|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 16:22:00 GMT
As it is said, "You can't just give the Good News, but you must be faithful to share the Bad News also," I think it appropriate that we have a board discussing a highly debated issue concerning Christian Doctrine...Hell. The following is a discussion with someone trying to promote Annihilation, a demon doctrine that must be rejected by those who adhere to Biblical DOctrine. The discussion that follows is based on an examination of Matthew 10:28, and I will give my own statement that created the response of the Facebook Poster: Yes. I am getting ready to leave but would be glad to explain my position when I get the chance, perhaps in the morning. Nothing in Scripture teaches that spirits ever cease to exist. An interesting point of study I would suggest is a look at one of the Annihilationist's favorite proof-texts, Matthew 10:28. And I might as well go ahead and make the point:
Matthew 10:28 King James Version (KJV)
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.At first glance it seems that the Lord is speaking about a destruction that is complete and most will understand this in physical terms. The word translated destroy is apollymi, and it needs to be pointed out, first, that is not the same word as "kill," which is apokteinō. Why that is significant is that many will read this and correlate the two as though the same fate is in view. It's not. The use of the term "soul" also has to be understood, in that while many view "soul" to be a reference to an immaterial aspect of man...it isn't. "Soul" is a reference to the person, rather than his spirit. Man was created with a body and a spirit, and became a living soul, so he is a soul, rather than "has" a soul. So look back at our proof-text and consider that the soul, the person, can be killed by men, but then there is nothing more they can do. Now note that God does not kill the body and soul, but "destroys both body and soul. Here is the key: The body refers to the physical existence of men which can be killed, but body and soul refers to the totality of the man. When the dead are raised to be judged, they too will receive bodies suited to eternal torment. Similar to being glorified with one primary exception, they do not have the life we receive when we are placed in Christ. Then we look at what God can do to both body and soul, which is to destroy them, and we ask can this have an unending context. All we have to do is back up and see a people that already exist in a state of destruction: Matthew 10:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.The word translated "the lost" is the same word translated "destroy" in v.28, apollymi. Israel was in a "state of destruction" because they were what the "Lost" will be for eternity...separated from God. Again, we consider the difference between an eternal context and a physical. They were separated on a basis of relationship through the Covenant of Law, which earns them their designation as "lost sheep." But being Lost has a greater context, an eternal context. All men are born lost, that is...separated from God. Those who go into Hell (the Lake of Fire) will be for eternity separated from God. The primary point of all this being...we those who are "lost," in a state of destruction, "destroyed" by God...who have not ceased to exist. The same will be true in regards to Eternal Judgment. The destruction points to something not possible among men in regards to imposing damage in the physical sense. God will destroy the person in a physical sense forever. Another point would be found in the correlation of statements made in Jude and 2 Peter 2 where the description does not really allow for a cessation of existence. Another point would be the Lord's rebuke of the original Annihilationists...the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23-32). They believed that when men died that was it. The Lord rebukes them for not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. While this would not immediately deny plausibility for Annihilation and it could be argued that it doesn't speak towards Eternal Judgment, simply makes the point "they haven't passed out of existence yet," when we balance everything said it leaves little room for embracing Annihilation as Biblical, thus should be rejected. And here is the response and the subsequent address of that response: A Facebook Poster said: Response: First, you did not give an example of this and the associated context that we might see this as a valid point. Secondly, You did not address the first point given as an affirmation of the error of Annihilation. There are at least three solid points for you to address before you give an "Oh yeah? But what about..." argument.  Third, we see the use of this word in a continuous context which, logically, brings a correlation to the use. Lastly, we can take a look at some of the uses of apollymi:
Mat 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which [was lost. G622]Did the Lord come to save those that did not exist? Again we see a spiritual context rather than physical, and it correlates to the destruction that will be eternal. Israel is called the "lost sheep." The Lord came to save that which was "...lost." Again we see a condition upon men that does not in any way imp[ly cessation of existence.
Mar 1:24
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come [to destroy G622] us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.Again we can draw a correlation between the destruction demons know they face, which is eternal judgment in Hell, and the destruction of the soul (person) and body (the everlasting body the lost receive in the resurrection of the dead (dead...because they do not have the life Christ bestows on born again believers)). Let's look at what they are facing:
Matthew 8:29 King James Version (KJV)
29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither [to torment G928 basanizō] us before the time?First we consider what it is they fear: basanizō-βασανίζω basanízō, bas-an-id'-zo; from G931; to torture:—pain, toil, torment, toss, vex. Nothing in this to suggest Annihilation, but the opposite, and exactly how it is translated...torment. Let's look at a few uses of the word: Mat 8:6
And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. G928
Rev 9:5
And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented G928 five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Rev 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented G928 day and night for ever and ever."For ever and ever" is a long time. And it does not imply there is an end, but the opposite. Hell was created for Satan and his angels/demons, and this is the same place the lost are thrown:
Matthew 25:41 King James Version (KJV)
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:Just as the fire is not quenched, even so here we see none other than Jesus Christ our Lord stating that the Goats (the unbelieving lost) will be cast into everlasting fire. There they will suffer the same torment (though Scripture teaches varying degrees of punishment) that demons receive. Everlasting. Forever and ever. Rob Bell may appeal to the gentle-hearted believer but he is a false teacher teaching unbiblical demon doctrine. One of the worst scenarios for those who also go around teaching it, as you are, is that those who despair in their hearts are not receiving the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they are given false hope of an easy out. Why not end it all and escape the suffering of this life, right? Now, not only do you have the points given in the first response, you now have this to address. While you do so I will address the rest of your response. Continued... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 16:41:02 GMT
A Facebook Poster said:
Response: Correct, but you cannot go outside of the context (and the revelation available to men in that day) to create the false doctrine of Annihilation. And I will make a brief point of your proof-text and if you care to respond I can definitely get more detailed, but I think most will see the point and understand it is not open for debate:
Ezekiel 18 King James Version (KJV)
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Again, "soul" is a reference to the person, not an immaterial aspect of man. While we see "souls in Heaven (Revelation 6:9; 20:4)," it still remains to "persons." John sees Persons in Heaven.
And how we can isolate this context is rather simple, we know in view is keeping, or not keeping...the Law:
Ezekiel 18:4-9 King James Version (KJV)
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,
9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.
