See other Religion Articles
Title: C. I. Scofield ["Christianity" by Scofield: With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies - my title]
Source:
Grace Online Library
URL Source: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=175
Published: Aug 23, 2010
Author: William E. Cox
Post Date: 2010-08-23 08:26:01 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 1193
Comments: 84
C. I. Scofield ["Christianity" by Scofield: With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies - my title] The father of dispensationalism, Darby, as well as his teachings, probably would be unheard of today were it not for his devoted follower, Scofield. The writer became increasingly aware of this fact as he did research for this book. Darby's books are gathering dust on the shelves of the comparatively few libraries stocking them. Information concerning him is scarce indeed. Darby was a prolific writer, and also spent much time lecturing in different countries. Scofield came to know him and became enamored by his teachings. These two men had at least two things in common - both had practiced law, and both had untiring energy in advancing their beliefs. Scofield wrote many books, founded what is now called the Philadelphia College of the Bible, and, in 1909, published his Scofield Reference Bible. All these efforts inculcated the Plymouth Brethren teachings learned from Darby. Cyrus Ingerson Scofield lived from August 19, 1843, until July 24, 1921. He was born in Michigan, but his family soon moved to Tennessee. While serving as a private in the Confederate Army, during the Civil War, he was decorated. Upon being discharged from the Army he took up law. He also entered politics and was appointed U. S. Attorney to Kansas by President Grant. During this period of his life he became a heavy drinker. Scofield was converted in 1879, and three years later was ordained a Congregational minister. With no formal theological training he wrote his reference Bible. Except for this work, it is doubtful whether this man's name would be remembered any more than would Darby's. Taking the King James Bible and adding his own Notes to it, he assured himself a place in the memory of all who read that version of the Bible. This was in violation of the policy of all well known Bible societies, whose rules have been: 'Without Note or Comment.' Certainly Scofield was ignoring John the Revelator's warning about adding or taking from his prophecy (Rev 22:19), for he did not hesitate to pry apart John's verses and intersperse his own ideas between the sentences of John. This he did throughout the Bible, and, in the minds of many unwary people, Scofield's ideas are equated with the Word of God itself. Had Scofield put his Notes in separate books rather than inserting them inside the Bible itself, there seems to be little doubt that his books would have joined those of Darby's in gathering dust and not being reprinted. The best evidence of this fact lies in the great dearth of information about the man himself in our libraries today, while his reference Bible is a household word. Only his being associated with Paul and Peter, through his audacity in placing his personal ideas on the same sacred pages as theirs, has kept his name alive. And in the minds of some of Scofield's devoted followers, to differ from him is tantamount to differing from Paul or Peter! The following quotation bears mute testimony: One young minister I know, pastor of a large church, has been driven almost frantic by constant persecution day in and day out. He is an able, orthodox preacher with a distinctly prophetic note in his teaching. Because he does not preach dispensationalism, his congregation will acknowledge no good in him. He has repeatedly been driven to the point of resigning and taking another church, but feels it his duty to save this church for the Christian faith (W. D. Chamberlain, The Church Faces the Isms, pp.106,107). The Scofield Bible has done good at points where it has dealt with the cardinal doctrines of historic Christianity. Scofield was a conservative Bible believer, and brought his Notes into existence at a time when the Bible was being attacked on many sides by the so-called higher critics and other liberal theologians. Scofield's defense of the major doctrines of the Bible called forth a renewed interest in Bible study at a time when such a challenge was sorely needed. Followers of Scofield also manifest a respect for the authority of Scripture that is sorely lacking in many Christian circles today. It must be stated, however, that the Scofield Bible contains many teachings which are at variance with historic teachings of the Christian church. Many have questioned whether the good done by this man is not overshadowed by these new and dangerous theories. An advanced Bible student might read the Scofield Reference Bible critically and get some good points from it, and at the same time avoid its erroneous doctrines. However, in the hands of a novice or young convert, this can be a dangerous book. Not least among these dangers is the superior attitude it implants in the minds of its readers. No doctrine of the Bible presents the least problem to these Bible 'experts.' Nor do they need any further study - all they need is contained in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible. ...These good people do not lack faith and zeal, but they sadly lack knowledge; and the tragedy of the situation lies just here, that this is the very thing they think they have obtained from the Scofield Bible! They are apt to say in their hearts, and not infrequently with their lips: 'I have more understanding than all my teachers - because I have a Scofield Bible' (Albertus Pieters, A Candid Examination of the Scofield Bible, p.5). From a position of entire ignorance of the Scriptures to a position of oracular religious certainty - especially respecting eschatological matters - for some people requires from three to six months with a Scofield Bible (T. T. Shields, The Gospel Witness for April 7, 1932). I readily recognize that the Scofield Bible is very popular with novices, that is, those newly come to the faith, and also with many of longer Christian experience who are but superficial students of Scripture. Ready made clothes are everywhere popular with people of average size ... On the same principle, ready made religious ideas will always'be popular, especially with those indisposed to the exertion of fitting their religious conceptions to an ever increasing scriptural knowledge. That common human disposition very largely explains the popularity of the Scofield Bible (ibid.). In the field of Systematic Theology he is good, for there he utilizes the fruits of the standard Protestant and Calvinistic thinking; but in general Bible knowledge he makes many mistakes, and in his eschatology he goes far astray from anything the church has ever believed. Undoubtedly this oracular and authoritative manner has been effective, but it is not to be excused for that reason. It seems like a harsh judgment, but in the interest of truth it must be uttered: Dr. Scofield in this was acting the part of an intellectual charlatan, a fraud who pretends to knowledge which he does not possess; like a quack doctor, who is ready with a confident diagnosis in many cases where a competent physician is unable to decide (Pieters, op. cit.). Scofield's worst critics are men who have come out of his camp, and who remain true to the Bible as the infallible Word of God. A list of these men would include such outstanding men as Mauro, Gordon, G. Campbell Morgan, and Harry Rimmer. Paul B. Fischer, himself a graduate of Wheaton, wrote a pamphlet entitled Ultra Dispensationalism is Modernism. Fischer attacks dispensationalism as being a twin to liberalism on two points: (1) the deity of Christ, and (2) the disunity of the Bible. In 1954 a committee of nine men headed by E. Schuyler English was formed to revise the Scofield Bible. They hope to finish their work by 1963. A great need exists for the followers of C. I. Scofield to consider objectively the fact that so many earnest, conservative students of the Bible have left his school of theological thought. These sincere Christians need to become concerned over the divisions caused among conservative men of God by the footnotes and other personal insertions Dr. Scofield added to the King James Version of the Holy Bible. It would be well for these folk to realize that any sincere man, including Scofield, can be sincerely wrong. It is well to keep in mind, too, that we conservatives are not divided over the Bible; we are divided, rather, over the personal explanations which a man took the liberty of inserting alongside the inspired writings of the Bible. The gist of the entire controversy at this point, it seems to me, lies in the fact that many of Scofield's most devoted disciples equate his Notes with the inspired words of the writers of the New Testament. The difficulty arises when they attempt to force this equation upon the minds and hearts of others. We will continue to have tensions until this man is recognized as an extracanonical writer and his ideas are brought into the theological arena, where his good points may be accepted gratefully while his mistaken ideas may be discarded without fear of reprisal. Having once been a devoted disciple of Scofield, this writer knows the difficulty of becoming objective after years of being subjective to, and captivated by, his great legal mind. Scofield was, no doubt, an outstanding man. He was, however, only a man; and neither he nor his footnotes were infallible.
by William E. Cox
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
If Christs own followers didn't have a clue what he was talking about until they were converted after He died, then what kind of "conversion" did Scofield have when he wrote errors into a KJV that already had translational errors in it? And why does anyone take anything they say seriously? .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
The article indicates a far greater influence of the KJB and Scofield than they still have. Both have declined, largely in tandem. Scofield KJBs were a mainstay among apocalyptic fundamentalists in the mid-twentieth century. As most of these people have aged out or died, Scofield has a residual influence. The far larger current is of evangelical churches with those who attend carrying NIV bibles, often with the NIV commentary. Naturally, you can disparage the NIV commentary or any other commentary like Scofield's, as placing their own words and ideas alongside those of scripture much as the author did here with Scofield. This is a conservative critique in many ways, relying somewhat on the views of the old Bible societies who resisted commentaries. This comes from issues like the role of the Geneva Bible and its footnotes (commentary) which was key to the thinking of American colonists and their rebellion against the monarch (despot) of Britain. So it is difficult to deny that fundamental policy and politics in America has never been strongly swayed by contemporary commentaries being added to a translation of the Bible. It was true of America's Revolutionary War. And you can't deny the extent of evangelical and charismatic political support for Israel revolves around evangelical literature on these topics and modern apocalyptic. The apocalyptic is itself an original doctrine of America, something not widely known. America was to be a new Israel and also to be the scene of the final battles of Revelation. This justified doctrines that evicted the heathen Indians, manifest destiny, etc. You can find references in the colonial era to this kind of thinking, often promoted by Cotton Mather and his influential father, Increase Mather. So the topic is a worthy one as you examine the role of Israel to the thinking of modern Americans, especially the key support among evangelicals that is tangent to Israel's future role in the apocalypse. This is a key juncture of evangelical and Republican politics and, generally, for support of the two wars we are fighting in the Mideast. Many of the soldiers also are almost crusader-like in their expectations that they are somehow playing a role in shaping the Mideast for the final chapter of history.
