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: 1893
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
Comments (1-44) not displayed.
.
.
.
#45. To: PSUSA (#43)
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.
#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