We see that if a "soul" sins it shall die. How does that "soul" not die? Being just and doing what is lawful and right. Not eating upon the mountain looking to idols, not defiling his neighbor's wife. Not coming near to a menstruous woman. Not oppressing anyone. Restoring his pledge to the debtor. Non-violent. Charitable. Not imposed usury (interest on a loan). Fled iniquity. Executed just judgment. Has walked in God's statutes and kept His judgments(something impossible in reality in the Old Testament but promised to be a reality in the Kingdom by reason of the Promised Indwelling Spirit of God (Ezekiel 36:27)). Has dealt in truth.
Most can see the point is...keeping the Law.
And the result of keeping the Law is not Eternal Life (which is only possible through Atonement and Reconciliation to God through Christ), it is that a man may continue living physically. That is just a basic principle of the Law. Obey and live. Sin and die.
The Law imposed a physical sentence of death and pictures Eternal Separation. So when we approach this passage and turn "...the soul that sins shall die" into an eternal context and ignore the immediate context we wrest Scripture for the purpose of supporting our own doctrine. Again, physical life and death are in view, and in order to impose an eternal context into this passage, one must equally conclude that Eternal Life can be, in conflict numerous incontrovertible statements in the New Testament...obtained by keeping the Law.
Annihilation and Soul Sleep, both false demonic doctrines, are derived from a willingness to ignore context and the Whole Counsel of God's Word in favor of one's own doctrine. While that may satisfy cult members who look to men to tell them what they must believe, it isn't going to satisfy the serious Bible Student led by the Spirit in understanding.
Continued...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 16:49:51 GMT
A Facebook Poster said:
Response: No the debate is centered on what Scripture actually teaches, not what you and I think it means. And it is up to us to bring out of Scripture what is there. So far you have contributed nothing that supports Annihilation, nor have you addressed solid points that give a reason why Annihilation is a false doctrine.
A Facebook Poster said:
Response: Seriously? Two opposing views can both be correct? The Word of God is not a buffet for one to assemble a palatable philosophy easy on the sensibilities and emotions of men.
A Facebook Poster said:
Response: It absolutely is.
Anything that God's Word teaches as truth, particularly when it pertains to Eternity...
...is Essential Doctrine.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 17:04:57 GMT
A FacebookPoster said: "Those who hold to conditional immortality do not deny the resurrection of the dead, they believe the resurrection will be followed by judgement and punishment and then annihilation in the Lake of Fire which scripture says is “the second death”.
It doesn't change the fact that your doctrine corresponds to that of the Sadducees and is in conflict with the Doctrine of Scripture. I addressed this argument and did not rely on just the fact that the Lord rebukes the Sadducees for believing in Annihilation. You now have numerous points to contend with and to be honest I don't expect you to address any of them.
One thing I would suggest for consideration is...what exactly is the "first death?" Many think it is physical death, and that is a reasonable conclusion, however, man is dead before he dies physically:
John 6:49-53 King James Version (KJV)
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Moses was a "father in the Wilderness," and when his condition is compared in light of men eating of the True Bread from Heaven he is classified as...dead. The Lord clarifies His intent in v.53 by stating the only way to have that "life" is to eat of this Living Bread. And the "True Bread" and the Living Bread" is said to be...His flesh. Or in other words, the same thing He states necessary for men to be born from above and born of the Spirit (both referring to being born of God):
John 3:9-16 King James Version (KJV)
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So my suggestion for consideration is this: the "first death" refers to our state of death when we come into this world. We are...lost. Destroyed. Separated from God. This is in a temporal context, even as "the Lost Sheep" of Israel refers to their condition of separation from God based on Covenantal Relationship with God through the Law. The "Second Death" is an eternal context speaking of the Eternal Separation the Lost will suffer, where they will, like demons...be tormented forever and ever. The smoke of their torment ascends forever because the fire is not quenched.
Now, address these points and show me one positive statement in Scripture to suggest Annihilation. Or, at least...stop leading believers astray in false doctrine.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 17:20:13 GMT
A Facebook Poster said:
I didn’t contribute because I don’t have ANY desire to debate with someone who is dogmatic about their own view,
Response: Please. You are not dogmatic about anything? I think you need to seriously consider that playing with the Word of God is a dangerous thing to do. If you think you can go around teaching false doctrine then get offended when you are called on it you are in serious error about that too.
Stop playing games with serious issues that have eternal consequences.
A Facebook Poster said:
what would be that point?
Response: The same point in Paul going about "disputing" with those who, like you, believed false doctrines. The same point as the Lord and Apostles correcting those, like the Sadducees...who erred because they knew not the Scriptures nor the power of God.
A Facebook Poster said:
It would only cause argument,
Response: If there is argumentation it is on your side only. And you cannot argue the points made. If you could I am sure you would...and be dogmatic about it. As it is, because your doctrine is false and has no substance you are forced to resort to this type of response. When you can actually debate the issues let me know.
A Facebook Poster said:
which is not constructive if edifying.
Response: It is:
2 Timothy 3:15-17 King James Version (KJV)
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
A Facebook Poster said:
Your “solid” points are not so solid to me,
Response: Again, no substance. You are free to show the weakness of the points presented.
A Facebook Poster said:
the one you’re trying to convince.
Response: I have no illusions about being able to "convince" you, only God can do that. But, what I can do is try to help those you are trying to deceive to understand why your doctrine is to be rejected.
A Facebook Poster said:
Both are not correct but both are honest interpretations of the Bible,
Response: Again...seriously? You can't have two opposing "honest interpretations." That is absurd.
A Facebook Poster said:
and it’s not as clear which one is true as you seem to think.
Response: It is. Would you mind presenting a Scriptural defense for your doctrine?
A Facebook Poster said:
When I said it’s not essential doctrine I meant it’s not a salvation issue, such as the deity of Christ.
Response: It is a salvation issue, it is the consequence of rejecting God's will. "Life and Death" are a basic theme that threads it's way through the entirety of Scripture. Men must know the consequences of rejecting that will. And God has always given those two consequences based on the response of man to His will...life and death. And when we understand the difference between this theme in both a physical as well as an eternal context, we understand the necessity for proclaiming the bad news as well as the Good News.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 17:44:05 GMT
Another Facebook Poster said:
Darrell Conner, calling other believers "cult members who look to men,"
Response: I didn't call believers cult member:
"While that may satisfy cult members who look to men to tell them what they must believe, it isn't going to satisfy the serious Bible Student led by the Spirit in understanding."
What makes you think cult members are believers?
Another Facebook Poster said:
and their reasonable reading of scripture "false demonic doctrines" are conversation stoppers.