It's been years since I've set foot inside a church, and I have no problem in taking your word for that. One thing I do know is that there are many that consider the KJV to be "inerrant" and "perfect", and any other version is "of the devil", including the NIV. But ask them which printing of the KJ is the perfect one, and you can practically see their heads explode. They don't even know that there have already been many modifications to the KJ, and they don't care to know. When it comes to commentaries, they can be helpful when it comes to explaining a specific point, which can then be verified. I learned the hard way that verification is not just an option. The apocalyptic is itself an original doctrine of America, something not widely known. America was to be a new Israel and also to be the scene of the final battles of Revelation. This justified doctrines that evicted the heathen Indians, manifest destiny, etc. You can find references in the colonial era to this kind of thinking, often promoted by Cotton Mather and his influential father, Increase Mather. Again, I have no problem in taking your word for that. That's the first I heard of this, but it fits. This is a key juncture of evangelical and Republican politics and, generally, for support of the two wars we are fighting in the Mideast. Many of the soldiers also are almost crusader-like in their expectations that they are somehow playing a role in shaping the Mideast for the final chapter of history. Agreed. This is precisely why they are so dangerous. It has real life consequences.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Evangelicals are not a problem; the poliitcal problem is fundamentalists. Evangelicals are people that evangelize, spread the gospel as they intepret it. Fundamentalists are people that believe in the veracity and accuracy of the bible, including especially the old testament. The old testament is basically the mythology of the Pharisees, the predecessor of modern jewish people. The bible can easily be shown to be false history, just like most any other tribal mythology. www.rejectionof pascalswager.net/bibleanalysis.html The larger political problem in the US and Israel, bigger trouble than right- wing fundamentalism, is the left-wing Diversity political scheme. Diversity is an extremist professional victim cult. In the US, Diversity is composed of all women, blacks, asians, jewish, disabled, LGBT, latinos, hispanics, and native americans. In Israel, Diversity is composed of all sects of jewish people, including reformed, conservative, and orthodox. Israeli Diversity includes jewish people that believe Torah and jewish people that don't believe Torah. Not all jewish people believe Torah, but all jewish people in good standing believe holocaust mythology, the basis of jewish Diversity. In both the US and Israel, Diversity is a super-majority of the voting populace by design and by immigration policy. Diversity is the dominant ideology of both the US and Israel.
The KJV-Onlyists, a tiresome lot. They compete in making grandiose claims for the KJV. Like it is of equal inspiration to the original scripture monographs, the originals. Or that is the perfect and immutable version of scripture for all time which is sheer nonsense but actually parallels rather directly the same exact claims made for Jerome's old Catholic Vulgate bible in Latin which was praised for being in an unchanging dead language where the meanings of the words were fixed. Latin became a language of scholars in part for this reason. I prefer the KJV personally but it has a few inaccurate passages but nothing wrong doctrinally. It has archaic terms from Elizabethan English but a short pamphlet of about five pages provides a dictionary to these terms in key passages of the KJV. The KJV remains one of the great bibles because of its extremely clever construction and pedigree. First, the words are written in poetic cadence. The words and phrases have an internal rhythm. This is why, when you hear someone quote scripture from memory, it is nearly always the KJV version. The language is grand but, as with secular materials, it is always easier to memorize and recite poetry than it is for other written materials. The internal cadences please the ear and have a mnemonic effect that aids memorization. Second, the KJV has an invaluable study aid in its text: italic text. Whenever you see italics in the KJV, it indicates the words inserted so that a modern reader would grasp the intent of the passage but would directly understand which words were inserted by the translators for clarification and which words were direct translations of the source Greek text from ancient sources. Third, the source versions of the KJV were the body of ancient scriptures known as the Received Text (also Byzantine text). These were the preserved texts of the eastern churches of the Roman empire, the most conservative elements. The modern evangelical bibles rely upon the very slightly older Vaticanus and Sinaiticus documents that have many problems in terms of agreeing with each other and showing marks of corruption and editing. The Received Text had a far wider ancient readership in the early church as indicated by the fact that 99% of the 5000-6000 ancient manuscripts that we have are in the Received Text. In addition, the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus were derived from Alexandria, a very well-known hotbed of ancient Christian heresy and corrupters of text and doctrine (hence the name of this tiny but influential family as the Alexandrian family). The slightly greater age of the Alexandrian texts is offset by even older fragments that we have of the Byzantine line, something a lot of people don't know. So the ancient pedigrees of these source bibles is important. But also who read them, which versions were the authentic versions used by the vast majority of ancient Christians, the geographical distribution, these are important. But also the literary style and the painful honesty of the translators makes a major contribution to the durability of the KJV. I like the KJV and treasure it but I don't consider it an insuperable translation. It could certainly be improved. And I find little merit in the modernist versions like the NIV which are based on the Alexandrian (Latin Catholic) tradition. An academic wrote this in the early Nineties and expected that about a dozen people would ever read it. A fine book in many ways and the author has a bit of fun with apocalyptic craziness over the centuries so it is fun to read as well. But he did a very good job with the colonial era. After reading it, you see how the apocalyptic is part of manifest destiny which is the precursor to this modern abomination of an idea that we are the hope of humanity, an idea our gooberment loves to foster to justify its endless meddling in foreign affairs and looting our taxpayers and starting wars to keep us distracted from their other robberies of the public and dereliction of their general duties. So this fine book on the history of the apocalyptic in America was published and being ignored. I bought it out of curiosity and thought it was fascinating. And only a few months later, Waco happened. The author was brought in to explain to FBI this topic. He became the instant expert, the guy with exactly the right book at the right time. I even saw him on some pundit shows but anything about religion clearly made the hosts squirm too much. So Waco was lousy for the Branch Davidian victims but kind of a career-maker, by sheer coincidence, for this writer Boyle. I guess every cloud has a silver lining, at least for someone. I really should get that book out and read it again. I enjoyed the photos he collected of wacky apocalyptic placemats and such.
It was because of these two frauds that we have the Rapture monkeys, the Tribulation, all the rest of that anti-Christian nonsense.
“How many Sex and the City fans have funneled all their maternal instincts into their Chinese bulldog without even noticing their ovaries have expired?”
I would consider myself to be a fundamentalist in many respects. I assure you, we are virtually extinct. The heretic and world-pleasing Billy Graham, having begun his career making solid promises of maintaining fundamentalist purity and hiding behind his Baptist pedigree, instead led people to bastard Bibles like The Living Word, weak paraphrase bibles. He also is a deliberately deceptive preacher with scripture, omitting key passages, often quoting only half of a key verse, thereby truncating and muting the key doctrinal teachings of scripture. His organization has quite obviously run a carnival sideshow by planting their own volunteers in the audience to make it look like far more people are "going forward" (another modernism) than actually are. You find relatively small bands of indepenent Baptists and and a handful of other churches (generally Baptist but not willing to associate with the Southern Baptist Conference because they perceive it to be too liberal) who remain. But the masses who once attended fundamentalist churches in the Fifties and Sixties are gone now, off to the happy-happy-joy-joy evangelical churches for preaching that can best be described as Christianity Lite. During the interim between the old fundamentalist era, the last vestiges of conservative fundamentalism were eradicated from churches like the Congregationalists, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
There has always been some appetite for the apocalyptic since the colonial era and, even before that, from the Reformation era. Go back and look at the old woodcuts of the early Reformation depicting the Pope as Satan. I think that if Scofield hadn't come along, that the appetite for the apocalyptic would have shortly found someone to sate its hunger. Scofield's influence was waning somewhat until Hal Lindsey wrote his books, starting with The Late Great Planet Earth. It was the single most popular non-fiction book for years, far and away. In many ways, its wild success inspired the modern religious publishing successes by Zondervan and a few others who have profited greatly from it and from Christian merchandising in general. More recently, we have the rather awful Left Behind books and movies. Like I said, this stuff has a long history. In the colonial era, it was eradicating Indians so the colonists (Israelites) could claim the Promised Land upon which the final battle of Armageddon with Satan (and his henchman the pope) would be fought, likely against the heathen Indians in alliance with the Catholics of Canada and their satanic master, the Pope. The writing of the era is rife with references to the dangers of invading papist hordes sweeping from the north down into the Promised Land (America). The recurring ideas about America as the shining city on a hill, a beacon of light to a troubled world, goes back to Augustine and you can readily see how this current of thinking is exploited by the neocons, plying their wares on gullible and historically ignorant evangelicals. As you look at many of these matters in history, it becomes much easier to see how a man like Joseph Smith began his Mormon religion and employed the Masonic patterns often embraced by some of our Founders and other Enlightenment thinkers who were seeking to reject and overturn the monarchism and corrupt institutions of European tribal government. A new order of the ages was made to order along with new symbols and symbols revived from ancient and obscure sources (floating pyramids with a seeing eye, anyone?). And, Googolplex, just because someone has exploited the ignorant in the name of religion is not a proof that the religion itself is false. And religion does itself often improve the lives of adherents even if its doctrine is severely flawed, as with the Mormons and many others.
