Angelic Conflict

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by Alex QuackenbushThe Angelic Conflict or as Barnhouse called it, The Invisible War, covers in detail the direct, implied, deduced and theological conclusion regarding the teaching of the fall of Satan and its co-terminus ending with human history.

Would you like me to go out and buy that book and read it before we can continue this discussion?

Why don't you just explain your own personal beliefs on this subject? Then we can talk about it.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Would you like me to go out and buy that book and read it before we can continue this discussion?

Why don't you just explain your own personal beliefs on this subject? Then we can talk about it.

I just presented a most elementary detail of the area of consideration. You obviously cannot formulate a question or response related to that. Why invest more pearls when the one before you is being ignored.

Reading the book might help I suppose. You obviously have NO frame of reference from this work of this renown Reformed Theologian so without you having even a basic frame of reference, detailed discussion might be difficult. But I am trying which is why I started out with this first step. So let me try again. I will go as far as it is possible but only one step at a time. If it works you can discover the entire body of teaching and belief:

The Angelic Conflict or as Barnhouse called it, The Invisible War, covers in detail the direct, implied, deduced and theological conclusion regarding the teaching of the fall of Satan and its co-terminus ending with human history.

A hint: A reasonable question would be:

Co-terminus? What do you mean by that, how is that significant and how does that relate man's creation and ending?

See? Give it a shot. :thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

I just presented a most elementary detail of the area of consideration. You obviously cannot formulate a question or response related to that. Why invest more pearls when the one before you is being ignored.

Reading the book might help I suppose. You obviously have NO frame of reference from this work of this renown Reformed Theologian so without you having even a basic frame of reference, detailed discussion might be difficult. But I am trying which is why I started out with this first step. So let me try again. I will go as far as it is possible but only one step at a time. If it works you can discover the entire body of teaching and belief:

A hint: A reasonable question would be:

Co-terminus? What do you mean by that, how is that significant and how does that relate man's creation and ending?

See? Give it a shot. :thumbs:

Stop with the games and just say what you believe. One sentence from someone else's work is not enough.

If you cannot defend your own beliefs by using scripture then your belief is not even worth consideration.

 

[npetreley]

Stop with the games and just say what you believe. One sentence from someone else's work is not enough.

If you cannot defend your own beliefs by using scripture then your belief is not even worth consideration.

Like I said in the other thread, Amy. You're never going to get an answer, and he'll blame it on you. In the 3+ threads on these topics, have you EVER gotten a straight answer? I never have. It's always cut and run when the questions come, and blame it on the person who poses the question. "Hostility! I'm leaving in a huff!" Think maybe there's a pattern here?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Stop with the games and just say what you believe. One sentence from someone else's work is not enough.

If you cannot defend your own beliefs by using scripture then your belief is not even worth consideration.

Amy you are the one involved in a game. First you don't have an inkling of what the subject matter is about yet you want to discuss it as if you have study it.

Secondly, you demand someone else provide study for you on a topic you apparently refuse to study yourself.

I made it clear my belief is that God created mankind in response to the Angelic Conflict. You weren't even familiar with the concept of the Angelic Conflict and yet you want to argue.

And this is the truth in the end. It isn't about your discovering anything knew, it is having already argued a position you were ignorant on only to discover your were arguing against a renowned Reformed Theologian. It is your own ignorance of the subject matter coupled with your eagerness to argue that has brought you to a point of frustration through the embarrassing revelation of the source of the teaching, a Reformed Theologian who is received and praised by men such as Piper, MacArthur and Sproul.

No Amy, in reality after discovering the source of the doctrinal study and the close association with other Calvinist and Reformed men, most eager students would have devoured this new source of information and enlightenment.

You have placed yourself in the corner, not me. And I am simply exercising discretion regarding where my pearls are cast. And right now I see a very frustration, pugnacious, and intemperate personality making demands for information from someone for which that have no frame of reference or point of orientation to even digest it. But alas, time waits for no man and the my nocturnal journey of sleep awaits. Tomorrow is another day.