Response: That's the point, Steve:
1 Peter 2:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
Another Facebook Poster said:
You cannot argue against CI with any success,
Response: Until you can show why my position and the Scriptural support for it is weak this is a hollow statement. Understand that debate isn't just a matter of trying to be right, it's a matter of testing one's own doctrine. If I am wrong I am happy to have my brethren point out the error. But simply saying "You are wrong" isn't going to cut it.
Another Facebook Poster said:
because people like us will decline to speak to someone with your attitude.
Response: And what exactly does "people like us" mean? It certainly isn't a Christian trait, particularly in a context of defending the Faith and Apologetics. It is our Job to speak to people and the lion's share of that is telling people they are wrong in their worldview as well as their doctrine.
Another Facebook Poster said:
That is why there are more bible-believing Christians who hold to CI than you are aware of.
Response: And? Most Christians barely read their Bibles, much less study. Do you seriously think that because a lot of people believe something that justified their views?
Another Facebook Poster said:
And I've never read Rob Bell, either.
Response: So where exactly did you learn of Annihilation? How exactly did you conclude it was a viable position? THat is the point...show me from Scripture how you defend your doctrine.
Another Facebook Poster said:
It may interest you to know that most of the CI folks I know have studied the scriptures very carefully before changing their views.
Response: Right. This same claim was made to me by a Jehovah's Witness just the other day. Where is your Scripture. Where is your address of the points thus far presented?
Another Facebook Poster said:
Peace out.
Response: I am having a hard time seeing peace in this post.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2019 17:50:39 GMT
Another Facebook Poster said:
First, you should learn the difference between CI and universalism.
Response: I understand the difference. You want to show anything I said that indicates I don't?
Another Facebook Poster said:
You cannot oppose a teaching you don't understand.
Response: If you can read the posts I have thus far presented and conclude that I don't understand Annihilation I would love for you to show me where.
Another Facebook Poster said:
You should begin with trying to learn how CI interprets key passages.
Response: That is actually what I have been doing, trying to get you and those who have embraced Annihilation to present Biblical Support for their view.
It's simply not there.
Now, I am not going to get into the personal side of this discussion, I am only interested in discussing this from a doctrinal perspective. You can carry on the personal issues amongst yourselves. I will only respond to doctrinal posts from here out..
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 14:18:25 GMT
The following is a discussion that took place on Messenger. It is between myself and the husband of the first Facebook poster responded to in this thread. I wanted to present it in it's original form before addressing it to amke sure that the context remains pure.
When I get the time I will address your comments in that thread. You seem to thinks I have been rude however I am simply addressing what I view to be a damnable doctrine leading people astray. And I take that very seriously. You are welcome to visit magnitudeofthecross.freeforums.net to discuss it further.
I would suggest that you go to the forum where the entire conversation has been posted. While I certainly understand how someone disagreeing with your wife might bring an emotional response I want to point out that I don't think you've really grasped the seriousness of what has taken place in the discussion. I know a few things said are going to seem offensive but that is the nature of truth versus error. No one likes to be told they are wrong about something but that's why we appeal to Scripture as the mediator and final authority. If you read the thread you are going to find a serious attempt to address the issue and nothing I have said wasn't in response to either a question or a statement. I'll be happy to discuss this at length but you need to understand that I won't seek to justify myself. Only the doctrine. As to how effective a firm position is I would point to the example of Scripture. You place in a light of pharisee without considering that in those discussions the Lord shows why they are wrong. I've done that. Your wife and others promoting annihilation have not and have simply responded with personal attacks. Which fits better with the actions of the Pharisee? Come to the forum. You seem somewhat reasonable and I'd love to discuss this in depth.
Fine, when I get time I will post my response in the thread on Facebook.
I will forego further response until I address what has already been stated.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 15:37:02 GMT
I will leave the original statement intact and address it below. Hey there, you don't know me but I've been watching your responses on the free grace page to different people. Having not been accepted to the group myself I cannot reply to you on there, but you were easy enough to find to send a message to privately.
First I would ask why it is that you and your wife have such diverse beliefs that you cannot join the same groups? Is it because you do not believe in Free Grace and she does? I ask this because the issue of the thread is, as I pointed out, deeper than I think you understand and you increase the depth with this discrepancy between your views. I would point out that your philosophy that "agreeing to disagree" is harmful to you both, but more for you. You say later "As an example, my wife brought up how both points are biblical-meaning both are backed up by scripture," then you say "Neither my wife nor I believe that multiple truths can coexist and be true simultaneously, but you can believe that multiple viewpoints are possible." So which is it? Which of you is going to make a final ruling on how your household is going to believe? You are going to lecture me about how I teach and interact with people when you cannot even convince your wife of your own doctrine? You two need to be in unity in doctrine and the only way to accomplish that is to learn how to properly exegete the difficult issues that arise. Now I already know this is going to create an emotional response, so understand that I am pointing this out for your own good. While you have falsely charged me with making the belief in annihilation a salvific issue (which is why I asked you to review the discussion), the fact is that your understanding of the Grace of God is a salvific issue. Those who replace the grace of God and insert anything else are in danger of possessing a false profession of faith, for if you do not actually believe that it is Jesus Christ that has saved you it may be that you are trusting in something other than He for your "salvation." So as a suggestion I would seriously exhort you both to come into a unified understanding of Eternal Salvation, and it may be, when one of you can recognize their error, you might just become open to other errors.
Secondly, Your tirade does exactly what was done in the thread, you attack me and ignore the doctrine. I am sure you won't see it that way but no fear, I will show you as I go through what you have said.
Third, I will also show you the hypocrisy of your emotional response.
I'd just like to gently remind you that under no circumstances is anyone required to give you any opposition to your viewpoint.
I agree, everyone has a right to engage or not to engage, and the simple fact you have overlooked is that in the thread I simply responded to what was said. First, I responded to the OP and stated it was false doctrine. Then I responded to your wife's statement that my own view was opinion and her question as to whether I have studied the issue.
Now I am responding to you, and again...you are the one creating the need for response. And your response is absurd. You are going to lecture me about no-one obligated to give opposition to my views when...that is what you are doing? And in case you don't understand how let me help: you state...
Sorry but that is more error. You can't have two opposing views both being Biblical and "backed up by Scripture."