SATAN"s Money freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...gi?ArtNum=121638&Disp=All
I'm very hurt. Was it something I said? You should take me off bozo for this thread because I do know a lot of interesting history about this era, stuff Beck hasn't found or is unwilling to tell Bubba about. The Geneva bible contained antimonarchical footnotes, claiming that a king could become a tyrant which then dissolved the bonds of obedience the population would otherwise have to their king. The American colonies were dominated religiously by Presbyterians and Puritans, the same people who later beheaded King Charles (King James' son). So these were some very hotheaded Presbyterians. They also were considered rabble-rousers in England and were restricted. At any rate, the Geneva bible was considered extremely seditious by King James (and he was right as his son soon discovered). King James commissioned the KJV with but one condition: that there should be no footnotes or any commentary of any kind. Outside of England, the Geneva bible continued very strong against its newer competitor, the KJV. And Presbyterians continued their seditious rants against monarchy and tyrants. And they didn't use the KJV and instead kept their old Geneva family bibles for generations, nursing their grudges against tyrant kings. Finally, the disputes over minor taxation issues erupted during our pre-Revolutionary era and the Presbys perfectly willing to inflame it further, leading to the Declaration of Independence (which Jefferson plagiarized in large part from a letter circulated by an influential Presbyterian elder of the time). In England, there was a witty saying that "cousin America has eloped with a Presbyterian parson". Funny but it does tell us about how they were viewed. To the Englishmen of the era, the Presbys were those disreputable people who murdered their king Charles during the Cromwell era of Puritan dominance. Not so surprisingly, in the Continental Army every single colonel was a Presbyterian except one. The founding of America was essentially a Presbyterian enterprise. This has led European scholars to declare that John Calvin, not George Washington, is the true father of America. Well, they at least have a pretty good argument to offer for that view. Naturally, American academics wish to entirely erase the name of Calvin from history. And as soon as our independence from Britain was won, the Calvinism of the era was quickly muted as our Founders realized that all that ranting against tyrants could be as easily applied to them as they had applied it to King George III when they rebelled against him. So the KJV was intended to fend off the seditious threat posed by the Geneva bible in the hands of various nasty Puritan folks like Cromwell. But it did not gain influence in time to save King James I's son, Charles, from the Puritan's ax when they chopped his head off. Nor did it save Britain's colonies from the Puritan threat in America 150 years later. The various political motives of these people and the politics are naturally irrelevant to the actual merits of the KJV as a bible. I think it is important to be aware of the textual, political and historical issues if you want to assemble an informed view of the matter.
If it made sense "as a complete whole", there wouldn't be hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations. There would be no room for conflict. None. It does make sense as a complete whole, but that is not possible to see when you depend on faulty translations for understanding. You have to look and see the word games the translators used, and imho it was intentionally done. I'll give you an example. Where does that word "hell" come from? Why is it in both the old and new testaments? Why didn't they translate "sheol" consistently? Or Gehenna? The errors have been isolated and then used by the "church". They have their foundations built on these errors. . .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
I agree. It's good as far as it goes. But people out too much faith in it. I personally think Youngs Literal is better when you try and get to the meaning of something. IMO it's more accurate, but not as easy to read as the KJ. Here's what I did in the past, when my Big Question is how a supposedly all-loving and all-knowing God could send most of HIs creation to be tortured in real fire for endless time for not having the right beliefs, when the vast majority never had the chance to hear of those beliefs. IMO this is why many despise Christianity; they see the total insanity of this. But instead of abandoning it as the idiocy it was, I wanted to find the answer. I spent a lot of time on things that were, in hindsight, just as stupid as the doctrine of "hell", including serpent seed doctrine, new age, calvinism, and other nonsense. I downloaded e-sword program (I really recommend that program. It's free and very good) and with a particular website on the screen and the program working in the background, I saw how the inconsistencies worked in the KJ. I verified everything that author claimed. I went searching far and wide for something that was right in front of my face. It helps to see how one word was translated in one passage and compare that to how it is translated into a completely different word with a different meaning in another passage. Then the inconsistencies come to light. Then I understood how the churches based their entire doctrines on these errors and ignore everything that contradicts their doctrines. An academic wrote this in the early Nineties and expected that about a dozen people would ever read it. That's a shame. But I think it's typical. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Jewish ideas of the era were mixed regarding the afterlife. They were somewhat contaminated further by various non-Jewish religious ideas from Greek and Roman paganism then widely current. The average Jew wasn't totally sure that there was an afterlife. Or if there was, it was only for a few of the prominent historical Jews like Abraham or Elijah. There was far more emphasis on obeying God so that He would favor you in this life, not the next. And if ideas about heaven weren't exactly uniform, ideas about hell were even more mixed with paganism. Judaism is fundamentally an optimistic life-affirming religion. In comparison with Christianity, it is more about how to live a good life and be happy and prosperous by not offending God. You also have the example of King David on being a person who passionately loves God for Himself, not out of fear of Him. Early Christians, as they spread beyond Jewish leadership in the ancient churches, became more morose and more involved with Roman paganism and becoming the official religion of the Roman empire. This furthered the split between Christians and Jews although all the early Christian leaders and teachers were Jewish. Christianity, in comparison, has much more in it of eternal reward and eternal punishment. Hence, the flexibility in the way various churches and prominent preachers over the centuries have used the references to sheol as a universal covering for the idea of hell which is itself mixed up with the lake of fire which is the final destination of Satan and his fallen angels. These ideas are further mixed with notions of purgatory and by popular literature like Dante Aligheri's Divine Comedy. I guess my point is that there were then, in every period since and now within the modern era many widely varying viewpoints on heaven and hell and the extent to which scripture describes them. And there is always a preacher, either cynical or sincere, willing to capitalize on the vagueness of the texts.
Then Christ came not to bring a sword? Either God is omnipotent or not. Either God is responsible for everything, or it somehow got out of Gods' control and God is scrambling and trying to keep things together... The reason for the conflict is because it can't make sense as a whole. Christs' followers didn't understand His teachings on the kingdom. He taught the outsiders only in parables (that's rather exclusive of him, right?) They didn't understand until Pentecost where they were converted. How many times have you heard that Christ used parables to make them more understandable to simple people? I've heard it plenty of times, and it directly contradicts scripture. When you have a church full of people that aren't converted, they won't understand much of anything, so they form sects that are to their liking. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
A modern explanation that doesn't fit well. Jesus speaking in parables was generally understood by His disciples and the people he was addressing. However, the language was often couched to keep the Pharisee spies and aggressors in the crowd from denouncing Him to the authorities who would have executed Him as a religious and political troublemaker. Which some people think He was, given how history has unfolded. So the idea that no one understood His parables at the time seems farfetched to me.
