, not credible views, but have found them unbiblical or problematic, and based upon theological wooden literalism. Your exegesis is based on a few proof texts without more credible interpretations ,in context. And we cannot dialogue with ad hominem attacks and false accusationsis outside of biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity on the essentials, in light of church history. . I deny your flawed interpretation of the text, to support your cultural bias, as you are stereotyping out of ignorance. False accusations of heresy are not the same thing as proven heresy, which is a logical fallacy, divorced from reality,and superficial understandings, contextually, etc. You lack credibility to make simplistic judgments, as my objection is with ad hominem attacks that are unjust, not wooden liertalisms, isms, that throw the baby out with the bath water.. One who clings to preconceived notions, logical, systematic, inconsistencies, presuppositions/assumptions, etc., such as yourself, and sloppy exegets a text, w/o the context, and proof texting, is not the ideal person to arbitrate doctrinal disputes. Your proof texts, using your interpretation, would lead to contradiction, so they must be interpreted somewhat figuratively, in light of metaphors.
"He needs to look at all relevant verses without a wrong paradigm..."
He's here to deceive (Eph 5:11). And he doesn't answer questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john w
"...[A]nd try a good commentary that will interpret these verses consistent with all relevant verses vs twisting out of context with a poor interpretation."
A trustworthy commentary can help. I like J. Vernon McGee, John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, etc.
He's here to deceive (Eph 5:11). And he doesn't answer questions.
A trustworthy commentary can help. I like J. Vernon McGee, John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, etc.
Calvinism is not the most biblical view. These men are good teachers, but wrong about various things.
I answer your simple questions repeatedly, but you don't accept a simple yes, no, or qualified answer. You play games and then falsely accuse me of not answering?!
What a loon. Am I deceiving people away from core Christianity or just disagreeing with your pet interpretations on peripheral issues?
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
March 23rd, 2012, 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
Calvinism is not the most biblical view. These men are good teachers, but wrong about various things.
I answer your simple questions repeatedly, but you don't accept a simple yes, no, or qualified answer. You play games and then falsely accuse me of not answering?!
What a loon. Am I deceiving people away from core Christianity or just disagreeing with your pet interpretations on peripheral issues?
Penty is not the most biblical view. These men are good teachers, but wrong about various things.Your exegesis is based on a few proof texts without more credible interpretations ,in context. Disagreeing with some of your views is not always the same as disagreeing with the Bible properly interpreted and applied. Are you also infallible in your subjective views?" Are you a 9 point Calvinist?Your exegesis does not make you consistent or defensible, and you give diametrically opposing conclusions based on our preconceptions/assumptions. It is insufficient to claim biblical support if we all do so with different conclusions. Penty is based on deductive ideas and requires proof texting and rationalizations leading to weakness and problems. Like any view, there are a variety of nuances held by different people, so we have to be careful to stereotype which leads to a lack of theological sophistication and critical thinking skills, and does not allow you/us to make reasoned judgments. It is a personal thing, not an unbiased evaluation. You have forced your hobby horse ideas into the text, w/o proof texting, and have made the issue more narrow than the Bible does, in context..Your theology is a Western perversion of biblical truth, thinly veiled unbelief due to hyper-penty blindness.Penty misses the boat, and is a modern day cult.. You lack integrity and ….You are out of step with NT local church Christianity.Am I deceiving people away from core Christianity or just disagreeing with your pet interpretations, odd, lunatic, fringe views, on peripheral issues?
Slogan/motto:
2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Slogan/motto:
2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Reputation:
March 23rd, 2012, 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
What is the question exactly? Just because you don't like my answer does not mean I did not give one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaulToPaul
I just have one question,
What is the word of truth? Paul defines it.
Unless we get this right, there's no point in arguing about what is rightly/wrongly dividing the word of truth.
SD: “ Could he [jesus] have sinned?
Godrulz: “I believe He could have, but did not…” link
It is impossible for God to be tempted by sin (Jas 1:13). Jesus could not have been tempted by sin (Heb 4:14, Jn 1:1). Men who sin are drawn away by their own lust (Jas 1:14).
Sin requires external temptation and internal desire. It takes two to tango. The child of lust is sin and the child of sin is death--the grandchild of sin is death (Jn 10:10). There's the courtship, the consent, the conception and the completion. Sin when it is finished brings forth death (Jas 1:15).
"Jesus didn't have an itch that the devil could scratch." Jas 1:13, Jn 1:1, Heb 4:14 ~ Adrian Rogers
"…[T]here must be added to those conditions the inner and always unforced "yes" or "no" by which the person responds to the situation..." Full text
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
"Am I deceiving people away from core Christianity or just disagreeing with your pet interpretations on peripheral issues?"
The former (2 Pe 2:1). Jesus' sinlessness is essential Christianity (Heb 4:15). His gospel includes his holiness (Isa 35:8). He is the satisfactory solution to our sin problem (Rom. 3:25, 26). Jesus died for our sin (1 Pet. 1:18, 19). He has reconciled God and man (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). He offers the sinner perfect righteousness (2 Cor. 5:20, 21). You attempt to undermine these truths.
"Here is the crux of the issue. It is not simply a question of whether one should be circumcised or not, whether one should eat meat or not. The question is: Must one do any of these things in order to be saved? Now we will move on and penetrate a little deeper into their problem."
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question [Acts 15:2].
"Again I call attention to Dr. Luke’s use of the diminutive. “No small dissension” really means they had a regular donnybrook! It was a heated debate.
We need to realize here that it is really the gospel which is under question at this council. The Epistle to the Galatians gives us a full explanation of the council.
The gospel is used in two senses in the New Testament. First of all, there are the facts of the gospel. These are absolutely basic and essential. Paul gives those facts in the first five verses of 1 Corinthians 15. It is the death, the burial, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures; And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” These are the facts of the gospel, and they concern the person of Christ. I move on down to 1 Corinthians 15:15–17: “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” Face up to it, my friend; if Christ is not raised from the dead, then there is no gospel at all. But thanks be to God, “… now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:20). The facts of the gospel are the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
The second sense of the gospel is the interpretation of the facts. It is this interpretation which is the basic truth in the Epistle to the Galatians. That is the crux of the whole matter at this first council at Jerusalem. Thus the gospel also hinges on this fact which Paul states in Galatians 3:22: “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” What must one do to be saved? Nothing more nor less than believe. Again in Galatians 2:15–16: “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” That is important to see.
The Judaizers of that day were different from the liberal of today. The liberal will actually deny the facts of the gospel. He will deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Some go so far as to say that Jesus Christ is just a myth, that He never lived or died. Most of them do not try to upset history quite to that extent. However, they deny that Jesus died for our sins.
In the first century the Judaizers did not deny the facts of the gospel—there simply were too many witnesses. Paul says that over five hundred people saw the risen Christ at one time. My friend, if you get five hundred witnesses into any law court, you will win your case! Also the apostles were witnesses to the risen Christ. They were there to testify to it. The facts of the gospel were not under question by the Judaizers.
The contention arose over the interpretation of those facts. What did Christ do for you on the cross? Is the work of Christ adequate to save you? Do you need to go through some ritual or something else in order to be saved? Must you go through the Law? These are the questions they were asking..." McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 4:574-575
Slogan/motto:
2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Reputation:
March 23rd, 2012, 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
As much as I am not a fan of MAD (pet view on this site), I don't start threads on it (but I do jump in on pro-existing ones). It is not a significantly impactful teaching, but it is significant for those who create division and confusion with it. There are bigger fish to fry, but we should strive for doctrinal purity.
This from a man who thinks that Acts 2:38 KJV says the same thing as 1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV.
You say we should strive for docrtinal purity. Let's test that. Should a saved individual be water baptized in the dispensation of the grace of God? Just how many baptisms are there for us?
Are all self-taught ranchers and guys named Dan biblical experts?
Are all scholars who devote themselves to a lifetime of expertise and study idiots? (see last quote by Witherington in link about value of original language study that many false view proponents disdain; I disagree profoundly with many scholars and embrace views held by common folk so as myself).
“Let’s go ad fonts”—that is, to the original sources—is still ringing in my ears. No matter how many commentaries you read, theologies you study, histories you ponder, if you don't study the requisite languages , you have settled for taking other people’s words for the meaning of this or that sentence, phrase or word. You have settled for the use of secondary sources. Secondary sources are necessary, but they are no substitute for God’s Word in its original languages… because the Bible’s instruction to “study and show yourself approved” is referring to your own direct engagement with the original language biblical text."