And that is the point in the thread...someone is wrong. I have shown my own support from Scripture and as of yesterday no-one else had. You say "You do not type your points clearly or concisely, and you look for an argument where there is none." This is the same statement made in the thread by both your wife and another poster. And it is a hollow statement until you show me why they are not clear or concise. Until you show me from Scripture why your view is right and my own wrong. I am quite happy to be shown in error and to correct my own view and have been doing that for years, but, I cannot do that based on nothing more than your opinions that have no Scriptural support.
No one is obligated to respond to you with points of their own at all, and no one (least of all my wife) is attempting to "convert" you to her way of thinking.
Sorry, but that is not the reality. Anyone teaching in a public forum is accountable to other Christians. You have tried to do this on a personal level with me yet you don't think this is an issue when it comes to Biblical Doctrine? Let me remind you that it is your wife that asked if I have studied this issue and I gave her three points which serve as part of the basis for my own view. This denies her charge that I was merely presenting my own opinion, because it showed an exegetical effort that supported the statement she called opinion.
Secondly, she is on a public forum promoting Annihilation which has been repainted as "Conditional Immortality." She makes herself accountable for doing this, but again I would point out that you are going to be held more accountable for her actions than she will be, because you are to be the spiritual head of the household. You can kid yourself with this "...I am not responsible for the behavior of others so for you to cite them is absurd. We are only responsible for our own actions." But it isn't going to align with the Biblical pattern of the responsibilities we have for one another. You might as well ask "Am I my brother's keeper?"
I'd also like to remind you that when you joined the group, the second question they ask you was "will you be polite" and as one of the more recent replies to you stated, much of your comments are conversation stopping and plain rude.
Read the posts...I was very polite. Granted some things said are going to sound offensive, as I said, but I don't retract a word I said. I do believe when people go around promoting false doctrines and refuse to even consider points made to show why the doctrine they hold to is in error that...they are playing with the Word of God. I do believe when people go around promoting false doctrines and refuse to even consider points made to show why the doctrine they hold to is in error that...they are leading others astray.
That you find it rude, then respond in a manner you are railing against...you show the hypocrisy of your heart. Or do you not think calling someone a Pharisee is an attack? Do you not think unsupported accusations are an attack?
I must have missed the scripture that makes allowances for rudeness on the basis of I think your interpretation is wrong".
Was it rude for Paul to withstand Peter to the face for his hypocrisy? It's the same thing whether you want to admit it or not, a direct address of false doctrine. And I would point out that while you state "You do not type your points clearly or concisely, and you look for an argument where there is none" you overlook the fact that the first response was a brief statement of basis for my view (which is obvious in the post), but I challenge you to critique what is said.
I also challenge you to point out the rudeness in the first three posts.
I also challenge you to deny the rudeness of your wife and her buddy.
Was it "being right" Jesus called us to be all the time?
Pretty much...yes. The Lord didn't take the "agree to disagree" philosophy that governs your life. Annihilation is a doctrine of cults and that is just a historical fact. It was rebuked of the Lord when the Sadducees sought to trick Him.
And I am quite sure you cannot recognize that trying to help others remove themselves from unbiblical doctrines is loving. I am very sorry for you.
A final word: tacking "god bless" at the end of your posts doesn't somehow make you in a more right favor or standing with the Lord any more than washing before eating did for the Jews of the time when Jesus walked the Earth.
Does tacking something like this...
...work better?
I understand you feel like maybe you need to address what you believe is false doctrine and I respect that.
No, actually you don't. If you did then you wouldn't have responded with an emotional attack upon myself, but addressed the topic of discussion.
If you did then you would have shown why the points made were in error. But since people embracing error doesn't seem to matter to you, it is no wonder you were diverted to simply attacking the only thing you could...those things which stepped on your toes.
But in doing so I urge you to pray about the best way, the most effective and most loving way to communicate with brothers and sisters about this.
The most loving thing I can do for you, my friend, is to be honest with you about your philosophy.
Because somehow I don't think that debating in a mean-spirited (whether intended or not) way is what Jesus Christ has called you to do regarding this topic.
How would you know? You have rejected a response to the false doctrine of the OP and the Scriptural support given for the opposing view. You seem to think that there can be two opposing views that can both be truth and...Biblical. Do you think that is how we show love to the lost and those caught up in false doctrines? You simply aren't being honest with me or yourself. Read the discussion again and show me the "rudeness."
Continued...
Just as a reminder I responded to the statements above with...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 15:40:40 GMT
I understand you view it to be a damnable doctrine, that is why I said I respect you're saying something about it.
You don't respect it. If you did you would not have responded with all of this personal nonsense.
No matter how wrong someone may be, one has to respect the notion that undergirds their action.
So you respect the "notion" that undergirds a Radical Islamist strapping on a bomb? You respect the "notions" that undergirds the missionary work of those who teach men will be gods and that Jesus is just one of many gods? Sorry but that is ridiculous.
So be it. Pastor James MacDonald said once that all truth with love is brutality, and all love without truth is hypocrisy.
That you cannot see love in my interaction in the thread doesn't nullify the reality of it. That you overlook my repeated attempts to maintain a doctrinal discussion with your wife and her buddies only to lecture me about how you think things should be done shows the shallow nature of your own reasoning. And by the way...not real impressed with James MacDonald.
I think it's an important balance that you're getting wrong.
Now, is that a fact, or an opinion? Just want to know if you even have the ability to discern your own statements and to examine yourself. You seem to have no problem examining others. And that is not entirely a bad thing unless you do it in the manner you have, which is to present a biased opinion of someone without a basis. Your charges are false. You call me a Pharisee when there is one distinct difference between myself and the Pharisees: my doctrine aligns with Scripture. Now, if you want to disprove that...great! THat is what I tried to do in the thread and what I have tried several times to do with you...get you to correct me.
ANd what I would point out is this: you show one of the most pure forms of hatred known to man...you simply don't care what others believe. You only care that no-one say what you believe is in error.
Now that is Pharisaical. At least I can defend my doctrine from Scripture, I don't have to do it "privately" because I am not allowed somewhere because of my beliefs.
Something the pharisees did constantly is attempt to prove their point over and Jesus said this was tantamount to swallowing a camel while straining out a gnat.
And?
I have proved my points. You are welcome to address any of the points made and show why they are unbiblical. You won't...because you can't. That is not arrogance, my young friend, that is confidence based on years of study and debate with people just like you. I already know most of your proof-texts are going to be taken from the Old Testament with an erroneous understanding of the term soul. It's the same tact taken by cults.
