2 Thess. 2:13-14, What does it say? pt2

[JonC]

The issue is you are posting ignorantly (I believe intentional ignorance).

I quote passages stating a dichotomy between the flesh and spirit.

I say Adam was created with a human body and a human spirit but still needed Christ.

I say Adam was not created with spiritual life as defined in Scripture (not temporary, in Christ, ect.).

I say Adam lacked this spiritual life and needed Christ as evidenced by his sin.

YOU say I believe Adam was "just a blob of flesh without a spirit."

Repent and stop lying.

This is not true.

@Salty

We have discussed this before.

I did say Adam was created flesh rather than spirit in a discussion about the flesh vs the Spirit (an obvious fact)...Adam was created with a physical body.

@Iconoclast was corrected and disciplined for lying when he lifted that out of context and placed it in a thread about whether Adam was created spiritually alive.

@Iconoclast was temporarily banned for that dishonesty.

He is doing it again.

@Iconoclast again leaves out my comment that Adam was created a human body and human spirit.

That is dishonest

I am requesting a permanent ban and a warning for @AustinC for feeding into @Iconoclast 's delusions.

 

[Marooncat79]

Not at all.

I hold the classic view of the Cross.

You and @Iconoclast hold a Reformed view of the Cross.

If that is too "liquid" for you and @Iconoclast , if the two of you cannot grasp views other than your own, don't blame me. That is YOUR fault.

I wish we had the ability to restrict forums to people who have a formal theological education. It would be much easier to discuss differences with people who grasp Christian theology (rather than only their own).

Unfortunately that is not the purpose of this board,vso we get ignorant replies such as the last few you and @Iconoclast posted.

Mature Christians realize orthodox Christianity contains views other than their own. They are able to learn those views and argue against them. You and @Iconoclast are beyond learning. You simple speak about what you cannot comprehend.

Jon. It is you and about 3-4 more who totally redefine theological terms when discussing theology

btw. We do realize there are differing views; however, all views are not necessarily acceptable and often have error.

in fact, you seem to be the one who always disagrees w 2000 of Xian theology claiming your view is the correct view.

I will ask this -

please name 4-5 people who espouse your view on this subject

 

[canadyjd]

….

I cannot agree with you that Paul was quoting a creed rather than delivering to us God's Word. But that has more to do about my view of Scripture than it does with you (I believe Scripture is God's Word).

The Apostle Paul was doing both… quoting a creed and delivering God’s word while under inspiration of God Holy Spirit.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Jon. It is you and about 3-4 more who totally redefine theological terms when discussing theology

btw. We do realize there are differing views; however, all views are not necessarily acceptable and often have error.

in fact, you seem to be the one who always disagrees w 2000 of Xian theology claiming your view is the correct view.

I will ask this -

please name 4-5 people who espouse your view on this subject

It has the do with theological positions. We view things from our perspective and it is natural to impose parts of this on others (making their view confusing because it does not fit).

Christian scholars like Torrance, Lewis, Denck, Schlaffer, Ridemann, Finger, Stiner, Yoder, R Wilson, and Kaufman hold my view. Going way back, Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, and Athanasius held my view.

 

[JonC]

The Apostle Paul was doing both… quoting a creed and delivering God’s word while under inspiration of God Holy Spirit.

peace to you

He could have been. Or he could have used his own words to express what was passed to him. We simple do not know because Paul does not say. He just gives the teaching.

 

[JonC]

Jon, for you to hold to the "Classic" view would be for you to have a systematic theology, which you tell us you don't have.
.

Quote where I said that I do not use systematic theology.

 

[canadyjd]

WOW!!! Things have gotten nasty. Closing this thread sooner rather than later would be a good idea.

Please don’t ban anyone over this over heated exchange.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

He could have been. Or he could have used his own words to express what was passed to him. We simple do not know because Paul does not say. He just gives the teaching.

Well, it seems problematic to me to say Paul was sometimes speaking the words of God and sometimes not.

That will just lead to ignoring passages of scripture we don’t agree with.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Well, it seems problematic to me to say Paul was sometimes speaking the words of God and sometimes not.

That will just lead to ignoring passages of scripture we don’t agree with.

peace to you

That is my concern.

I don't doubt that Paul's words could have been an early creed (Id think it very possible). But to claim Paul was simply repeating some early creed not recorded in Scripture as a formal statement of belief does cause issues.

I think it best to simply leave the passage as it stands. Paul was telling his audience what was handed down to him (not necessarily the exact words as a formal statement, but the important doctrines).

 

[JonC]

You have never quoted where Iconoclast ever made such a claim. He has asked you, on multiple occasions, to provide the quote.


You made a false assertion. Should you not apologize?

@Iconoclast provided the quote (and again made the false claims).

Should you now not apologize?

 

[JonC]

Jon, for you to hold to the "Classic" view would be for you to have a systematic theology, which you tell us you don't have.
You cannot even define your view, let alone a "Classic" view of the Cross.

