JonC,
.I never have and never will reject scripture, Scripture defines itself.
.I never have and never will reject scripture, Scripture defines itself.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
3 John
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
This is the right standard that we all should hold.
However, when it comes to views, often what we hold as Scripturally accurate, others may present as inconsistent, or even worse, a heresy (as one poster seems to be the favorite word about that which they disagree.).
For example: There are those on the BB that consider Christ drank intoxicating wine. I do not. What I hold, I consider founded upon Scripture and the principles of Scriptures.
Others disagree and think of my presentation as foolishness, unlearned,, or some other wording used to dismiss my view. That is fine. I am right, despite what anyone posts.
On this topic, perhaps it is the same principle. Two views, both held as Scriptural and engaging the principles of Scripture.
Some find such as "substitution," "wrath," ... in which I do not.
Amazing to me is that we both use the exact same Scriptures!
Where will this resolve? For me when I take that first breath of the celestial. All will be resolved.
Until then, let us all prove by Scripture our view and sometimes agree that ultimately He is to be praised in all we are.
I never said that you reject Scripture. I said that you reject Scripture as I define Scripture (solely what is written). You have demonstrated this when you tell us what Scripture says. You demonstrate this with the words that Calvinism is the gospel.
I am not trying to change your mind or demean your view, but at the same time there is no need to pretend we look at Scripture the same way.
If you and I held the same view of Scripture then we may still have disagreements but these would be disagreements in interpretation and application. But this is not the case.