If you can't find it within your ability to talk with people while urging them seriously, warning them, AND being loving,
REad the first three responses again, and if you can, with a straight face, deny the seriousness and the urgent warning within I'd really like to see that. I don't expect you to see love in it because you don't seem to understand that your sugar-coated "agree to disagree" philosophy has no correlation to Biblical Doctrine. Not sure how it is that we have an entire Bible filled with direct and confrontational preaching of truth and you have somehow concluded that we are to go around sugar-coating the truth.
We see that in the new improved package of the ancient heresy Annihilation in "Conditional Immortality."
then it's possible it either isn't your calling or you aren't listening to the Lord in your crusade for the truth,
Well, when you can show how my doctrine is in error and yours is not you can talk like that. Until then all you have is hollow accusation and opinion.
and you are forgetting that the heart attitude and the WAY we present something is often as important as WHAT we present.
I agree, and my heart truly hurts to see people like you that have no interest in truth or Sound DOctrine but are more interested in making friends than disciples for Christ. My heart aches to see people leading believers astray into false doctrines, particularly when their reasoning is "a lot of people believe this now."
Your hunting an argument and demanding people fight with you,
I was simply responding to your wife's question and giving the reason for my view which she designated as opinion. It's not opinion, it's a view based on personal exegesis of relevant texts. I debate...people like you argue. That is why I stated in the thread I would only respond to doctrinal posts. I present arguments, and if you think you can...address them. Show why Annihilation is a sound view. Show how it is the biblical view...there can only be one.
maybe you ought to pray for those people if you believe they are wrong.
I do more than pray for them...I try to help them understand why it is error. That is what I attempted with your wife. You accuse me of being rude but the fact is there was not rudeness. Just because you operate from an emotional pulpit doesn't mean your antagonists do. I don't get offended. I don't let emotion interrupt the work I do.
Changing minds over the internet is difficult.
Let me clue you in on something: anyone can change a mind, but only God can change a heart. I might change someone's mind but someone can come right behind me and change it back. But if God changes a heart that is a done deal. That is the goal. So you might give some thought to your own approach and learn to prioritize what is essential.
The way you're going about doing it doesn't strike me as effective, but maybe I'm wrong.
I would agree...you're wrong.
About the thread, about the Doctrine, and even in your own assessment.
Note to the reader, this...
I would suggest that you go to the forum where the entire conversation has been posted. While I certainly understand how someone disagreeing with your wife might bring an emotional response I want to point out that I don't think you've really grasped the seriousness of what has taken place in the discussion. I know a few things said are going to seem offensive but that is the nature of truth versus error. No one likes to be told they are wrong about something but that's why we appeal to Scripture as the mediator and final authority. If you read the thread you are going to find a serious attempt to address the issue and nothing I have said wasn't in response to either a question or a statement. I'll be happy to discuss this at length but you need to understand that I won't seek to justify myself. Only the doctrine. As to how effective a firm position is I would point to the example of Scripture. You place in a light of pharisee without considering that in those discussions the Lord shows why they are wrong. I've done that. Your wife and others promoting annihilation have not and have simply responded with personal attacks. Which fits better with the actions of the Pharisee? Come to the forum. You seem somewhat reasonable and I'd love to discuss this in depth.
...was my response to the above comments.
Continued... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 16:17:19 GMT
The following quote (which is a response to the previous comments) prompted the comments addressed in this post:
Why not? Too good for that?
I appreciate the ad hominem by reducing my entire message string to an emotional response.
That is all it is. You do nothing but lecture me on how you think I should behave, lol.
You seem to fall victim to the same grievous error you accused my wife of doing, namely, ignoring my points to state your own.
And you seem incapable of following a conversation. What part of...
...did you not understand? As to your "points," you have made no points, you have simply expressed an emotional response. Nothing in your statements can be substantiated. You and you alone are judge yet you bring nothing to table that is relevant to the actual discussion of the thread.
I also said...
...which was another method of reaching out to you that we might have a discussion about your accusations, but as is typical with people of a more liberal bent...you refuse. You want to state your mind but refuse anyone to follow up.
That is why your wife and her buddies got upset in the thread.
Don't patronize me. I read the entire conversation. The seriousness from your perspective is one that a "damnable" offense
Perhaps you read the entire thread but but obviously you didn't understand it. Nowhere did I mention that Annihilation is a "damnable offense." What I said was that it was damnable doctrine, so lt me explain the difference: a damnable offense would rejecting Jesus Christ; damnable doctrine is doctrine that leads to men rejecting Jesus Christ.
(although nothing scriptural backs up that fact at all,
Again...a hollow statement. Because it is based on a false accusation, that I spoke of Annihilation as a "damnable offense."
As to whether there is anything to back up the charge that Annihilation is a damnable heresy...read the thread again, and this time take the blinders off. Just as you err in changing what I said to give you a platform to slander, even so I suggest you learn not to do that with the Doctrine of Scripture.
even widely known traditionalists understand that this doctrine is not soteriology AT ALL,
This is why I try to avoid discussions with people incapable of carrying out a Doctrinal Discussion because I end up dealing with what they think I said rather than what I actually said.
First, I have never said that one is going to Hell because they embrace Annihilation. This issue isn't even what I would consider one of the major errors in Modern Christendom today, though I do think it is an important issue, and that it is just one issue in which liberals are trying to redefine Scripture to fit their cultural needs.
Second, just because you have met others that follow your "agree to disagree" philosophy doesn't mean they set the standard.
Third, we cannot divorce a Soteriological element from the Doctrine of Eternal Judgment based on the fact believing a false doctrine won't send one to Hell. It is one of the only two consequences relevant to the Doctrine of Eternal Security.
your view is the extreme minority here regarding that)
Would you mind telling me how you arrive at that conclusion? Because you read it in a book somewhere? Do I think you will respond? No.
and mine is that it is NOT damnable, but I accept our differences about the topic.
Of course you accept it, lol, because in your mind you think you are right. Why I cannot know, because you refuse to actually discuss it. So does your wife. I am hoping there is someone in that group has the fortitude to actually present a Scriptural basis. So far what do I get...books by men. JWs and Mormons have books as well, and I view all of them in the same light. That is why I said the only mediator we have and the final authority is Scripture.
Incorrect. Truth versus error is not always offensive,
I never said it was. That doesn't change the fact that truth versus error always offends those who are in error, lol. And who exactly is it that has been offended? And what do they base that offense on? Rudeness? It's a false charge. Just as the doctrine is false.
and it was not you points that were offensive.
