Search results

Thanks for your reply. I am not certain what your first sentence is saying. Would you mind unpacking it for me?

They were my words, so if they are anti-intellectual, I would like to know because I will step on my own toes if they are. Also, the OP is an article from R. Scott Clark. He's not exactly a redneck — by anyone's definition, I would think.

My opinions on that subject are all over BB. Knowing that, would you say that I am an anti-intellectual?

Care to address the second half of my statement?

Most non-Cals I talk with seem to exclusively refer to the Church universal, and ignore the reality that churches had names, and those names where after the cities and villages they were in. I assume you hold to a both/and view on this subject. Am I right?

I'm asking your opinion. Do you have one?

Thanks, but do you think it's realistic and fair to "jump in" yet not be willing to debate specific posts? Are you saying, I want to comment but not debate? If so, isn't that a lecture, not an exchange of ideas among brethren? It seems to me that Biblicism, like Marxism, assumes the that only...

What is mercy?

I did not mean to implicate him alone. I am a vile sinner saved only and fully by God's grace.

Yes. This hits upon what the heart of my intention in bringing up the subject was. Th above thinking (which I know is not yours) is completely backwards. Our personal interpretation is subject to the teaching of the Church. We may only veer from the teaching of the Church when the Church departs...

Do Christians have different gifts? Is there a variety of gifts distributed by God in the Church?

Hank is a very likable guy, and he's sharp. That said, I can't think of a single engagement with him that ends up any differently than your experience. It would be more pleasurable to bang my head against a brick wall, than continue some "discussions" with him, so, point taken. I do want to...

Yes. You are right, and I'm a fool for expecting common sense to be common. Thanks for your input in this thread. It is a serious subject which I think deserves serious thought and discussion, but, again, I'm a fool for thinking such is possible here.

I've never met a person who knows what an article he hasn't read says, but if you say so. . .

The Sproul quote you posted is helpful, I think. Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If, upon reading a particular passage, you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been...

There will always be some redneck who might applauded such a thing, but "most folks here" is not accurate. Generally speaking, Conservatives are far more willing to be critical of their own leaders because our fundamentals are Liberty and the rights of the individual over the group...

Put simply, inerrancy is a meaningless concept if interpretation of the Bible is up for grabs. If we approach God's Word in the careless way in which I think Biblicism does, with every man his own final authority, then inerrancy is a functionally meaningless concept.

To take up arms offensively against a sitting president is a coup. You can't shoot people because you disagree with their politics.

Obama, specifically. Imagine the non-stop rioting if a Republican said the very same things regarding Obama!

I believe we have, but have we convinced anyone to repent of his error in this regard? I think not, so we must ask, is it more important to win a debate or persuade a man of his error?