First, I never claimed not to use systematic theology. I have a Masters in Theology (Systematic Theology).

Second, I have explained my views and provided scholars past and present who hold my view. I have done this many times, even quoting Systematic Theologies so it wouldn't be my words. But even when I provide the words of others you say that you can't understand.

That isn't my burden. It's yours. You bear it, not me.

 

[Marooncat79]

It has the do with theological positions. We view things from our perspective and it is natural to impose parts of this on others (making their view confusing because it does not fit).

Christian scholars like Torrance, Lewis, Denck, Schlaffer, Ridemann, Finger, Stiner, Yoder, R Wilson, and Kaufman hold my view. Going way back, Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, and Athanasius held my view.

Have heard of none that I recognize other than the church fathers. Thanks

 

[JonC]

Have heard of none that I recognize other than the church fathers. Thanks

You are welcome.

We typically know only those who teach in our traditions. I know your scholars because they once were (and in many ways are still) mine. But churches that are of the Reformed traditions (regardless of degree) typically look to scholars who will come to the conclusions they want to hear.

A couple of "my" scholars were praised in Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian churches. They relied on these people's expertise, that is until they came to different conclusions and were quietly replaced.

I believe scholars should be scholars. They are experts in their field even if they come to different conclusions. Examine their findings (they are often very close) and consider their conclusions against Scripture.

 

[canadyjd]

That is my concern.

I don't doubt that Paul's words could have been an early creed (Id think it very possible). But to claim Paul was simply repeating some early creed not recorded in Scripture as a formal statement of belief does cause issues.

I think it best to simply leave the passage as it stands. Paul was telling his audience what was handed down to him (not necessarily the exact words as a formal statement, but the important doctrines).

As you know, much of the early church membership was illiterate. Any “formal” statement would have oral in nature.

I don’t see any problem with this statement being an early “creed” that captured the essence of Apostolic teaching that such membership could understand and remember.

And, who knows, maybe Paul was repeating his own words to them. He constantly reminded people of what he had taught.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

As you know, much of the early church membership was illiterate. Any “formal” statement would have oral in nature.

I don’t see any problem with this statement being an early “creed” that captured the essence of Apostolic teaching that such membership could understand and remember.

And, who knows, maybe Paul was repeating his own words to them. He constantly reminded people of what he had taught.

peace to you

At one time we thought they were mostly illiterate. Now discoveries are challenging that idea. Jews were often educated in synagogues (often reading Scripture). The Apostles wrote letters to churches.

But it doesn't matter here.

The question is whether Paul wrote a memorized creed as if it were his own words or if Christians used his words as a creed. The latter seems more likely to me.

 

[JonC]

Jon, for you to hold to the "Classic" view would be for you to have a systematic theology, which you tell us you don't have.

Again, please have the integrity to support your claim by quoting me saying I do not have or use systematic theology.

I have a Masters in theology (systematic theology). How on earth did you grow to think I avoid systematic theology???

Everybody uses systematic theology (whether they know it or not).

You post the craziest accusations.

 

[JonC]

read all of it

I have.

You take my statement - that Adam was created flesh, not spirit, with a human body and a human spirit - out of context. You lied and posted that I believe Adam was created a blob of flesh without a spirit.

When you take a person's words out of context and use them to mean something entirely different (the thread was about spiritual life) that is being dishonest.

You do use some of my words, but you do do without integrity. You lied, plain and simple.

That is why I responded by attributing your false accusation against me as a statement of your belief (to show you what you were doing).

You owe me an apology. More than that, you owe this board an apology. More than that you need to repent of the sin.

 

[Marooncat79]

Again, please have the integrity to support your claim by quoting me saying I do not have or use systematic theology.

I have a Masters in theology (systematic theology). How on earth did you grow to think I avoid systematic theology???

Everybody uses systematic theology (whether they know it or not).

You post the craziest accusations.

Where is your degree from?

 

[JonC]

Where is your degree from?

No. You'll make fun of me .

Just kidding. It was from Liberty.

To their credit I was a Calvinist by the time I graduated. I turned heretic years later when I was preaching.

I graduated with honors (if you were wondering) and was invited to do a post graduate program studying Christian history (I couldn't...had to care for my family). But I absolutely loved Christian history (perhaps more than theology).

But degrees do not mean everything. I came to my position long after seminary, and one does not need a degree to know God or understand Scripture. Scripture was not written for the academic but for every person who believes.

Where it helps us knowing about other views throughout Christianity. Too many want to call any Christian position different from there's unorthodox when many times those views are much older and widespread than they imagine.

How about you?

I know you are a SC brother (I'm originally from Spartanburg but now live in North Augusta). My son almost went to Anderson (went to Charleston Southern instead).

 

[Marooncat79]

I live in Spart county about 3 min from BMW

in Reidville actually but they call it Greer which is just stupid