Yes, actually it was. Read your wife's response to what was an inoffensive response to her question. Why ask a question and then ignore the answer?
That too, I am sure...I get that a lot. Of course, it is usually only when debating liberals that I get this.
If you want to use that as a copout for "just telling the truth" then you may,
How you conclude a cop-out when I have responded to everyone that has addressed me is amazing. The only cop-out here is your response (as well as your wife's and her buddies'): if you want to use your self righteous and hypocritical indignation as a cop-out and ignore the doctrinal matters in view...okay. Just con't expect it to go unanswered.
you can do whatever you want to do,
No, actually I can't, because I don't view myself as having that liberty.
but you may be suffering from mild delusion and using that as a license to say whatever you want without feeling guilty.
Can I just ask, how is it that it is okay for you, in the midst of a lecture about what you deem to be proper Christian behavior...to continuously insult throughout it all?
But then, hypocrites never understand that they are being hypocrites, even if it is pointed out to them. You can deny this, but it is just the truth. I am a deluded Pharisee who does whatever he wants, lol...okay, so be it.
Continued... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 17:00:27 GMT
Have you actually sought the Lord on this topic at all?
When you can address what has been presented as a Scriptural Basis for my views then you might earn the right to question. Until then I will view this as a beam and mote issue, lol. I show my appeal to the teaching of God in the Scriptural presentations given.
Have you prayed for this topic?
I have for years studied this issue. If you want to criticize it...why don't you actually address the issue?
Do you really think that because you guys have read a few books that you can ignore some pretty basic truths of Scripture? Your doctrine is the doctrine of men and the reason I know this is because...you don't have a Scriptural Basis. I do. That is a fact that has been established in the thread.
Do you feel compassion for those you deem as damned for believing this doctrine you think is wrong?
Again...a false charge. You want to quote me as saying someone was damned?
Your problem is that your doctrine is a result of syllogistic rationalization, not efforts of exegesis. You erroneously conclude I have said someone was damned based on a previous error: "The seriousness from your perspective is one that a "damnable" offense."
As far as compassion goes, my compassion is reserved for those who are being led astray by false doctrines and false teachers. My goal is to be used of God to keep as many from going to Hell as possible, and the primary method is through the preaching and teaching of the truths of God's Word. You seem to have the impression that it's not important what people believe, but all truth of Scripture works towards that one same goal...Eternal Redemption.
You weren't having a conversation with people appealing to a final authority.
What twaddle. Anyone reading the posts can see that I gave a Biblical Basis for my views. The first post was a brief response when I had to get going but it gave enough to open discussion. There was nothing rude or offensive in it and that is just a fact. Your wife's reponse was nothing more than opinion.
You were picking and choosing what you wanted to hear and claiming YOU and only YOU knew the answer.
Twaddle. I was presenting what Scripture has to say and there was only the implication of me being right in the confident manner of the response. People don't usually say "GEe I hope I am right about what I believe," so you read into it arrogance and an unsubstantiated declaration of victory. The victory is actually due to the inability of an antagonist being able to show error or weakness in the argument.
As an example, my wife brought up how both points are biblical-meaning both are backed up by scripture.
And I addressed this absurdity:
Again, you can't have two opposing views both being Biblical. That is absurd.
That's why, for example, there is a very popular book that has recently come out about the four viewpoints of hell by Zondervan.
And this is why you believe this nonsense, because you are reading books about the Bible instead of reading the Books of the Bible.
Let me tell you something, and I hope you receive it: this is also why we have a debate as to whether it's okay to murder babies in the womb, smoke pot, and whether men in dresses should be able to use the Ladies' bathroom...because of people like you. People like you who have no absolutes and think we can "agree to disagree." I'm sorry but that is not a Christian position, there are absolutes and the idea that two opposing views can be Biblical is a demonic lie of Liberals. And just so you understand I am not saying that Liberals are demons but that the lie is.
Even the most seasoned and dogmatic believers in these different aspects of Hell are of the understanding that they can coexist without it being a salvific problem.
Truth cannot "coexist" with error. While it is true people can be saved and hold to erroneous doctrine, which is something I frequently mention in my discussions with people, it is not true that it is okay. And when it comes to Christians testing the doctrine and practice of other Christians this is a mandate from Scripture itself, both explicitly as well as implicitly.
Continued... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 17:40:10 GMT
I know that you believe that, and it's incredibly presumptive of you to lump everyone else into a category of attempting to "justify themselves", which is untrue.
Another example of your inability to follow a conversation and your tendency to impose what isn't said into your argument and response.
That I would not justify myself simply meant, if you had the desire to come on this forum and discuss this in detail...that I would focus on the doctrine of the issue, rather than all of this personal nonsense you seem incapable of refraining from. Something your wife and her buddies couldn't refrain from either.
Frankly what's happening is you see scripture and interpret it another way. That's fine.
I didn't have to interpret. Everlasting torment interprets itself. "The smoke of their torment ascends for ever and ever" interprets itself. The Greek means what it means and the context is clear, God doesn't kill both soul and body in Hell, He destroys both soul and body in Hell, and I didn't interpret that the "lost" sheep of Israel were under that same condemnation.
But then...all men are before Eternal Redemption.
Neither my wife nor I believe that multiple truths can coexist and be true simultaneously,
Sorry, but you have made it clear you do:
Because a book came out that makes it true? You affirm your wife's statement here. Let's look at that again:
but you can believe that multiple viewpoints are possible.
I agree, multiple viewpoints are possible but we don't make that to mean that multiple viewpoints are acceptable or that they are all Biblical.
If you find it acceptable that Mormons and JWs have a differing viewpoint from yours then you haven't learned yet to have compassion on those who are in error.
Some things are not really up for debate. Some things are.
