BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Sola Scriptora
Where in the New Testament did the Apostles ever say "God is one God eternally existing in Three persons"? No hot air here, I am just showing you that you may not understand how to debate Biblically. Now then, give the verses in the NT that explain the Trinity.

There is universial agreement on the Trinity. From the RCC to the AOG. There is no such understanding and acceptance of the dispensations. So to repeat; Since you have loudly claimed to be a dispensatinalist..


You're on;

Please define and deliniate from Scripture the divisions of the seven dispensations especially citing NT authors refering to the various distinctives.

It will be granted that the modern names given to the dispensations will not be used in the Scriptures ,however the distinctives must be shown to be recognized and used by the Apostles in transferring the their revelation to us in the NT

Fair enough?

HITCH

 

[rapt]

I think Hot Dispy Dog bit off a bit more than he can chew!

 

[rapt]

In the last paragraph in his last post, Jerry proves what spirit he's of by his childish remark:

Well,if I did indeed get trounced by Dee Dee,I have no one to blame but myself.I should have taken the advice of a close friend to never argue with an idiot...

(that was HIS boldness, but my emphasis and resizing)

Ohh, Jerry's REALLY getting theological now, eh? No emotionalism here, huh, Jer?

So who's trying to bring someone down to a lower level?

Some debate, Jer. Is it any wonder the debate is rated at only one? You're debating skill is entirely FLAT, so you revert to name calling. It sure doesn't make you look any better.

 

[Sola Scriptora]

Listen: Hitch offered to debate me. I accepted. Hitch asked what he wanted proof for, and the way he wanted it. Not so fast! He is stacking the deck in his favor.

I can agree to debate you Hitch, but that doesn't mean I will agrtee to YOUR RULES. We both have to agree to that.

I gave you an example in regards to the Trinity how your rules don't fly even on one of the fundamentals of the faith! So I refused to be chained to it in regards to this debate.

I will attempt to show from Scripture what the Dispensations are.
If Hitch htinks any or all points are wrong, he can't attempt to rebutt from Scritpure.

I will then respond to that, and then he can, and so on.

That is fair, rational debate.

Rev717:

You want to debate Dan 9 before I even get started with Hirch, and you and rapt aere already declaring winners before the first round! I'm glad you two aren't the judges, it reminds me of the Eastern bloc judges during the Olympics. They always voted Communist.

Now Rev, iJohn 5:7 is a proof IF YOU ACCEPT IT as a true NT reading. Most today don't. I do, being a King James man, but I suspect Hitch isn't. So then He does not have ONE VERSE in the NT to prove the Trinity with, yet he wants me to PROVE all the dispensations in a way he couldn't prove the Trinity.

I'm not falling for that! Practice what you preach, know what I mean? So The Trinity question is relevant, NOT TO THE DEBATE, but the RULES of the debate.
Otherwise I can start asking these kinds of questions, like:

1- Show me where any apostle condemned dispensationalism by name as false and another gospel
2- Show me where they said Pretersim is the right way to explain the Scriptures
3- Show me where the Aposltes said there IS NOT 7 dispensations

None of you can answer those questions or prove your views if I ask them THAT WAY! So don't be HYPOCRITICAL and expect me to allow Hitch to stack the deck and not object.

So if Hitch agrees to how I would attempt to do this, we can continue.

 

[Hitch]

You're on;

Please define and deliniate from Scripture the divisions of the seven dispensations especially citing NT authors refering to the various distinctives.

It will be granted that the modern names given to the dispensations will not be used in the Scriptures ,however the distinctives must be shown to be recognized and used by the Apostles in transferring the their revelation to us in the NT

Fair enough?

HITCH

LMAO

I will attempt to show from Scripture what the Dispensations are.
If Hitch htinks any or all points are wrong, he can't attempt to rebutt from Scritpure.

I will then respond to that, and then he can, and so on.



Would some enlightened member please explain to me the difference in SS's quote enboldened above and my original question also above?


I reckon it takes a dispensationalist to understand how 'stacking the deck' and 'fair and reasonable debate' are one in the same. While at the same time implying that what amounts to an identical request, is dishonest, and unmanly? Nice try SSweety.





Do you smell straw burning???

 

[Hitch]

Any idiot can see I havent asked for sanything like what you have been whiinning about. In fact I was careful to NOT ask for specific declarations. But I love the way you say 'define from Scripture' is stacking the deck. Especially considering the handle you use.

It seems to me anyone adhereing to DF thought would jump at the chance to publically define from Scripture (This is the part you dont like) the fudamental aspects,ie the Dispensations, of his own system. I doubt if a mormon or a muslim would have had so much trouble.

H

 

[rapt]

This string is for discussing the battle between Dee Dee and Jerry

This string is for discussing the battle between Dee Dee and Jerry

Hitch, would you PLEEEZE take the debate here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3389

 

[Sola Scriptora]

You know, the tone of this shows me it will be a waste of time. Hitch, do you ever pray before you post? Are you rapt or rev717 ever "in the Spirit" before you post?

This is nonsense. All that is required is a 4th grade English level of comprehension to see what I was saying. You are the one saying I must defend the Seven pillars. That sounds like you expect a quote from the new Testament laying it out like Scofield did. When I told you that on many subjects, it doesn't work that way, but that we are often systemizing Scripture, you balk.

The Trinity is a perfect example.

I also said YOU need to tell us YOUR VIEW. Youmay prove mine wrong, but that doesn't establish yours! Yours could be worse than mine. So it then is on YOU ALSO to defend whatever it is you believe. This is not going to be an "Attack the Disp view only". You will present your understanding also, and we will look at its Scriptural validity.

Lastly, if any of your three had ever read any books on Theoleogy, and especially Hermeneutics, you would understand what I'm telling you. It is your LACK of study, coupled with a "in the flesh" dogmatism that makes a debate very unapplealing.

Why don't you see how Ian and I are getting ready to debate on the "Wish List" thread to see what I mean. Go see how he speaks.

 

[rapt]

COP OUT!


Sola AIR knows he can't defend his position to BEGIN WITH!

 

[Reba]

:crackup: And i was hoping to read some more good stuff! Sheesh



:nono: :angel: :nono:

 

[Revelation717]

Sola,

Are you EVER going to quote ANY SCRIPTURE?

For a person choosing Sola Scripture for their name you'd expect to hear some now and again.

Like I said before
CHANGE YOUR NAME!!!!!

 

[Revelation717]

What a way to go out!

What a way to go out!

Anyone notice the subject post in Jerry's last and final post?

Here it is:

Take head that no man deceive you

I mean of all things to go out with a silly spelling error AFTER ten pages of interpretational error is the ICING on the cake. I wonder if he even proof read his posts or just threw up some backwashed stew that had been burning and rotting for quite awhile.

PHOOEY!

And to resort to name calling after being blackened as a coal miner's left lung and ADMITTING IT is the creme de la creme.

There ya have it futurists!

 

[Sola Scriptora]

Rev717: It is exactly like I said, that is why people like you get kicked off other forums, like you have. Why don't you listen for once?

Reba, as soon as Hitch agrees to my stipulations, not just his, we can continue.