The Truth Seeker - British Lords, Homeless Folks, and a Phoney Bible
Young's is good. Not perfect but worth keeping in the reading list. Oh, Lordy, the Serpent Seed doctrine. LOL. Actually, that should be somewhat popular here at 4um but Shepherd's Chapel is too corny for me. Has 4um ever had any threads on Serpent Seed, the Kenites and so on? The depiction of Kenites as the "bad Jews" would seem irresistible. It is something of a theological hoot to me, almost as good as the Baptist Bride doctrine. I love it when people start squabbling over real estate in the New Jerusalem and who is going to get to live just down the street from Jesus on the choice part of Onward Christian Soldiers Boulevard. If you are disturbed by how some ignorant/unprincipled persons have presented the eternal hellfire issue over the centuries, keep in mind how plentiful and common the teaching of eternal life in Christ is in scripture. It is the central message of the New Testament, a new life in Christ in this life leading to eternity with Him in heaven. This was the emphasis, a life-affirming doctrine and one that led directly to eternal life for believers. The doctrines surrounding hell/sheol are much more mixed and often read like parables or a kind of figurative language. [Edit: In scripture, there are references to eternal life juxtaposed against eternal life; again these are much much more common than somewhat contradictory descriptions of hellfire.] I am not a textual deconstructionist and certainly no variety of universalist but it is difficult to deny that heaven and the promises to believers of a good afterlife are much vastly more plentiful and consistent than any depiction of unbelievers suffering an eternal torment (lake of fire for the fallen angels or a smoldering garbage dump outside Jerusalem?). The Bible is very subtle. Don't let the baggage of centuries of unscrupulous or uneducated preachers sour you on it. Don't let them make it say a word more or less than it says for itself. You'll find that the issues, once investigated, are much more minor than they seem at first. BTW, I once held such objections. OTOH, by the time you learn that much detail of doctrine and the history of scripture, you suddenly find you're not quite as welcome at bible studies or Sunday school. LOL. Oh, well, churches do prefer those who accept whatever pap is being issued by their mini-popes at the current juncture. I love e-Sword. A great free program. I enjoy especially some of the commentaries you can download and a few of the Byzantine (Received Text/Textus Receptus) family of translations. Also, I like to compare the 1611 KJV to the later one that we use from the mid-nineteenth century (after the last few letters of English were invented). Many of the KJVists think they're actually using a 1611 KJV when they would recoil in horror from the inclusion of the Catholic Apocrypha in the original 1611 AV. Ooops, old King James missed that one! As for e-Sword, I love the Gill commentary (having Calvinist and Baptist biases). I find Vincent's Word Studies to be valuable. I still dislike both the brief and the full versions of Matthew Henry. Wesley's commentary is always good for a laugh, both at him and the Methodists (what a weak thinker). The Lightfoot commentary on the Talmud and Hebraica of the New Testament is required reading to begin deep study, perhaps a bit beyond me personally to fully appreciate Lightfoot. As for scripture versions, I especially like the obscure Analytical-Literal Translation for e-Sword. It produces the most literal translation possible, even beyond the other literals like Young's. It's almost painfully literal. But it isn't very readable and certainly lacks the lyrical qualities and grand language of the KJV that make its text so memorable (including the subtle poetic meter of the KJV). If you like the KJV and its text but want something much more radically literal, the ALT version in e-Sword is quite good. You can even order printed copies of it from their website.
Oh, Moses, smell the roses! I have provided the relatively obscure but easily found references to the apocalyptic philosophy of our early colonies, the rabid Presbyterians who provoked our revolution against the Brit monarch, how this relates to manifest destiny (and to our present mission to Save The World), to the Millerites of the mid-Nineteenth, the Seventh Day Adventists in the late Nineteenth, the Scofield bible in the early Twentieth, the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Thirties, and even the massacred Branch Davidians in the late Twentieth. You got nothin'. Well, maybe a few brownie points here at 4um for somehow injecting the word Rothschild yet again. Of course, my view of these matters is no more likely to make me popular here than at bible studies with the Left Behinders.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
KJV ;) Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables: Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them. Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? How many times did he have to explain the parables to his followers? Every time. THey were not generally understood. Teachings were intentionally hidden. Hmmm, you'd almost think He was intentionally dooming billions to "hell" to be tortured by pitchfork-weilding demons roasting them over billions of spits for countless trillions of centuries, all because they held the wrong beliefs... Sometimes the Scribes & Co. perceived He was talking about them, but that doesn't mean they understood anything. Of course, my view of these matters is no more likely to make me popular here than at bible studies with the Left Behinders. As one heretic to another, I don't want to be popular with them. The Bible is very subtle. Don't let the baggage of centuries of unscrupulous or uneducated preachers sour you on it. It's not subtle, unless you consider a sword to be subtle (Heb 4:12) It hasn't soured me on it. But I had to forget everything I thought I knew and start all over again. I am not a textual deconstructionist and certainly no variety of universalist I dont know about deconstructionism seeing as how I'm not really big on theological terminology, but I am a universalist. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
No I'm not. Then Christ came not to bring a sword? Yes, but why? Simply to encourage dissensions amongst people? He states why. Of course to cause dissension. Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. Luke 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Interesting questions That wasn't a question but a statement. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
I appreciate the conversation. These things rarely go well and I appreciate it when it does happen. Even when we disagree we can do it civilly. And that is about as rare as seeing a Nessie in NYC Central Park .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Not really. Dissensions cause divisions. Look at what the scripture says: "divided, three against two, and two against three. ". That means there is dissension. If there was no dissension, there wouldn't be any divisions.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
I don't think so. Many of these parables seem as though he was addressing a commonly debated moral point of the Jewish law, things that these folk had heard debated many times. As to your larger point that the unbelievers did not grasp His parables, I do agree. Scripture is written for believers and for those who will at some point become believers. God doesn't not waste His breath on the chaff. Naturally, you will grasp that I am drifting toward a position of the Limited Atonement but the TULIP is far more a theological construct than any sort of guide to daily spiritual life. The hyper-Calvinists overstate its merits somewhat. Scripture affirms repeatedly that God is willing that all men should come to salvation. Women too, I suppose. And this is a place where we don't need to parse whether "all means all" the way that Xlinton would debate the meaning of 'is'. Of course, God may be willing but He values and does not violate our free will. OTOH, He is free to make as many as He can an offer they can't refuse. As you may be aware, He is quite subtle but quick to claim His own. I also do not believe that Jesus lacked free will, though His crucifixion was foreordained from the foundation of the world. As a first principle, we must affirm that God is not the author of evil. Welcome to the club. :) We often let others dictate their ideas to us. Or we misunderstand something and create problems for ourselves. God wants us to let Him teach us the inner meaning of scripture. Without Him, we cannot understand His will and His Word. I think you probably grasp my point. The Bible is to be comprehended spiritually, not intellectually. It is a supernatural book to the believer, a curse and frustration to the unbeliever. Only God can shed real light on it through the Spirit. Well, scripture does not lend itself at all to an all-dogs-go-to-heaven outlook. Deconstructionism is using formal literary technique, higher textual criticism, textual comparisons, historical speculation to essentially try to winnow out the "true" bible which the deconstructionists imagine to be filled with myths and legends and forgeries. It's been all the rage in some liberal denominations and among the cafeteria Catholics here in America.
Not imo. The divisions are already there. We didn't cause them. Also, imo, you can't pull anyone out of the matrix. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. It doesn't matter if its in their best interests or not. I still haven't figured out why I got pulled out, or how it even happened, or why it happened to me and not to others. All I know is that it didn't happen as the result of anyones efforts. I just chalk it up to divine guidance and that it was done for a purpose, not because I'm anything special. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Well, you know these things always start well and generally end when one party screams "Die, heretic!". Yeah, it has been a pleasant exchange. I do like reviewing the history of these movements, how they relate to America's founding, the various ways that things like the apocalyptic are interwoven with culture and with wars and with some preachers that want to build up huge followings (and income) by putting a contemporary spin on things. Or who wish to use something as vague as Revelations to add their own doctrinal ideas. Sometimes they are quite clever with their heresies and ideas but then someone starts making fun of them 10-20 years later because times change and they are exposed as religious opportunists. And yet, I have little doubt that virtually all of them started out quite sincerely. It's a warning to us all. Pride is, after all, the greatest and most common sin.
A catalyst. To separate the wheat from the chaff. It is a very offensive idea to those who are not children of God.
Free will is an interesting topic. It is the only area where man claims superiority over God. I don't believe in free will. Yes, we make choices but those choices are always limited, and that limited part takes away the "free" part. We are also limited in that we can't see where this is going and how choices are manipulated. We can only see it in hindsight. When God hardened Pharaohs heart, didn't he violate his "free will"? When Christ chose his disciples, what kept them from saying to Christ "You want me to drop everything and follow you? Who are you?" That would be the reasonable response. But that didn't happen, did it? I can come up with a lot of other examples showing that there is no free will (as that term is used). There are some other things I disagree with, but to do so would make things unmanageable and this thread would be all over the place. BTDT. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
So sensuality is a sin, sex is a sin?
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Yes, the free will discussion usually brings out of the very best in everyone. LOL. We do always have free will. The pharaoh example is interesting. Since during that era, salvation was of the Jews only (leaving out pharaoh as well as the rest of humanity), there was no reason why the pharaoh would have cause to complain against God over unfairness. He was never eligible for eternal life because he would never become a Jew. If God is omnipotent and knows the entire future, of all choices we might make as well as the choices we each will make, due to our own nature, it could be said that God's choices are not especially harsh when He bends us to His will in order to fulfill His eternal plan as it applies to mankind. Again, if you read scripture as positivist, as something that leads to eternal life instead of eternal death, then a pharaoh may as well earn eternal death due to his own choices and natural disposition rather than God imposing those choices on him. But if the pharaoh would make those choices anyway, then how has God treated the pharaoh unfairly if He causes the pharaoh to make those choices in a particular way which better suits God's plan? Same outcome but God has dictated the precise outcomes according to His own plan from the foundations of the world. In matters like these, God is a little like the Godfather in the old mafia movies. I would say He has a way of making us an offer we can't refuse. If He manifests His presence to one of us, it is pretty irresistible. After all, He is our creator and the entire universe is His personal property. Including everything that we have ever seen or touched or felt or even imagined. A Calvinist would pooh-pooh my poor comparison of this to an old gangster movie and would say this is an example of Irresistible Grace in an outworking of God's Spirit in a person's Unconditional Election. Of course, people are going to find it hard to say no to God. And for more fun with free will, we can always turn to Romans 7-9. Always a good warmup to the endless skirmishing between Arminians (or semi-Pelagians) and Calvinist scum like me. Not that I, for obvious reasons, care that deeply. After all, it is God who is working out these matters of the salvation of mankind, not me. Now and then, He may favor me in some way or arrange matters so that I have the privilege of doing some small and meaningless thing for Him (not that He ever needs me or anyone else) but I cannot get that worked up over the eternal spiritual fate of other people. I'm not indifferent exactly, just not persuaded that any believer is so powerful as to determine the outcome of someone else's salvation. Either God is in control or He is not. That said, I know that He does make use of certain persons in the outworking of His salvation of others. But I would stress that He doesn't actually need them; it is merely His pleasure to let one of His children help Him in small ways. In the end, He is still the potter and we are only His clay.