[/quote] And the false doctrine of Annihilation is certainly up for debate, but undfortunately those teaching it don't want to debate it. They want to dwell in a smokescreen of evasion and personal attack. No. YOU provide scripture that YOUR estimation is evidence to their being wrong with the context you provide. Why thank you, That's how I saw it too. The fact is I didn't provide the context, the passages quoted did that. And we both know that none of you have the ability to address the presentations. You do not type your points clearly or concisely, So you say, lol. What you may not have considered is that it is simply over your head.Of course I don't expect you to admit that. and you look for an argument where there is none. There is no argument in a debate about Annihilation? Please, lol. Remember it was your wife that challenged my basis for my position, calling it "opinion." That initiated the debate, amigo, whether you want to admit it or not. I merely pointed out to you that your attitude was not dissimilar to that of the Pharisees. [/quote] And it is a false charge. As I said, the Lord showed the Pharisees why they were wrong and the Pharisees could not respond so they attacked His Person. Anyone with a shred of honesty and common sense can see who the Pharisees in this discussion have been. No one is obligated to respond to you at all, first of all. I agree, so tell me... why exactly are you responding?We, and no one owes you a conversation, least of all an argument. And this is typical among false teachers, they want people to accept what they say as truth without argument. Because they know that they cannot defend the nonsense they teach. And I do not believe my wife responded to you with a personal attack, but please cite it and show me. Let's start with her charge of "opinion." While you might not view that as an attack I do. She also said "I didn’t contribute because I don’t have ANY desire to debate with someone who is dogmatic about their own view." Again, an attack on me, rather than an address of the doctrine. Then we have the personal attacks by the other member (which if you want to see them simply read the thread, they're all there) which your wife "liked." Guilt by association is a reality, lol. Then finally we have your own attack. Do you deny the insults you have hurled are an attack? If so you are truly in a sorry place, my friend. I am not responsible for the behavior of others so for you to cite them is absurd. We are only responsible for our own actions. As mentioned before...you are. First, you are responsible for your wife (and the doctrine she holds to as you are to be the spiritual head of the household and the one that teaches her). Secondly, you are responsible for those you presume to teach...you will be held accountable for your teaching. Third, you are responsible for your brethren. Lastly, you are responsible for anyone you come into contact with...this is just a basic doctrine of the entire Bible. You're using a terrible argument by pointing to the error of others to somehow lessen your own error instead of taking responsibility for your own actions, rudeness, and general impolite attitude. lol...this is hilarious. It's okay to use the errors of the Pharisees to lessen the error of your wife, right? You have to prove rudeness and a generally impolite attitude. I feel I have been very patient with all of you. Again I am sorry the truth hurts but there isn't much I can do about that, or how you read into what I have said things that aren't there. Even if you were right that people were attacking your character or using personal attacks, how, in any system, does that absolve you of the things you've been accused of? I have nothing I need to be absolved of in this discussion. I tried simply to have a doctrinal discussion on one of the most damnable doctrines creeping into the Body and this was met with attack. If you think this conversation was bad I have no doubts you'd have a conniption if I started yanking a few chains, lol. And you? Can you admit that you have insulted me from the very first interaction with me? Was that not your singular intent? And as I said...just an emotional response due to someone being straight-forward with your wife, which I can fully understand...though not excuse. My advice to you, my friend, is that you limit your wife in associating unobserved in forums. If my wife was doing this and someone corrected her I would simply say "They're right," but...I wouldn't let my wife roam around on the internet in the first place. Twaddle. First, I told you I would have to respond when I got the time. And I am taking the time now. So you are a little premature in your charge. The statements on Messenger made it clear I didn't have time then and I simply made a few comments which were no different than the ones made on the Facebook page. But it's okay for you to say whatever you want, right? This is typical among Liberals (as well as false teachers), who want everyone to hear what they have to say but try to shut down opposing views. How's that working out for you? Ducking your responsibility and every spiritual argument about yo Speaking of delusions of grandeur, would you mind pointing out a single "spiritual argument" you or your wife or her buddies have made? You honestly believe insulting someone wothout cause is "spiritual?" [/quote] Note to the reader: the following statement is made by me after seeing that reasonable discussion wasn't being sought and that my antagonist was simply in the throes of an emotional response: Fine, when I get time I will post my response in the thread on Facebook.[/font] |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 18:19:47 GMT
Thank you for the invitation, but I'm not interested. Not surprised. None of you seem interested in reasonable discussion. It isn't your argument I truly dislike. Oh, that has been made abundantly clear, lol. Did you seek the Lord before you sought me out? Did you pray about it? Of course not. Hypocrite. What I would like to know is...where is the compassion? lol Now, what was that you quoted? Absolutely hilarious. I wish you could appreciate the humor you are supplying to this conversation. I have had conversations with traditionalists and we can agree to disagree, be cordial and even be friends. You say that like that is some great accomplishment. Perhaps one day you will be able to say "I have had conversations with traditionalists and they showed me the error of my position and I embraced Biblical Doctrine. You err in pointing out the errors of others to justify your own actions, lol. But you're unkind when you talk to people, no one feels compassion or even kindness from you, and I am not the only person who's pointed this out. Well that's funny, I just received a message the other day from a member who thanked me for speaking with someone in the group and for being kind, and that he knew that I was being led of the Spirit in my interaction with him. And the funny thing is this: I was actually yanking that guy's chain a little, lol. Exactly. I do hope you actually pray about this, and you actually seek the Lord's will on this before you respond to me, The prayer and understanding of God's will began long ago, likely while you were still in diapers. Well, now that we have been introduced I don't think you will have to wonder if you'll get a response out of me. Sorry if I seem curt with you. It's okay, really, as I said I understand. You might not understand this but you have expressed an emotional response. You have contributed nothing that is actually relevant to the topic of the OP but have instead indulged yourself in a childish tirade. You're a Christian brother and I hope the best for you. How can we be brothers when we are in such difference of opinion? Not just about Eternal Judgment...but about Free Grace? I don't assume anyone is a brother, that is something that is usually determined over a period of time, and it largely centers on what that person thinks they are saved by. If I am wrong I pray God shows me. He's trying. If you are, I pray he shows you. Me too, lol. You see my debates and discussions are not just a matter of me trying to prove I'm right and others are wrong, it is a most effective means of testing my own doctrine. As I said, Scripture is the mediator and the final authority, and while you denied this the fact is that I have given at least two presentations that rely on what Scripture states, not what I think. If you want to contest that great, but despite several invitations to do so you have refused, which sadly is typical in these kinds of debate. I hope I didn't come off rude. Have a good night. It was rude, lol, but again...I understand. My advice to you is to set your own house in order before you presume to do any cleaning in another man's. And my last statement (though I did also ask a question about two messages that came in that were deleted as "spam or as abusive" earlier, in regards to contact with this person (a knowledge of such was denied so I will give my antagonist the benefit of the doubt (though that is the first time that has ever happened)))) was this: God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 22:47:46 GMT
Even yet another Facebook Poster said:
I did not jump on your first post. Now you are simply being dishonest.
