Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 23:25:45 GMT
Facebook Poster said:
You yourself said you agreed with Mid Acts emphasis on mystery doctrine. And your one point in your first post where you show you disagree with them is poorly written and you have bookmarked between two Mid Acts statements.
Response: Nothing "poorly written," it was a matter of poor comprehension which is likely due to the fact that you had no interest in the OP but were simply looking to set someone straight. I let it go but if you want to take this kind of approach with me I am more than happy to respond.
Facebook Poster said:
The links I posted are all discussions of ECT, universalism and annihilationism IN THIS GROUP.
Response: And?
How is that relevant to answering a simple question? Do you always refuse to answer simple questions and ask your antagonists to go read a bunch of material to find an answer for themselves? I know what the next step would be, you'd deny what was found was understood in a proper context, lol.
Facebook Poster said:
How can these be unrelated?
Response: They may be related but all I did was ask you a simple question. Here it is again: Would you mind both giving a Scriptural presentation for the validity of Annihilation and secondly explaining how both views can be correct?
That you say both views are possible doesn't change the fact that one or the other is in error. And if you haven't studied this enough to positively draw a conclusion perhaps you should rethink trying to go around telling other people what it is they should say.
My question was prompted by this statement: "I believe in ECT but will concede annihilationism is within the fold of orthodoxy. Universalism though is definitely unbiblical."
Go find a dictionary and present a definition that makes Annihilation something that is viewed by the Body of Christ as part of Christian Doctrine. If you would prefer I can supply that for you. Annihilation is not "within the fold of orhtodoxy."
Facebook Poster said:
If you did not click them, that shows you are not interested in civil, informed and gracious discourse.
Response: I'm not interested in civil, informed and gracious discourse? That's hilarious. First, you will have to point out where exactly I might find that, because it has never been in any exchange you and I have had. Secondly, if you think that someone has to chase after an answer to a simple question by reading five threads you have lost your mind. Lastly, you are not really a good example of someone who can properly define what is civil, informed and gracious discourse.
Facebook Poster said:
You just prefer to run your mouth without trying to understand where the other is coming from.
Response: On the contrary, lol, I "run my mouth" because there is nothing that you have discussed with anyone that is likely going to be an argument I have not already heard and addressed. And probably most of them were addressed while you were still in diapers, lol. But thanks for that graceful description of my posting.
Facebook Poster said:
You would have known why i believe in ECT, and not CI or universalism.
Response: But you do believe in Annihilation as potentially a valid doctrine, which means that your own doctrine simply isn't trustworthy. And the sad thing is you don't even know you have made that clear. Perhaps if you spent a little more time in study, and even perhaps studying your own statements...you might be able to draw a dogmatic conclusion as Christ and the Disciples did.
Facebook Poster said:
"Perhaps they can "hold their own" with you"- see you view yourself as an expert others cannot hold on to you.
Response: Not at all, I simply view your own statements as absurd. Sorry. You have proven in these two encounters that you really have no business trying to teach anyone anything. Christian Doctrine isn't something we guess at. When I ask you to support your absurd statement that is what I expect, a simple answer to a simple question. But I suspect the real reason you refuse to answer is that you are novice in your understanding.
Facebook Poster said:
If you click the links they do support their views with passages with valid arguments.
Response: Just because you think they support their views means nothing. You can't even read a short statement without going on a tirade as though Mid-Acts Dispensationalists need you defending them (which is a suspect excuse as far as I am concerned). Mid-Acts Dispensationalists could teach you a thing or two about Free Grace. And that is precisely because they understand the significance of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ.
Facebook Poster said:
It is a matter of HOW YOU DISAGREE with their interpretation of the Scriptures.
Response: No, actually it isn't, for two reasons: first, you show that you believe you think you can run rough-shod over people. How's that working out for you? Secondly, "how I disagree" is through doctrinal discourse. You can try to deny that if you like but it will be as hollow as most of the responses I've received. Go address the points I made and then explain why no one who embraces Annihilation has.
Facebook Poster said:
But of course you will not know that since you did not see the history of debates in this group.
Response: I doubt seriously that if you took all of your time in debates and discussions and then multiplied that by ten that you would come close to the time I have spent in debate. I don't need to know the history of debate in this group for two good reasons: first, many of those who may have supported it or denied it before may have changed their minds, so sorry to inform you but for most people their views have an expiration date. If you read this thread you will see one member go from "Seriously considering it" to an absolute staunch defender of this false doctrine...in just a few comments by the one teaching it. Simply hilarious, but tragic as well. Good thing salvation isn't through common sense, right? The other reason is that if we know Biblical Doctrine what others believe and have said in the past...isn't going to change anything.
Continued...
You yourself said you agreed with Mid Acts emphasis on mystery doctrine. And your one point in your first post where you show you disagree with them is poorly written and you have bookmarked between two Mid Acts statements.
Response: Nothing "poorly written," it was a matter of poor comprehension which is likely due to the fact that you had no interest in the OP but were simply looking to set someone straight. I let it go but if you want to take this kind of approach with me I am more than happy to respond.
Facebook Poster said:
The links I posted are all discussions of ECT, universalism and annihilationism IN THIS GROUP.
Response: And?
How is that relevant to answering a simple question? Do you always refuse to answer simple questions and ask your antagonists to go read a bunch of material to find an answer for themselves? I know what the next step would be, you'd deny what was found was understood in a proper context, lol.
Facebook Poster said:
How can these be unrelated?
Response: They may be related but all I did was ask you a simple question. Here it is again: Would you mind both giving a Scriptural presentation for the validity of Annihilation and secondly explaining how both views can be correct?
That you say both views are possible doesn't change the fact that one or the other is in error. And if you haven't studied this enough to positively draw a conclusion perhaps you should rethink trying to go around telling other people what it is they should say.
My question was prompted by this statement: "I believe in ECT but will concede annihilationism is within the fold of orthodoxy. Universalism though is definitely unbiblical."
Go find a dictionary and present a definition that makes Annihilation something that is viewed by the Body of Christ as part of Christian Doctrine. If you would prefer I can supply that for you. Annihilation is not "within the fold of orhtodoxy."
Facebook Poster said:
If you did not click them, that shows you are not interested in civil, informed and gracious discourse.
Response: I'm not interested in civil, informed and gracious discourse? That's hilarious. First, you will have to point out where exactly I might find that, because it has never been in any exchange you and I have had. Secondly, if you think that someone has to chase after an answer to a simple question by reading five threads you have lost your mind. Lastly, you are not really a good example of someone who can properly define what is civil, informed and gracious discourse.
Facebook Poster said:
You just prefer to run your mouth without trying to understand where the other is coming from.
Response: On the contrary, lol, I "run my mouth" because there is nothing that you have discussed with anyone that is likely going to be an argument I have not already heard and addressed. And probably most of them were addressed while you were still in diapers, lol. But thanks for that graceful description of my posting.
Facebook Poster said:
You would have known why i believe in ECT, and not CI or universalism.
Response: But you do believe in Annihilation as potentially a valid doctrine, which means that your own doctrine simply isn't trustworthy. And the sad thing is you don't even know you have made that clear. Perhaps if you spent a little more time in study, and even perhaps studying your own statements...you might be able to draw a dogmatic conclusion as Christ and the Disciples did.
Facebook Poster said:
"Perhaps they can "hold their own" with you"- see you view yourself as an expert others cannot hold on to you.
Response: Not at all, I simply view your own statements as absurd. Sorry. You have proven in these two encounters that you really have no business trying to teach anyone anything. Christian Doctrine isn't something we guess at. When I ask you to support your absurd statement that is what I expect, a simple answer to a simple question. But I suspect the real reason you refuse to answer is that you are novice in your understanding.
Facebook Poster said:
If you click the links they do support their views with passages with valid arguments.
Response: Just because you think they support their views means nothing. You can't even read a short statement without going on a tirade as though Mid-Acts Dispensationalists need you defending them (which is a suspect excuse as far as I am concerned). Mid-Acts Dispensationalists could teach you a thing or two about Free Grace. And that is precisely because they understand the significance of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ.
Facebook Poster said:
It is a matter of HOW YOU DISAGREE with their interpretation of the Scriptures.
Response: No, actually it isn't, for two reasons: first, you show that you believe you think you can run rough-shod over people. How's that working out for you? Secondly, "how I disagree" is through doctrinal discourse. You can try to deny that if you like but it will be as hollow as most of the responses I've received. Go address the points I made and then explain why no one who embraces Annihilation has.
Facebook Poster said:
But of course you will not know that since you did not see the history of debates in this group.
Response: I doubt seriously that if you took all of your time in debates and discussions and then multiplied that by ten that you would come close to the time I have spent in debate. I don't need to know the history of debate in this group for two good reasons: first, many of those who may have supported it or denied it before may have changed their minds, so sorry to inform you but for most people their views have an expiration date. If you read this thread you will see one member go from "Seriously considering it" to an absolute staunch defender of this false doctrine...in just a few comments by the one teaching it. Simply hilarious, but tragic as well. Good thing salvation isn't through common sense, right? The other reason is that if we know Biblical Doctrine what others believe and have said in the past...isn't going to change anything.
Continued...