Generally speaking, only if performed properly. LOL.
We're getting hung up on divisions and dissensions. You first mentioned dissensions in post 21. All I said was that there was a lot of similarity between divisions and dissensions in post 27. (This is becoming tedious already ;) ). The division(s) exist(ed) naturally, by birth due to sin. Similar in our "4um" example, many people are living in "errancy." Doesn't matter if it's willful ignorance, passive ignorance, open defiance, etc. Those are the same reasons why people do not turn to the Living God. I disagree. Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. And John 6:44 is another one that is studiously ignored by the wolves. 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. You can see how that word "draw" is used. www.biblestudytools.com/s...=gos&t=kjv&ps=10&s=Bibles It's drawing water from a well. You lower the bucket, pull on the rope, the bucket comes to the top. The bucket has no say in the matter. It has no free will. Here's another one with that infamous word "draw" plus the all-inclusive "all": John 12:32 KJV And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. All means all, except to a theologian. Either that or the scripture is a lie, in which case we are all wasting out time. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Your universalism is showing... He was never eligible for eternal life because he would never become a Jew. Show me the "racial eligibility clause" needed for aionian life. We do always have free will. No, we have the ability to make choices. You claim to have free will. Free means unhindered and unrestrained. Create something out of nothing. Or run a 2 minute mile, or jump over a mountain. Use your mighty free will. You're good at posting doctrine and using big theological terms. But you need to back it up with supporting scriptures. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Not at all. I do not believe that God will save all men. Eternal life is only for believers, eternal death is for all others just as it is for animals. There are too many passages in scripture that support this for me to think otherwise. Universalism is a myth produced by modernist liberals and it would not surprise me if someday the liberals actually put it to a vote to vote everyone into heaven and criminalize as a hate crime the preaching of the idea that anyone might not automatically go to heaven. Well, except Hitler. They wouldn't let Hitler in, would they? As would be expected, universalism is a very world-pleasing idea. That alone should clue you in as scripture describes itself as an offense that would always be hated by the world. And it is. But the watered-down powerless Christianity Lite version (which does tend toward universalism) is no threat to anyone. As for the historicity of universalism, keep in mind it goes back less than two hundred years so there is absolutely no ancient pedigree for such beliefs or any support for this thinking in the ancient churches or in Judaism. It's very difficult to find any basis for salvation in the Old Testament outside of Jewish law and tradition. Well, it isn't difficult, it's impossible. As the old saying had it, "Salvation is of the Jews." It is an accurate summary from the perspective of both Jews and Christians. I think the most helpful way to understand our free will and God's free will is to grasp that, given His unlimited knowledge and especially His foreknowledge, He can anticipate every choice we will ever make. So we may be making all the free will choices we want. That doesn't mean that God has no free will. What it means is that His plan is so large and so infallible that it accounts for and cannot be changed merely by the actions of His creatures, namely, us. God exists outside the bounds of the space-time continuum, as we call it. He is much further beyond us than we are above, say, a mouse. Or maybe an amoeba. Look at the size of the universe, His personal domain. Our main problem is that we often can't even imagine the actual greatness of God. Tell me, do you think your dog or cat thinks you're like God? You think your pet conceives of how you read, how you use computers, how you do the million things that are unthinkable for them? God is much much further ahead of us than we are ahead of our pets. And besides that, He owns the universe. It is a little humbling to ponder. I actually tend to avoid debating these topics entirely any more. Back when I hung out at TOS, we had extended theology threads with hundreds of thousands of pages of such debate, much of it quite mean-spirited as is often the case with amateur debates of theology. It rapidly gets very personal. Anyway I finally decided I am too weak a Christian and such debates were detrimental to my spiritual welfare and did no favors for God either. However, I did learn a truly tremendous amount of information about the history of various churches and Christian belief systems over the centuries. And none of it made me actually a better Christian. Maybe a better debater or a bigger know-it-all but, like the Pharisees, sometimes it is easier and more seductive to engage in intellectual pursuits and debate than to carry out the simple virtues commended by Christ and His disciples in scripture. You really can't neglect those basics, they are not considered optional by God. So I try to lead a simpler spiritual life now. Besides that, everyone hates doctrine and theology anyway. As for me being a smarty-pants, well, maybe. Now and then, I do still enjoy tossing the old theological football around the backyard a bit but I don't do it seriously any more.
You don't have to appreciate my take, because it isn't my take. I just show the scriptures. It is what it is. Anyone can understand it. Faith comes from knowing it's true. It's simplicity itself (2 Corinthians 11:3). It takes years of theological study to make it complicated. You can hide a lot of lies in a complicated story. So, the calvinist belief that God knows who He will choose, and the rest end up in "hell" because they weren't "drawn", is related to this? Do you really think that God would do something so awful that you would never do it to another person, a person BTW that you created too weak to help themselves? Are you more merciful than God? No. This is the damage that churchianities "hell" has done. There is no such thing. It's a hoax. Even the people that believe in it don't really believe in it, because it would lead to insanity brought about over worrying about loved ones, or a heart of stone where you just don't care about anyone but yourself. You got yours, to "hell" with everyone else, right? Take TC off of bozo and see for yourself what he writes. Not that I fault him, because I used to echo some of the same things in the past. Who are the "elect" and what and who are they going to rule and reign over? What is Christs' teachings on those that would rule or be great? It's one thing to see the lies promoted by the wolves, but what is the truth? You know they're lying, but what are they lying about? IMO they know these things. They aren't stupid. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Your beliefs are your business. Universalism is a myth produced by modernist liberals and it would not surprise me if someday the liberals actually put it to a vote to vote everyone into heaven and criminalize as a hate crime the preaching of the idea that anyone might not automatically go to heaven. www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/briefhist.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chr...iversalism#Ancient_Church No one says people "automatically go to heaven". You can be judged now or later. 1 Peter 4:17 KJV For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? Well, except Hitler. They wouldn't let Hitler in, would they? Usually people bring up both Hitler AND Stalin. They'll be judged, same as everyone else. That alone should clue you in as scripture describes itself as an offense that would always be hated by the world. And it is. Matthew 10:22 KJV And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Scripture doesn't describe itself like that. It describes Christ and his followers as being hated. We reject the world, the world rejects us. There's no big surprise there. It's very difficult to find any basis for salvation in the Old Testament outside of Jewish law and tradition. Well, it isn't difficult, it's impossible. As the old saying had it, "Salvation is of the Jews." It is an accurate summary from the perspective of both Jews and Christians. Isaiah 19:23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless , saying , Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. Sure. The Hebrews were chosen, but they were chosen for a purpose, not because they were super-special people. They weren't. Our main problem is that we often can't even imagine the actual greatness of God. I agree with that.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
1 Peter 4:17 KJV For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? Oh, dear. If you read that verse in that way, we don't have much to discuss. At any rate, I'll say I would consider your reading a gross misinterpretation of the passage or it is uninformed as to the arguments, rather ancient even in the time of Jesus, of a particular moral argument that Jews were quite familiar with. We have to understand that we are eavesdroppers in many passages in scripture. We are overhearing the middle of a longstanding argument or debate on the moral laws or Jewish religious tradition. This applies to the passage you cite because Midrash and other well-known Jewish sources debated this matter of the responsibility of the righteous in comparison to the unbelieving and disobedient. It also applies to the quotes of secular Greek philosophers, as in the case of Paul who quotes and refutes a popular saying from a pagan philosopher. This is the 'eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die' passage. Well, let's stay in the first epistle of Peter since you quoted it. (1 Peter 2) 4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. You can find earlier references in scripture as to a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense as in Romans 9:33. And the passage here in Peter and Paul's reference in Romans harks back to Isaiah 8:14 which uses this same visual language. And we have to keep in mind that these disputes were very Jewish, not discussions that were important to Gentiles, if any, who overheard them in a crowd. I suppose that you could argue the common phrase 'Word of God' was not demonstrably current to Jews who originally heard this argument. Yet you can argue forcefully that the concept of Christ and of God's Word in the New Testament is indissoluble and that the apostles did understand their own work and teachings in this light. Good luck with finding scriptural assurances that any person outside Israel went to heaven during the era of the Old Covenant. Again, we cannot agree.
