Featured Magic Blood Theory

This is a false accusation

@agedman and I have provided Scripture, we have sought out Scripture, and there is nothing in our posts that you can point to as unbiblical.

What you argue against is Scripture (is what is written in the text of Scripture).

You hold a Reformed Roman Catholic faith. You believe a theory that your "pope" (the Reformers) came up with about 700 years ago.

You are unable to provide any Scripture that states what you believe yet you believe Sctipture "teaches it".

@Iconoclast said Scrioture does not mean what it says, but progressively reveals what it means. I e. "progressive revelation". God revealed this previously hidden truth to the Reformers. We have to connect the dots of Scripture....fill in the blanks. God gave us Reformed teachers to lead us on the path to "properly understand" Scripture. That is the mark of cults. I'm not saying you lack salvation, but you are closer to a cultists than a Christian on this topic.

What we (@agedman ) have rejected is the things you carry into Scripture....your additions and small changes to God's Word.

The reason is he and I believe what is written and believe Scripture teaches what is written in Scripture rather than what is absent from the text if God's Word.

 

I agree. This is why I have continued urging we stick to Scripture

 

I was thinking the same of you. We are held at a greater level of accountability when we seek to teach others.

All I (and @agedman ) have been asking for is your belief actually stated in Scripture. By your own admission it is not there (in what is written).

The difference is the standard by which we accept doctrine.

@agedman and I have restricted this to Scripture. Our appeal has been to God's Word. Yours has been to what you believe Scripture "teaches". @Iconoclast 's has been to the Reformed teachers he follows.

We hold a different criteria for doctrine. So we will never agree. You and @Revmitchell can never prove your faith via Scripture because it depends on human reasoning and philosophy. @Iconoclast 's faith depends on elevating Reformed teachers to a level approaching little popes.

But @agedman and I have stuck exactly with what is written in God's Word and we will be persuaded to change our views only by what is written in Scripture.

@Revmitchell is right. It is a waste of time. I proclaim God's Word and you proclaim what you believe God's Word teaches.

 

The issue is you and @AustinC cannot show a place where @agedman and I have strayed from the text of Scripture. We can show where you and @AustinC have departed from the text of Scripture.

Your defense is "that is what it teaches". But what if Scripture actually teaches what it says (what is written). Then you and @AustinC are under a "greater condemnation".

I am more comfortable answering for teaching the actual Word of God than I would be teaching your ideas about what it really means.

 

No, it isn't.

I have told you what I believe. I have provided Scripture that states exactly what I believe.

You have told me what you believe. You cannot provide Scripture stating what you believe but instead say what you believe is what Scrioture "teaches".

This is a fundamental difference between our understanding.

I understand what you believe. I believed as you for decades.

I chose to abandon what you see (and I saw) as "taught by Scripture" for what is actually written in God's Word.

You call belief in the text of Scripture "unbiblical" and what you feel is taught by Scripture as "biblical".

We disagree. Before a discussion can be had basic presuppositions must be agreed upon.

I will not accept the idea that men's understanding of what Scripture "teaches" is the standard by which we evaluate doctrine.

You will not accept the idea that what is written in God's Word (the text of Scripture) is the standard by which we evaluate doctrine.

Therefore there is no legitimate conversation or debate to be had.

I was not intending to debate you, but to give you an opportunity to change my mind by providing passages that actually prove your view...passages that I (as a finite human being) may have missed.

Obviously no such passages exist (passages that state your position).

Had I wanted your opinion about what Scripture teaches then it would be different. But I do not care about your opinions as for most of my life I held the same opinions.

What observers need to take note of, my whole point, is that @agedman and my view is actually in God's Word (it is "what is written" and what us written again).

Your ( and @Iconoclast , @Revmitchell , and @Aaron ) faith is based not on "what is written" but what ypu feel is taught in the Bible.

The problem is you cannot test your faith against "what is written" because it is not there. The best you can do is try to make sure that Scripture can be used to prop up your belief.

The problem with this type of thinking was made obvious when @Iconoclast called my belief that "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross" proof of error as he claimed Scripture does not make that claim. He dismissed "what is written" in favor of what he believes Scripture "teaches". It was made obvious when @JesusFan objected to quoted passages about our Justification not being "Pauline Justification".