 

[Rippon]

Q occupies a parallel universe . He plays the victim when he is the real perpetrator . Off to his "nocturnal journey" indeed .

Q , I respect the writings and ministry of D.G.B. very much . But I do not endorse all the particulars he espoused . Just because he was Reformed does not mean this particular teaching of his is classic Reformed Doctrine . It is not and you must realize this .

Why do you twist things around and bash Amy when she is merely asking you questions about your beliefs on this matter ? Why blame her ? You brought the thing up -- your links don't work . She is to be faulted for not having read something that I guarantee most Calvinists are not familiar with ?

You need an attitude adjustment a la Hank Williams Jr. style .

 

[npetreley]

Q occupies a parallel universe . He plays the victim when he is the real perpetrator . Off to his "nocturnal journey" indeed .

It's the mark of a coward.

Q , I respect the writings and ministry of D.G.B. very much . But I do not endorse all the particulars he espoused . Just because he was Reformed does not mean this particular teaching of his is classic Reformed Doctrine . It is not and you must realize this .

From what I've read, it borders on dualism. Other than being a dispie, I think Barnhouse was pretty good. In the case of spiritual warfare, he probably just depended too much on his imagination.

Why do you twist things around and bash Amy when she is merely asking you questions about your beliefs on this matter ? Why blame her ? You brought the thing up -- your links don't work . She is to be faulted for not having read something that I guarantee most Calvinists are not familiar with ?

I checked the links in Amy's quote box. They work. They just don't take you to any useful information. Amy had it right. He's hiding behind useless links and refuses to 'fess up as to what HE actually believes.

You need an attitude adjustment a la Hank Williams Jr. style .

A little wall-to-wall counseling wouldn't hurt.

 

[russell55]

I made it clear my belief is that God created mankind in response to the Angelic Conflict.

All right. But if you believe this, you should be able to explain it and defend it. That's all Amy asked.

When you do everything but answer the direct questions, can you blame people for thinking you may be trying to avoid the questions?

Here. Try these: Can you give arguments from scripture that support the idea that God created mankind in response to angelic conflict? What are they?

 

[Amy.G]

Amy you are the one involved in a game. First you don't have an inkling of what the subject matter is about yet you want to discuss it as if you have study it.

Secondly, you demand someone else provide study for you on a topic you apparently refuse to study yourself.

I made it clear my belief is that God created mankind in response to the Angelic Conflict. You weren't even familiar with the concept of the Angelic Conflict and yet you want to argue.

And this is the truth in the end. It isn't about your discovering anything knew, it is having already argued a position you were ignorant on only to discover your were arguing against a renowned Reformed Theologian. It is your own ignorance of the subject matter coupled with your eagerness to argue that has brought you to a point of frustration through the embarrassing revelation of the source of the teaching, a Reformed Theologian who is received and praised by men such as Piper, MacArthur and Sproul.

No Amy, in reality after discovering the source of the doctrinal study and the close association with other Calvinist and Reformed men, most eager students would have devoured this new source of information and enlightenment.

You have placed yourself in the corner, not me. And I am simply exercising discretion regarding where my pearls are cast. And right now I see a very frustration, pugnacious, and intemperate personality making demands for information from someone for which that have no frame of reference or point of orientation to even digest it. But alas, time waits for no man and the my nocturnal journey of sleep awaits. Tomorrow is another day.

Are you for real?

Did you read the OP? I posted what I found on the subject. Have you no response to it other than providing worthless links? Do you have no personal opinion?

I asked for some documentation that angelic conflict is the "norm" for reformed theology (or any theology) and that John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul endorse it. You would not provide it. Most likely because there is none.

If I am so ignorant, please enlilghten me instead of belittling me. This is a discussion board, yet your are unwilling to discuss the subject because I am ignorant and unworthy. I suppose I am the swine that you are casting your pearls before.

The most telling thing about you is that you are unwilling to offer ANY scripture to support your doctrine. I am not ashamed of any of my beliefs even when others may disagree and I am happy to show scripture to support them. Why aren't you?

 

[J.D.]

Amy you are the one involved in a game. First you don't have an inkling of what the subject matter is about yet you want to discuss it as if you have study it.

Secondly, you demand someone else provide study for you on a topic you apparently refuse to study yourself.

I made it clear my belief is that God created mankind in response to the Angelic Conflict. You weren't even familiar with the concept of the Angelic Conflict and yet you want to argue.

And this is the truth in the end. It isn't about your discovering anything knew, it is having already argued a position you were ignorant on only to discover your were arguing against a renowned Reformed Theologian. It is your own ignorance of the subject matter coupled with your eagerness to argue that has brought you to a point of frustration through the embarrassing revelation of the source of the teaching, a Reformed Theologian who is received and praised by men such as Piper, MacArthur and Sproul.

No Amy, in reality after discovering the source of the doctrinal study and the close association with other Calvinist and Reformed men, most eager students would have devoured this new source of information and enlightenment.

You have placed yourself in the corner, not me. And I am simply exercising discretion regarding where my pearls are cast. And right now I see a very frustration, pugnacious, and intemperate personality making demands for information from someone for which that have no frame of reference or point of orientation to even digest it. But alas, time waits for no man and the my nocturnal journey of sleep awaits. Tomorrow is another day.

I'm against banning. I even disagreed with the banning of the ME's and Herb Evens. But the language here is really irritating. I'm thinking about trying out that "Report Bad Post" button.

 

[Amy.G]

I would like to apologize if my posts to Mr. Q had an angry tone. I admit that I was angered by his attacks on me that I felt were unwarranted.

I hope my friends here don't think any less of me. Please forgive.

:1_grouphug:

 

[psalms109:31]

Faith

No one can please God in the flesh when we accept Jesus word which is Spirit and life, we are pleasing God not in flesh but in the Spirit.

We are not changing ourself but God through His word is.

 

[npetreley]

I would like to apologize if my posts to Mr. Q had an angry tone. I admit that I was angered by his attacks on me that I felt were unwarranted.

I hope my friends here don't think any less of me. Please forgive.

:1_grouphug:

We all love you. :love2:

 

[J.D.]

I would like to apologize if my posts to Mr. Q had an angry tone. I admit that I was angered by his attacks on me that I felt were unwarranted.

I hope my friends here don't think any less of me. Please forgive.

:1_grouphug:

Apology NOT accepted! There's nothing for you to apologize for. [name calling and etc. deleted] He owes you an apology!

 

[npetreley]

To drink spirits to excess is to be unpleasing to God in the spirits or rather the spirits in us because we are pleasing the flesh.

I am he as you are me as you are he as we are all together and I am the walrus.

 

[J.D.]

To drink spirits to excess is to be unpleasing to God in the spirits or rather the spirits in us because we are pleasing the flesh.

I am he as you are me as you are he as we are all together and I am the walrus.

You sound like an LDS on LSD. (where's that winking emoticon when I want it?)

 

[psalms109:31]

Jesus word

Our faith comes from the words of Jesus and His word is Spirit and life.

All that we are comes from Jesus Without Him and His word we have no life.

I have been really serious and I think we all need to get back to the basics of love. Jesus Christ.

Everyone wants meat, and think they are mature enough to have it, but they have no teeth and they denied the milk.

 

[russell55]

To drink spirits to excess is to be unpleasing to God in the spirits or rather the spirits in us because we are pleasing the flesh.

I am he as you are me as you are he as we are all together and I am the walrus.

Yes. Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry! You guys are so nice. And soooo silly!

I'm with J.D. NP, you are on something! :laugh:

Thanks for your support!

:1_grouphug:

 

[J.D.]

Yes. Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Profound, isn't it? It's so brilliant that I've decided to abdicate the throne of my One True Biblicist Church and give it to Npet!