I'm not sure I understand your point. It's for the elects sake that things are stopped. Matthew 24:22 KJV And except those days should be shortened , there should no flesh be saved : but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened It's not stopped for the chosens sake, or anyone elses. Revelation 20:6 KJV Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years Elect: 1588 // eklektov // eklektos // ek-lek-tos' // Not every Christian is "elect". You can see that here: www.biblestudytools.com/s...c=nt&t=kjv&ps=10&s=Bibles
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Well, how else are you going to read it? I suppose you can apply your theological principles and twist it to the point that it's meaningless, but that doesn't chance the meaning of a plainly worded sentence. It seems that people like to say "It's true, but...." There is no "but". This applies to the passage you cite because Midrash and other well-known Jewish sources debated this matter of the responsibility of the righteous in comparison to the unbelieving and disobedient. I don't care what they debated, especially the jews. What it says is all that matters. Good luck with finding scriptural assurances that any person outside Israel went to heaven during the era of the Old Covenant. First you say "good luck" to finding any references to non-Hebrews being given aionian life, and I did just that. I provided scriptural proof from the OT. I can provide more. But you'll ignore it. Not that I mind you ignoring it, because I'm not doing this for your benefit, but for mine and anyone else that happens to read it. Ezekiel 16:55 for example When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate. Wait. I thought Sodom was destroyed "for ever". So, perhaps you can find scriptures that say that anyone except Christ has gone to Heaven, at any time, after they died? Good luck. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
I think you are reading into Peter a preferred meaning. And, boy, is it ever a people-pleaser? It's eisegesis, if you like that word. When reading scripture, we should look for consistent multiple testimonies across various books and authors, and exclude any reading that contradicts the words of Christ. And read the books as a whole, not pluck verses willy-nilly to assemble something we want to make it say. Also, any doctrine that cannot be supported solely from scripture references in the New Testament (doctrine that cannot be justified without recourse to the Old Testament) should be considered suspect. The New Testament is complete and sufficient for salvation and for correct doctrine. We are so far apart that discussion is pointless. You are a liberal modernist. I am an orthodox Christian. There simply isn't going to be much more than some rather shallow agreements between us. Are we at the point where someone is ready to scream "Die, heretic"? Getting closer, no doubt.
Well, you might want to read that into it. I don't think you can defend it. Not that I'm willing to debate something quite that silly. I would say that a few terms, like 'elect' and 'saints', generally refer to those who are believed to be in heaven or those who, by God's grace and calling, are considered children of God or will become children of God at some point in the future. I can't quite conceive of any faithful Christian who falls outside the group known as 'elect' or 'saints' generally.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Sure, but according to scripture who gives that ability to believe? I already posted it, but I'll do it again. John 6:44 KJV No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Like you say, it is simple. Romans 3:10 As it is written , There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth , there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way , they are together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not one . 13 None. Not one. None. All. Together. None. No, not one. Sounds rather specific to me. Read Romans Ch 10.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Obviously you've never been in a real theological food fight or you would be aware that 'all' only means 'all' when it is a verse that favors your preferred positions. If the verse does not favor your theology, then 'all' can be quite flexible and is likely to mean 'some' or even a number that approaches 'none'. 'All' is one of those terms you have to describe as 'fighting words'.
'All' is one of those terms you have to describe as 'fighting words'. THank you very much for making my point for me. I said that it takes a theologian to twist and rewrite scripture to the point that it loses "all" meaning. I said that "It takes years of theological study to make it complicated. You can hide a lot of lies in a complicated story." I have no desire to get into any "theological food fights", but I like discussing things that show the shenanigans that churchianity is up to. Seminaries seem to be more for manipulative indoctrination rather than simply learning scripture. Frankly, they'd probably walk all over me in a debate. But I'd have to let them do that or they wouldn't get away with it. One thing they are loathe to say is "I don't know". I know that I dont know a lot of things, but I know when I'm on safe ground.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
I"ve already admitted to being a heretic. And I will die someday. I think you are reading into Peter a preferred meaning. And, boy, is it ever a people-pleaser? It's eisegesis, if you like that word. It's not preferred. I simply refer to the plain meaning of the sentence(s). I"m not a theologian. I have not learned how to twist scriptures to the point where a plainly written and translated sentence means something totally different. When reading scripture, we should look for consistent multiple testimonies across various books and authors, and exclude any reading that contradicts the words of Christ. Do you think that is what I've done? Please be specific.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
What hath Scofield wrought?
__________________________________________________________ Seminaries are generally known for the doctrines of the churches that sponsor them and their student body is often composed of the children of members of that church. And they are to prepare clergy for the ministry. So they are supposed to safeguard the doctrine of the church and faithfully transmit that doctrine to future generations. So you have to expect they have a certain bias. It's a job requirement. Well, most professors don't like to say that publicly. It raises some doubts about what they are worth if they don't have a good answer to Question X. And if they don't know and they do admit it, they'd better have a very good biblical reason for ascribing it to the mysteries of God that are unknowable to human beings by divine design. If that doesn't work, they can always claim the dog ate their homework.
Do you think that is what I've done? Please be specific. I think you have invented for yourself or adopted from others a universalist bias. You look at scripture and inject your bias into it. This is not at all unusual. I watch myself for the tendency as well. However, to adopt universalism means you must completely disregard many quotes from Jesus Himself about being born again, the wages of sin being death, the promises to prepare a place for His followers, etc. At its most fundamental level, your universalism says that Jesus lied to people many times about key doctrinal matters. As for your claims that universalism was the theology of the ancient church, when you have to start relying upon the Nestorians and the notorious heretics of Alexandria as examples of ancient Christianity (instead of the aberrations they actually were), you are on very weak ground. Or standing in scriptural quicksand. Of course that is just my opinion. It's not like I can threaten to burn you at the stake if you won't recant your diabolical crowd-pleasing universalism. Sometimes being a Baptist by disposition and conviction just isn't as much fun as being Catholic. They have more exciting barbecues than humble Baptists. But if God intends to save all mankind in the end, then why was the sacrifice of Christ necessary? And if He died to expiate the sins of men, then why (according to your universalist ideas) do Christians supposedly get to heaven faster and Hitler and Stalin and Mao all just arrive at the party a little late. After all, on the scale of eternity what is a mere 5,000 or 10,000 or a million years of death if at the end you will still go to heaven no matter what? Five trillion years from now there won't be any real difference between getting to heaven after 70 years of life or after 5000 years of death. So, to you, I can't see any value whatsoever in the Atonement. Other than as a way for goody-two-shoes types to get to heaven marginally faster than Hitler will.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
OK, please be specific. There is no "bias" in the words "all", "none", etc. The meaning is plain. The twisting of those words (and more words) by the "church" is self-evident. It's amazing to me to see the contortions they go through to twist and outright negate plainly written texts. Of course that is just my opinion. It's not like I can threaten to burn you at the stake if you won't recant your diabolical crowd-pleasing universalism. Crowd pleasing? Not hardly. People hate it. It's not universalism that they hate. They hate scriptures. They despise them. THey love their doctrines over and above anything else. I've been banned from "christian" boards for doing the same thing I do here. They never dispute what I say, they just attack the messenger and they shut me down when they know that they can't refute the scriptures. And there's hate. Perhaps you're feeling some of that hate? I wouldn't doubt it. I've seen it many times before. And your forefathers in the calvinist movement would have burned me at the stake. Michael Servetus was one of them you people burned at the stake. I guess you're more civilized now...civilization being a very thin veneer. Your entire post is nothing but doctrine apart from any scriptures to support it. I used scriptures to support what you call "my" position. You're not disputing me, you're disputing scripture. You are also adding to them and taking away from them. That is something we are plainly told not to do. So if you have something specific to address, then please do so. But I'm not going to be distracted by silly theological arguments that focus only on someones doctrines, because I don't care about their doctrines. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
It shows that no one seeks after God. That no one does good. etc. So how can you make a "free will" decision to seek, when it already says no one is seeking? Matt. 7 7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. So does that mean that God only causes some to seek? That;s why I posted that from Romans 3. If no one is seeking, then you can't start on your own, right? It's like how I posted earlier, that either God is omnipotent, or not. Lots of people say God is, but then they turn God into a bumbling senile old man that has to battle the mighty Satan so Satan doesnt get everything. God gets the table scraps, I guess. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
I'm not going to start verse-chopping with you. I don't generally debate at length people that I consider outside the mainstream orthodox Christian tradition. Orthodox Christianity has never embraced universalism, no matter what heretical sources the Wiki people try to cite. It is just grossly ignorant or dishonest to pretend that this was or has ever been the position of the Latin church or the eastern churches or the Reformation churches or the Baptists or more recent churches like evangelicals and charismatics. To support universalism, you have to consider small groups of mainstream churches, few of which survived their original leader's lifetime, as representative of the whole of Christianity. Clearly, this is not the case and is not even debatable. To me, this is like you pretending that Christian nudists somehow represent a substantial portion of the ancient churches. And, BTW, Wikipedia would love to convince you that Christian nudism has been a long-accepted tradition among the churches. Of course, it is all liberal modern silliness, of about the same rank as pretending that Wicca is an ancient religion (it was invented around 1920) or that charismatic churches have a long history (first established in America around 1900 with only a few sporadic outbreaks in earlier centuries). I think you should be a little more careful about Wikipedia or trusting them to be your spiritual guide. You seem to accept rather uncritically their grossly uninformed list of verses that they pretend offer support to universalism. Again, there is no evidence to support universalism in the ancient churches or at any other time; that doesn't change Wiki's desire to promote the idea to gullible people who don't grasp history. Mormons are a variety of universalist though they soft-pedal it. There are some others as well like Quakers or Unitarians (most of whom deny Christ as a matter of principle). And some cafeteria Catholics take a quasi-universalist position.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
That's just one source. But you didn't disappoint me. I knew you would not cite specifics because I've been down this road many times before. If you could have been specific, I'm sure you would have done so. And I never claimed it was mainstream. I'm glad it isn't. The mainstream is trash and is hardly something to revere. I'd rather be seen as a heretic. It puts me in good company. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
It's a play on words meant to be a slander against Scofield's bible. Samuel Morse used the words "What hath God wrought!" (to humble his role in inventing the telegraph) as the first message sent over the first commercial telegraph line in 1844. He took those worlds from the book of Numbers: Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought! -- Numbers 23: 23 (KJV)
__________________________________________________________ Finding confirmation for your biases about traditional belief systems in the rejection of nearly everyone who ever embraced that tradition isn't necessarily a good sign. It may simply indicate garden-variety contrarianism. The vast majority of the time, holding kooky beliefs just means you're a kook. And people don't want to debate kooks. Who has the time, let alone the interest? So I'll have to wish you luck with your little roll-yer-own Christianity thing. Believe me, it's been done to death.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Seems pretty slyly staged, eh? I find more credible the story about Alexander Graham Bell (one of a handful of famous Americans known by three names who isn't a serial killer): "Watson, come here! I want to see you!".
