A Question for Brother Bill

I second that motion!!!

 

You also said you were once a Calvinist... Well we know you are not an Arminian and you are not a Calvinist because you say so yourself... I guess these brethren were reading my mind I had the same thoughts!... Are you free to tell us what you are so we can understand and is this Assumption Theology your own or are there others that think like you do?... Brother Glen

 

I knew this was coming. I've honestly tried to avoid it because I hate labels. Once a label is pinned on someone, its so much easier to dismiss their views as invalid. Calvinist should understand that better than anyone, am I right? People have a preconcieved idea about Calvinism or may have heard about some of the questionable practices of John Calvin and shut you off before they even hear your points. I know, I've been there.

I like to call myself a "Biblisist" (I know yall are going to hate me for that, shoot I would have hated someone for saying that when I held to Calvinism, but things change.)

I know I offend some of you, I really don't mean to. I respect you which is why I sign all of my post "With Respect." I just don't agree with the apparent paradoxes Calvinism forces on the scripture. (See my post in "Honest Question about OT Election")

So, I'll tell you that there is nothing really new about my views. They go back at least as far as Calvinism, but they weren't stamped with approval by Augustine and nicely systemtized by Calvin and Aminius in a cool little acrostic. So, they are not as fimilar to most.

But if your looking for a label, I'm not going to give it too you. You'll have to study it on your own and find it in the annuals of history. Sorry.

Love you guys, and I mean that sincerely,
Bro. Bill

 

Yup; that's a dirty word around here (Just ask ol' Helen)

 

Why is it that word always comes up... That must be the safety valve... Biblisist!... I guess that is one off from the mainstream paddeling their own boat!... Nothing wrong with that brethren I like those that stir up my faith and get me to dig and think... With all respect... Brethren may I introduce to you Brother Bill Biblisist!... Brother Glen

 

Thanks for the intro.....bow....wave....bow....wave

 

Maybe we should start a poll, What is Bro. Bill?

My guess; IFB

 

It just kills you to not have a label to slap on me doesn't it? Instead of trying to label me why don't you answer my question.

If Paul meant "all the saints" in Eph. 1:3-12 which is the Calvinistic assumption, why is that contradicted in chapter 3 verses 3-5 as compared to chapter 1 verse 9? Your assumption leads a contradiction in the text.

And guess what. NNE WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

Your silence on this question speaks volumes.

Bro. Bill

P.S. I'm not even sure what IFB stand for.

 

Bro Bill said: If Paul meant "all the saints" in Eph. 1:3-12 which is the Calvinistic assumption, why is that contradicted in chapter 3 verses 3-5 as compared to chapter 1 verse 9? Your assumption leads a contradiction in the text

Where is the contradiction, friend? Why have you ignored contexts, collapsed contexts, resorted to selective citing, provided inadequate evidence from the text, ignored alternate explanations, provided esoteric interpretations, begged the question, and shifted the burden of proof for a "new" point of view set forth by you?

I mean no disrespect, friend, but you misread Scripture because of your false assumptions about election and salvation.

I've said more than I desired, so forgive me.

Rufus

 

How do you know it's not your assumptions that are false. You still have not answered my question. I laid it out for you in the other post so I'll look for your answer there.

With respect,
Bro. Bill

 

I'm guessing that Brother Bill identifies more closely with oldline ultra-dispensationlism than anything else.

Am I close?

 

Sir, I HAVE ANSWERED your question, a couple of times. Sorry you missed it.

God Bless

Rufus

 

Sir, I HAVE ANSWERED your question, a couple of times. Sorry you missed it.
</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, could you name the place and time of that post so I can see how you handle 1:9 and 3:3-5 both being in reference to "all the saint" receiving the mystries from God.

Bro. Bill

 

Bro. Bill

A Question for Brother Bill #-Post 14
""""""""""""""""""""""""""" #-Post 3
""""""""""""""""""""""""""" #-Post 11
Unanswered Arguements...... #-Post 14
Calvinisn.................. #-Post 44

Please again read my responses carefully. You'll see I have answered you.

rufus (smile)

 

Rufus,

Nope. You never answered my question. You critique my hermeneutics and say you disagree in about four different ways but you never deal with the apparent contradictions in your assumption and the text.

You said that Eph. 1:3-12 was talking about all the saints. Therefore, according to your assumption verse 9 teaches that God revealed the mysteries to "all the saints." Which is a contradiction to what Eph. 3:3-5 teaches. How do you reconcile those two facts?

You have yet to answer that question in any of your posts. If you did, could you cut and paste the answer for me, because I can't find it anywhere.

Thanks,
Bro. Bill

 

Get real, Bill. You haven't demonstrated by any stretch of the imagination that Ephesians 1:9 must refer only to the apostles and prophets, and we have demonstrated why it doesn't make sense that it would address only the apostles and prophets. You can declare victory till doomsday, but you're only blowing hot air now (and, speaking for myself, boring me to tears).

 

If I bore you go put me on you ignore list.

God bless you,
Bill

[ February 12, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]