The Word of Truth includes great truths of the Christian faith and the Word of God. It is not an allusion to a modern hyper-disp view with no roots in Scripture or church history. Other groups have proof texted the same verse/phrase to justify their wrong views.
The Deity and resurrection of Christ is a salvific issue taught in the Word of Truth. Stam, Bullinger, Feldick, Enyart, etc. theories on one of many disp views is not what it is talking about (Paul was not MAD).
This was my answer. Basically, since the canon was not completed, it would include the Old Testament and Paul's oral instruction (Peter recognized Paul's writing as Scripture...letters were circulated before we had our modern Bible). 2 Tim. 3:16 would also refer to the OT, but could include the circulating NT letters or oral things that eventually were recorded by Luke, Paul, etc.
What it does not mean is MAD hyper-disp cut and splice and dice. Any view could say their disp or non-disp view fulfills the verse. It is not a proof text to justify bad exegesis or theology.
I am usually responsive and reasonable. My questions and posts and links often go ignored or I get personal attacks and neg reps instead of refutations. MADists have no right to demand when I am extending patience and grace.
Heir is my hair, how much more can I bear?
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
This from a man who thinks that Acts 2:38 KJV says the same thing as 1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV.
You say we should strive for docrtinal purity. Let's test that. Should a saved individual be water baptized in the dispensation of the grace of God? Just how many baptisms are there for us?
UPC sect proof texts Acts 2:38 as THE Gospel. MAD proof texts I Cor. 15 as the gospel. As the link said, the gospel is not just found in I Cor. 15 (I often link it when I am explaining the gospel and do not disagree with MAD). I disagree with MAD/UPC exegesis of Acts 2:38 and have answered this many times, including with honourable Bob Hill.
Petrine, Pauline, Johannine theology is complementary, not contradictory. The resolution is sound contextual exegesis, original language research, right paradigm, not new fad MAD paradigms foisted on proof texts out of context.
You guys act like indoctrinated sectarians and seem closed to criticism of your pet view. I am trying to understand it, but when one has the genuine, the counterfeit smells fishy. You have right things I agree with, but disputing details (even as MAD does among themselves) should not get me kicked out of heaven. I adopt unorthodox, non-traditional views, so am not closed to fringe ideas. On this topic, I am safer with the godly, brilliant Acts 2 disps who can refute MAD.
Paul was baptized, practiced it, did not rescind it. The straw man is to think Peter taught it as conditional or regenerational in contrast to Paul. This is a wrong assumption leading to a wrong conclusion. With Paul and the early church/Bible, a affirm the practice of believer's baptism as an act of obedience and discipleship post-conversion. Some of my family is baptized, while other members, including my dead parents were not. I consider us equally saved because Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, James, OT saints taught grace/faith, not external ritual for salvation. It is an important outward witness, but it is not a condition, necessary, regenerational. This is the balanced, biblical view (the MAD proof text in I Cor. 1 does not support your negation of the practice).
The Bible does allude to different baptisms, but MAD proof texts Eph. at the expense of other relevant passages. As a Pentecostal, I agree with the primary baptism MAD emphasizes AND the Pentecostal experience post-conversion with the Spirit that can be called a baptism, infilling, etc. depending on the verse. I also accept water baptism verses (including Pauline ones) and verses about repentance (including Pauline ones) that MAD must rationalize away to retain the view. I prefer to change wrong views instead of Scripture.
So, disagreeing with your pet interpretations and sloppy exegesis should not bring your wrath on me if I am more right and rightly teaching the Word (the Tim. verse which does not condone hyper-disp views).
Like sozo, you add to the simplicity of the gospel by making articulation of your peripheral views the same as core gospel truth which I do not deny. This is the mark of a sect or cult, not biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity (the early Pauline church also had doctrinal disputes; pastor Paul wisely rebuked and taught, but you make a us vs them false judgment...no wonder there are a myriad of views and groups in Christianity).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
And he doesn't answer questions.
What's new? 
~ J Vernon McGee Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13.
Am I deceiving people away from core Christianity or just disagreeing with your pet interpretations on peripheral issues?
Strawman. 
Linear Mode