And? 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: I don't understand your comment. So does that mean that God only causes some to seek? Eric, I don't mind answering questions because I enjoy honest discussions like this, but I think that you are going to have to do what I did for any of this to do any good. You are going to have to forget everything that you thought you knew, and dig your own holes in that field to find that pearl, if you know what I mean? If you can do that, then you'll find it. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Unfortunately for this line of argument, Romans 3 is actually in the New Testament. Maybe I don't want Eric to take me off Bozo after all.
In post 42 you said : I actually tend to avoid debating these topics entirely any more. Back when I hung out at TOS, we had extended theology threads with hundreds of thousands of pages of such debate, much of it quite mean-spirited as is often the case with amateur debates of theology. It rapidly gets very personal. Was anything ever resolved? That's a rhetorical question... Even those in the mighty "mainstream" can be a little kooky. But I like being a kook. Anything that keeps me from being associated with the mainstream is a good thing. In case you haven't noticed, it's the mainstream that's in trouble these days, not us kooks. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Yes, but the scripture comes from Isaiah 41:26 and Psalms 14 .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Actually, you did on rare occasions see people change fundamental theological positions entirely. I did and I knew of others. But it is often the case that those who engage in debate are not at all open-minded and will not change even if you manage to demonstrate their factual errors or misunderstandings of their own most fundamental positions. I saw this repeatedly. So personalities seemed at least as influential as the merits of the debate. A few people even quit their current church and found a new one based on it; again there are relatively few people who are persuadable in such online debates. You did see people learn a lot about the history of their own churches, often surprised at the past positions of their church on various matters. You also became more aware of different wings of different churches. But often it was just a food fight mixed with a very very longwinded debate, involving bazillions of scriptures posted as proof-texts and a lot of extended debate on quotes from various religious leaders (popes, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.). Also a lot of postings from classic commentaries that state the formal ideas of various theological positions. Some of it was actually debated quite well but generally the food-fight aspect and grudge-holding and oneupsmanship carried over into the entire religion forum. A lot of people got banned from TOS over religious posts, not anything having to do with politics. I came to the conclusion that if you want to debate religion, you should go to a religious forum that is open to theological debate. Keep the politics separate.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
So did I, but like you said, it's rare, and it happened only because I was looking for answers that I wasn't finding in the mainstream. My position didn't change because I had no position in the first place. All I had were questions that weren't getting answered. I personally don't think debating in a forum helps anyone. When you try to address all of the peoples points, the whole thing rapidly becomes impossible to keep up with because so many different topics are raised. It's hard to maintain focus. And cherry picking what the other person says, when its a side issue and easier to deal with, doesn't help any either. IMO general discussions with the occasional specific topic are best suited for boards like this. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Few people want to learn and abide by formal rules of debate. As with fights between spouses, quite often it turns ugly just as one side starts to lose. And there are people who just like to fight. And contrarians. And kooks. And those from churches considered excluded (Mormons, JWs) who show up apparently just to proselytize for their cult, sometimes pretending to be non-cultists just to draw the unsuspecting in.
I'm afraid you lost me. Can you elaborate? .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Say, that's not bad as a tag line, "these days."
There is no long form.
That's deceptive. There is no reason to be deceptive. But don't forget, the mainstream church leaders do the same thing. They're just more slick about it. It's so much easier to pick peoples pockets when they're distracted. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Where did you ever get an idea like that? You mystify me. Can you be a little more specific please? I don't like dealing in generalities and impressions. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
#2. To: PSUSA (#1)
#3. To: TooConservative (#2)
The far larger current is of evangelical churches with those who attend carrying NIV bibles, often with the NIV commentary. Naturally, you can disparage the NIV commentary or any other commentary like Scofield's, as placing their own words and ideas alongside those of scripture much as the author did here with Scofield.
#4. To: TooConservative (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: PSUSA (#3)
One thing I do know is that there are many that consider the KJV to be "inerrant" and "perfect", and any other version is "of the devil", including the NIV. But ask them which printing of the KJ is the perfect one, and you can practically see their heads explode. They don't even know that there have already been many modifications to the KJ, and they don't care to know.
The apocalyptic is itself an original doctrine of America, something not widely known. America was to be a new Israel and also to be the scene of the final battles of Revelation. This justified doctrines that evicted the heathen Indians, manifest destiny, etc. You can find references in the colonial era to this kind of thinking, often promoted by Cotton Mather and his influential father, Increase Mather. Again, I have no problem in taking your word for that. That's the first I heard of this, but it fits.
The best book I know of on the topic was called When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Studies in Cultural History).
#6. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
#7. To: Googolplex (#4)
Evangelicals are not a problem; the poliitcal problem is fundamentalists.
#8. To: PSUSA (#3)
(Edited)
#9. To: Turtle, Googolplex (#6)
It was because of these two frauds that we have the Rapture monkeys, the Tribulation, all the rest of that anti-Christian nonsense.
#10. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
#11. To: Eric Stratton (#8)
(Edited)
As to TC's comment, whom I have on bozo, ...
#12. To: Eric Stratton (#8)
As to the translations, while there may be issues with some, and there are, the thing to keep in mind is that the entire thing needs to make sense as a complete whole.
#13. To: PSUSA (#12)
#14. To: TooConservative (#5)
I like the KJV and treasure it but I don't consider it an insuperable translation.
#15. To: PSUSA (#12)
(Edited)
Why is it in both the old and new testaments? Why didn't they translate "sheol" consistently? Or Gehenna?
#16. To: Eric Stratton (#13)
I don't know what you mean by "room for," as denominations are mans' divisions, not God's or Christ's. In fact, Paul warned sternly against them;
#17. To: PSUSA (#16)
How many times have you heard that Christ used parables to make them more understandable to simple people? I've heard it plenty of times, and it directly contradicts scripture.
#18. To: Eric Stratton, All, Everyone else (#0)
Jun 25, 2006 ... The Scofield Reference Bible is the transparent bible forgery for changing
fundamental Christianity into Rothschild's Zionism. ...
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4705
#19. To: PSUSA (#14)
(Edited)
I agree. It's good as far as it goes. But people out too much faith in it. I personally think Youngs Literal is better when you try and get to the meaning of something. IMO it's more accurate, but not as easy to read as the KJ.
Here's what I did in the past, when my Big Question is how a supposedly all-loving and all-knowing God could send most of HIs creation to be tortured in real fire for endless time for not having the right beliefs, when the vast majority never had the chance to hear of those beliefs. IMO this is why many despise Christianity; they see the total insanity of this. But instead of abandoning it as the idiocy it was, I wanted to find the answer. I spent a lot of time on things that were, in hindsight, just as stupid as the doctrine of "hell", including serpent seed doctrine, new age, calvinism, and other nonsense.
