Dead To Sin

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Instead of philosophy, let's concentrate on "rightly dividing the word of truth."

HP: Like it or not, believe it or not, you, as well as every last one of us, utilizes a philosophy, and that by necesssity, either stated or implied on a post by post basis. No man approaches the Word of God or any other issue for that matter apart from the utilization of philosophical notions, JM included.
I will demonstrate the truth of what I am saying in a thread designated to that purpose.

 

[DHK]

HP: Like it or not, believe it or not, you, as well as every last one of us, utilizes a philosophy, and that by necesssity, either stated or implied on a post by post basis. No man approaches the Word of God or any other issue for that matter apart from the utilization of philosophical notions, JM included.
I will demonstrate the truth of what I am saying in a thread designated to that purpose.

True Bible exegesis founded on proper hermeneutical principles does not demand philosophy. Because you put your philosophy above the Bible you demand philosophy and rely on philosophy. That is truly sad. The Bible interprets itself without philosophy. Try it. It would do you some good.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Like it or not, believe it or not, you, as well as every last one of us, utilizes a philosophy, and that by necesssity, either stated or implied on a post by post basis. No man approaches the Word of God or any other issue for that matter apart from the utilization of philosophical notions, JM included.
I will demonstrate the truth of what I am saying in a thread designated to that purpose.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The Bible is God's book of philosophy and when it is allowed to interpret itself by comparing scripture with scripture within the framework of adhering to the contextual line of development that is all the philosophy one needs

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: The Bible is God's book of philosophy and when it is allowed to interpret itself by comparing scripture with scripture within the framework of adhering to the contextual line of development that is all the philosophy one needs

HP: You are blind to your own necessitated use of philosophy, but with the Lord’s help I will keep reminding you as we go along.:thumbsup:

As for comparing Scripture with Scripture, that is only used by you if it supports your presupposition of OSAS. When it shows your stated conclusions to be in error, you refuse to compare your conclusions to anything, Scripture included. Case in point, the issue of God’s will that was pointed out to you recently.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

HP: Let me give you a clear example of that. One such philosophical issue of which Augustine was noted as the father of, was the issue of original sin. That notion was a direct result of the heathen philosophy Augustine was steeped in, that centered the issue of sin in the flesh and not in the will. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

HP: You are blind to your own necessitated use of philosophy, but with the Lord’s help I will keep reminding you as we go along.:thumbsup:

As for comparing Scripture with Scripture, that is only used by you if it supports your presupposition of OSAS. When it shows your stated conclusions to be in error, you refuse to compare your conclusions to anything, Scripture included. Case in point, the issue of God’s will that was pointed out to you recently.

With a slip of the tongue HP admits that OSAS is a Biblical doctrine and not a philosophy, and all other doctrines that go against OSAS are based on philosophy rather than the Word of God. Good going HP! Keep it up. :thumbsup:

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: You are blind to your own necessitated use of philosophy, but with the Lord’s help I will keep reminding you as we go along.:thumbsup:

As for comparing Scripture with Scripture, that is only used by you if it supports your presupposition of OSAS. When it shows your stated conclusions to be in error, you refuse to compare your conclusions to anything, Scripture included. Case in point, the issue of God’s will that was pointed out to you recently.

That is not factually true! I demonstrated by the context and context ALONE that your view of God's will was wrong. The fact that Christ immediately after saying "that I should lose nothing" goes on to state "but should raise it up at the last day" demonstrates it was not merely the will of desire but the prophetic will of certainty. Again "should" is the past tense of "shall" demonstrating certainty rather than speculative potential.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Let me give you a clear example of that. One such philosophical issue of which Augustine was noted as the father of, was the issue of original sin. That notion was a direct result of the heathen philosophy Augustine was steeped in, that centered the issue of sin in the flesh and not in the will. :thumbsup:

Go back and look at all your responses to my posts. There is one unvariable characteristic of every exchange between us. I consistently stick to contextual based arguments based upon syntax, grammar and immediate context and choice of terms used in the context and you consistently either pit scripture against scripture or go outside of the context or to philosophy as the basis for your responses - always without exception.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

By the way, you forgot the most important part. You always seem to end up in the same old Calvinistic quagmire of necessitted deterministic fatalism as a result. There is clearly a fly in the soup.

 

[DHK]

By the way, you forgot the most important part. You always seem to end up in the same old Calvinistic quagmire of necessitted deterministic fatalism as a result. There is clearly a fly in the soup.

Not worth responding to.