Response: You did:
Here's the entire conversation:
Even yet another Facebook Poster said: Mid Acts
Me: Not necessarily Mid-Acts. From what I understand about them they view the Disciples (Post-Pentecost) to be preaching a baptism unto repentance unto Jews rather than preaching the Gospel (at Pentecost). We can see clearly in Acts 2 that Peter is preaching the very Gospel of Jesus Christ and that the Mystery of the Gospel had been revealed to them. We see a distinct shift from confusion (Acts 1) to express Gospel preaching, the result of the revelation of the Gospel to them by the Promised Spirit. I will say that among all groups I do see that the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists do properly place the importance of the Mystery in their teachings. I personally do not view my own doctrine as Mid-Acts because I view everything prior to Acts 2 as Old Testament. The Revelation of the Hidden Wisdom of God/Mystery of the Gospel by the Spirit is a fairly easy point to support, as we see this mentioned numerous times.
Even yet another Facebook Poster said: Darrell Conner "From what I understand about them they view the Disciples..."
Who is the "they" and "them"
Me: Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.
Even yet another Facebook Poster said: Then you are mistaken. The reason they are called Mid Acts Dispensationalists is because they believe the mystery is revealed to Paul who becomes the first member of the present church in either Acts 9 (Stam), Baker (Acts 13) or Acts 18 (O' Hair). I do appreciate their works but in my opinion they take dispensationalism more than where it should be. Paul and the 12 teaching different gospels to two different audience is a stretch.
Me: Nothing I have stated is mistaken, but you are welcome to point out what you felt was. That I did not mention that some of them (not all) believe Paul received the revelation of the Gospel doesn't nullify my own statements. The reason I did not get heavily involved in discussing them is because my doctrine is not Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, nor is the OP a discussion of the various beliefs (there is more than one view among them). I am also a Trinitarian but that doesn't make me a Catholic, so please look at the doctrine and join the discussion concerning the topic before trying to determine what denomination or System of Theology you think I am a part of. Mid-Acts Dispensationalists are not the only ones that recognize the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the importance that plays to a balanced understanding of Scripture. Is there something in the OP you disagree with? Be glad to look at it with you.
Even yet another Facebook Poster said: No Mid Acts I know of view Peter preaching the Gospel at Pentecost. All of them view Acts 2 as a continuation of the Gospel program, hence, the kingdom program. Further no Mid Acts I know of teach that that the Mystery of the Gospel was revealed to Peter and the 12 in Acts 2, Mid Acts teach that this mystery is taught to Paul. They called the 12 as apostles of the Kingdom program, apostles to the circumcised while Paul is the first member of the mystery church, the apostle of the mystery program, a mystery that is not revealed before.
I am not after your own version of this view. I am addressing your own misrepresentation of Mid Acts. And no I never claimed that only Mid Acts recognize the mystery of the gospel of Christ and neither did I made any effort to identify your system of theology you are part of. Where did I say that?
I am addressing this: (here there is a picture of my original statement, see above to see what that was).
Me: If you would read what you are "addressing" you will see that you are charging me with the exact opposite of what I actually said: "From what I understand about them they view the Disciples (Post-Pentecost) to be preaching a baptism unto repentance unto Jews rather than preaching the Gospel (at Pentecost)." You say: . "No Mid Acts I know of view Peter preaching the Gospel at Pentecost. All of them view Acts 2 as a continuation of the Gospel program, hence, the kingdom program." See the problem? You also say: "Further no Mid Acts I know of teach that the Mystery of the Gospel was revealed to Peter and the 12 in Acts 2, Mid Acts teach that this mystery is taught to Paul." I didn't say Mid-Acts teach that in my post. What I did say was "...We can see clearly in Acts 2 that Peter is preaching the very Gospel of Jesus Christ and that the Mystery of the Gospel had been revealed to them." This is why I cannot associate myself with Mid-Acts, which brings us back to your charge that my doctrine is Mid-Acts. I have tried to explain why it is not but you continue to seek to find me in some error or another, which shows me you are not interested in the discussion of this topic, but only seek to argue. If you don't mind, try to focus on the actual topic of the discussion rather than...on me. If you disagree with what has been said, okay, I am used to that. 90% of the people I speak to reject it, not because they give any real thought to the doctrine itself, but likely because they don't think they can have been Christians for X number of years and never seen this. GIve it a chance, Dante. If you can deny my doctrine from Scripture then I will be forever in your debt, but...you are going to have to do it from Scripture, not in arguing about denominational Systems of Theology. I am part of no System of Theology, and just because there are similarities (which is going to happen among all denominations) doesn't mean I am part of any particular group. So do you have something you would like to contribute to the topic of the OP?
Even yet another Facebook Poster said: Do not be defensive. You are asking for a discussion, I am giving you one.
First, is this your summation of Mid Acts view or is this your own view being contrasted from Mid Acts view? (Another picture of what I said).
Even yet another Facebook Poster said again: Because that portion is what I am reacting against. No Mid Acts teach that in Acts 2 the disciples teach the Gospel of Christ. They see it as still part of the OT
Me: Did you read the response to your "reaction?" I didn't say they did, lol.
Me again: Nothing to be defensive about. Let me try to make what I said clear so we can get back to topic. Your initial response was "Mid Acts," and I am guessing because only Mid-Acts Dispensationalists have a focus on the importance of the Mystery of the Gospel. My response was... "Not necessarily Mid-Acts. From what I understand about them they view the Disciples (Post-Pentecost) to be preaching a baptism unto repentance unto Jews rather than preaching the Gospel (at Pentecost)." This part is a basic comment on what Mid-Acts holds to. The "Not necessarily Mid-Acts" implies why my doctrine is not Mid-Acts. The following statement... "We can see clearly in Acts 2 that Peter is preaching the very Gospel of Jesus Christ and that the Mystery of the Gospel had been revealed to them." ...is what I believe.
Even yet another Facebook Poster said: Okay. In that case we agreed.
1. You are right, I initially identify it as Mid Acts for reason you said.
2. What you believe is bookmarked by two Mid Acts statements. And so I taught you are saying that THAT is what Mid Acts believe and so I reacted against it. I do not believe in Mid Acts but I do not want them misrepresented.
Anyone can see who is being hostile, and...who cannot follow the context of a discussion. Here you tell me "Don't be defensive," lol, but seriously...what do you expect from people when you talk to them like this?
Even yet another Facebook Poster said:
I explained already our first encounter.
Response: No, actually you had to have it explained to you.
And I will continue here due to the amount of content already in this part of the response.
Continued...
|
|