I downloaded e-sword program (I really recommend that program. It's free and very good) and with a particular website on the screen and the program working in the background, I saw how the inconsistencies worked in the KJ. I verified everything that author claimed. I went searching far and wide for something that was right in front of my face.
#20. To: Itistoolate (#18)
The Scofield Reference Bible is the transparent bible forgery for changing fundamental Christianity into Rothschild's Zionism. ...
#21. To: PSUSA (#16)
#22. To: TooConservative (#17)
(Edited)
Jesus speaking in parables was generally understood by His disciples and the people he was addressing.
#23. To: Eric Stratton (#21)
You're making quite a few assumptions.
#24. To: TooConservative, Eric Stratton (#20)
#25. To: PSUSA (#23)
#26. To: PSUSA (#24)
#27. To: Eric Stratton (#25)
You site divisions, not "dissension." There's a difference.
#28. To: PSUSA (#22)
How many times did he have to explain the parables to his followers? Every time.
THey were not generally understood. Teachings were intentionally hidden. Hmmm, you'd almost think He was intentionally dooming billions to "hell" to be tortured by pitchfork-weilding demons roasting them over billions of spits for countless trillions of centuries, all because they held the wrong beliefs...
It hasn't soured me on it. But I had to forget everything I thought I knew and start all over again.
I dont know about deconstructionism seeing as how I'm not really big on theological terminology, but I am a universalist.
#29. To: Eric Stratton (#25)
Here's a clue, we here are also trying to cause divisions, aren't we? Aren't we attempting to pull people out of the matrix and into reality? Why? Is it not in their own best interests?
#30. To: PSUSA (#24)
I appreciate the conversation. These things rarely go well and I appreciate it when it does happen.
#31. To: PSUSA (#23)
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
#32. To: TooConservative (#28)
(Edited)
Of course, God may be willing but He values and does not violate our free will.
#33. To: PSUSA (#27)
#34. To: PSUSA (#29)
#35. To: Eric Stratton (#33)
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
#36. To: Flintlock (#35)
#37. To: PSUSA (#32)
Free will is an interesting topic. It is the only area where man claims superiority over God.
When God hardened Pharaohs heart, didn't he violate his "free will"?
When Christ chose his disciples, what kept them from saying to Christ "You want me to drop everything and follow you? Who are you?" That would be the reasonable response. But that didn't happen, did it?
#38. To: Flintlock (#35)
So sensuality is a sin, sex is a sin?
#39. To: Eric Stratton (#33)
#40. To: TooConservative (#37)
After all, it is God who is working out these matters of the salvation of mankind, not me.
#41. To: PSUSA (#39)
#42. To: PSUSA (#40)
Your universalism is showing...
He was never eligible for eternal life because he would never become a Jew. Show me the "racial eligibility clause" needed for aionian life.
You claim to have free will. Free means unhindered and unrestrained. Create something out of nothing. Or run a 2 minute mile, or jump over a mountain. Use your mighty free will.
You're good at posting doctrine and using big theological terms. But you need to back it up with supporting scriptures.
#43. To: Eric Stratton (#41)
I would also however suggest that there's more to that "draw" stuff that simply those verses. That fringes on Calvin's beliefs and I dismiss those.
#44. To: TooConservative (#42)
Not at all. I do not believe that God will save all men. Eternal life is only for believers, eternal death is for all others just as it is for animals.
#45. To: PSUSA (#43)
#46. To: PSUSA (#44)
No one says people "automatically go to heaven". You can be judged now or later.
Scripture doesn't describe itself like that. It describes Christ and his followers as being hated. We reject the world, the world rejects us. There's no big surprise there.
Sure. The Hebrews were chosen, but they were chosen for a purpose, not because they were super-special people. They weren't.
#47. To: Eric Stratton (#45)
The "elect" are the believers. However, there is no verse in the Bible that has "elect" and "reign" in the same sentence/context. If you find one, please reveal it to me.
from 1586 ; TDNT - 4:181,505; adj
AV - elect 16, chosen 7; 23
1) picked out, chosen
1a) chosen by God,
1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ
1a1a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God
1a2) the Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the
most exalted office conceivable
1a3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class,
excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual
Christians
#48. To: TooConservative (#46)
Oh, dear. If you read that verse in that way, we don't have much to discuss.
#49. To: PSUSA (#48)
I suppose you can apply your theological principles and twist it to the point that it's meaningless, but that doesn't chance the meaning of a plainly worded sentence.
#50. To: PSUSA (#47)
Not every Christian is "elect". You can see that here: www.biblestudytools.com/s...c=nt&t=kjv&ps=10&s=Bibles
#51. To: PSUSA (#47)
#52. To: Eric Stratton (#51)
Sounds to me like it's their choice, "belief" that is. While we can discuss what "belief" entails, it's pretty simple.
#53. To: PSUSA (#52)
None. Not one. None. All.
#54. To: TooConservative (#53)
Obviously you've never been in a real theological food fight or you would be aware that 'all' only means 'all' when it is a verse that favors your preferred positions. If the verse does not favor your theology, then 'all' can be quite flexible and is likely to mean 'some' or even a number that approaches 'none'.
#55. To: TooConservative (#49)
#56. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
...he did not hesitate to pry apart John's verses and intersperse his own ideas between the sentences of John. This he did throughout the Bible, and, in the minds of many unwary people, Scofield's ideas are equated with the Word of God itself.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#57. To: PSUSA (#54)
Seminaries seem to be more for manipulative indoctrination rather than simply learning scripture.
One thing they are loathe to say is "I don't know". I know that I dont know a lot of things, but I know when I'm on safe ground.
#58. To: PSUSA (#55)
When reading scripture, we should look for consistent multiple testimonies across various books and authors, and exclude any reading that contradicts the words of Christ.
#59. To: PSUSA (#52)
#60. To: X-15 (#56)
#61. To: TooConservative, Eric Stratton (#58)
I think you have invented for yourself or adopted from others a universalist bias. You look at scripture and inject your bias into it.
#62. To: Eric Stratton (#59)
As to Romans 3 which you site, all that does is reveal that no one is better than another before God and presents us our lot apart from His intervention.
#63. To: PSUSA (#61)
#64. To: PSUSA (#61)
OK, please be specific. There is no "bias" in the words "all", "none", etc. The meaning is plain. The twisting of those words (and more words) by the "church" is self-evident. It's amazing to me to see the contortions they go through to twist and outright negate plainly written texts.
#65. To: PSUSA (#62)
#66. To: TooConservative (#64)
I think you should be a little more careful about Wikipedia or trusting them to be your spiritual guide.
#67. To: Eric Stratton (#60)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#68. To: PSUSA (#66)
But you didn't disappoint me. I knew you would not cite specifics because I've been down this road many times before. If you could have been specific, I'm sure you would have done so.
#69. To: X-15 (#67)
#70. To: X-15 (#67)
It's a play on words meant to be a slander against Scofield's bible. Samuel Morse used the words "What hath God wrought!" (to humble his role in inventing the telegraph) as the first message sent over the first commercial telegraph line in 1844. He took those worlds from the book of Numbers:
#71. To: Eric Stratton (#65)
For starters, those verses that you cited in Romans 3 were from the OT.
#72. To: PSUSA (#65)
For starters, those verses that you cited in Romans 3 were from the OT.
#73. To: TooConservative (#68)
The vast majority of the time, holding kooky beliefs just means you're a kook. And people don't want to debate kooks. Who has the time, let alone the interest?
#74. To: TooConservative (#72)
(Edited)
Unfortunately for this line of argument, Romans 3 is actually in the New Testament.
#75. To: PSUSA (#73)
Was anything ever resolved? That's a rhetorical question... Even those in the mighty "mainstream" can be a little kooky.
#76. To: PSUSA (#71)
#77. To: TooConservative (#75)
Actually, you did on rare occasions see people change fundamental theological positions entirely. I did and I knew of others.
#78. To: PSUSA (#77)
I personally don't think debating in a forum helps anyone. When you try to address all of the peoples points, the whole thing rapidly becomes impossible to keep up with because so many different topics are raised. It's hard to maintain focus.
#79. To: Eric Stratton (#76)
Your own logic, if I'm understanding this correctly, and I think you've stated this (no?), invalidates Scripture.
#80. To: PSUSA (#73)
In case you haven't noticed, it's the mainstream that's in trouble these days, not us kooks.
#81. To: TooConservative (#78)
And those from churches considered excluded (Mormons, JWs) who show up apparently just to proselytize for their cult, sometimes pretending to be non-cultists just to draw the unsuspecting in.
#82. To: PSUSA (#79)
#83. To: Eric Stratton (#82)
Based on your statements that prompted that response, if I read you correctly, from this thread and past posts, you think that in essence the Bible is meaningless, inconsequential, no?
#84. To: PSUSA (#83)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest