Angelic Conflict

Amy, you began the OP with condemning something you have never studied, that was new to you and had no frame of reference except for a singular source you found on the internet. You just stated you plan to keep that disposition and attempt to mix it with this other one reflected in the post taking the posture you now want to discuss.

So you want to keep the condemning posture where you said it was "nuts" but then want me to believe you are interested in listening and discussing? I would be at best naive to engage a person insisting on such a contradictory disposition. I gladly will devote a drawn out dialogue on the topic but you must agree to drop the condemning posture and reflected in your OP. If you say no you are going to keep it then of course the above applies. No hard feelings and maybe in other threads and other topics.

 

You don't know what you are talking about. Psalms is my brother in Christ, but he is far from being a Calvinist............:laugh:
As a matter of fact, you have probably offended him..... like most of the other posters on this BB. You really have a problem sir... and I mean seriously... a problem. Someone must have really hurt you in the past. Was it a woman? I'll assure you that if you will get real on this BB, most people would be glad to fellowship with you. Amy is not out to get you. She seriously wanted to know more about the assumed Angelic conflict.
If your defensiveness comes from your fear of Calvinism or hatred of it, or just from fear in general... i'm sure there are many here who would try to be of help to you. I really do think you need help.

 

Thanks! :thumbs: :wavey:

 

**Post deleted**

 

In other words, he has no idea how to explain this topic :laugh: ...which is why everyone has been continuously referred back to books they would need to find time to purchase/borrow and then read. He obviously has no scripture to back his point or would have posted it long ago to refute the so-called condemnation everyone is heaping on this theory.

So, I think this discussion is over...at least as far as the OP goes! :tonofbricks:

 

I'd only modify that to read, "he has no idea how to explain the topic and no scripture to support it, but rather than admit it, he tries to make it look like it's Amy's fault he won't cooperate." Other than that, you nailed it.

 

MODERATOR NOTE:

Please keep in mind----all posting is to be done in "single mindedness" --- that is----let your posting be as if the Lord Jesus Christ were doing it in the place of YOU!!!!!

Bro. David---aka blackbird
Moderator

 

I was reading a book on doctrine the other night that kinda reverses the Cal notion of general and "efficacioius calling."

It posits that faith is of 2 kinds: 1) in general and 2) in particular.

Under general, we learn that man must know, assent to, and appropriate truth before he can be saved. This is the "faith" that I have always insisted is "belief" or "hope" if y'all recall my apologetics on that. That the convicting knowledge of Christ is understood logically and emotionally causing a change in the will of man leading to repentance.

Then God grants saving faith, belief that has "evidence" and "substance" in the Holy Spirit.

The other kind of faith, according to the author, is faith in particular. It is faith in the name of God, the Person and work of Christ, in the word and promises of God, and in prayer. These come from our relationship with God and His dealing in our lives with various proofs of His words and promises.

This paradigm 1) makes sense and 2) allows that ALL are capable of receiving saving faith.

skypair

 

Thanks

Thanks for all your concern.

I understood before I read the scripture and let Jesus guide me through His word. To do this God took everything from me where all I had was His word and Jesus guiding me. I know what is like to have a hedge of protection around me and it being taken away.

I to would get upset with people because I didn't know how to responde.

Writing has never been my strong point. I'm not perfect, but I can point you to the one who is, Jesus.

 

How unfortunate you have chosen to attempt to play mind reader and judge something you are not qualified to judge, that which I hold in my mind. None of us can judge the mind of another. At best you can only determine what is clear, that I am not agreeing to disclose what is being demanded. Whether I can or cannot explain something is not information you are privy to. Nevertheless, instead of taking my words at face value:

You have decided to impose upon my clear offer to discuss the issue within certain boundaries of respectful dispositions something other than that. I am not sure what "I will gladly devote a drawn out dialogue on the topic" means to you but it should mean just what it says, that I am willing to based on a disposition of mutual respect that was not reflected in the OP and that person insists on maintaining.

It is in attempting to judge the minds of others where we stumble and I encourage you to reverse this choice.

I do in fact have a rather lengthy response already composed as well as a substantial body of information, all cited from the Scriptures. But God's Word is serious when it advises us to be careful where pearls are cast. When people begin handling them before ever understanding them by trampling do you really think it wise to offer more? And this is just what the OP did.

I am considering, however, my own thread on the matter. I realize the very same antagonists who are not reflective, impulsive, hasty in their judgments and preoccupied with my personality or style of communication may show up to discuss those things and not the body of information. But for the sake of other readers who may not voice their ideas or enjoy the edification and challenge to their own doctrinal boundaries, I feel it may be warranted and worthwhile. For the time being I will leave this one and weigh the idea further of a more appropriate thread. And of course no hard feelings, we all have the reasonable expectation of defending and supporting our positions and character.

Sincerely

Q

 

Alex,
I've never read anything by Barnhouse, although his name and church are familiar to me. I looked for critiques of the title you mentioned to see what other Reformed people have thought about the book and its arguments. I didn't find anything yet.
His apparant defense of the Gap theory was surprising to me as well. Many creationists have distanced themselves from that argument for a number of reasons, so for someone like Barnhouse to take that position seems strange.
I also read some of the amazon reviews for the book and wasn't sure what to make of the book and its thesis.

I for one, would love for you to post your composed reply. I may not be able to interact that well with the discussion as it something unfamiliar to me, but I'm always interested in other points of view provided they fall somewhere in the range of orthodoxy.

And for the record, I also have found the other Calvinists comments to you quite over the top. I have no idea why some of them post the stuff they do. It's often quite embarrassing for me.

 

Thanks for the response and I am now more persuaded to post the lengthy body of material. As for the Gap doctrine, I am aware some Evangelical theologians of notable mastery do not accept this exegesis and interpretation and their rejection of it should not be dismissed. These are deliberate men deserved of the honor given them. And so with that in mind, I nevertheless, after years of study and consideration, accept this doctrine with the other side of weighty theologians and illuminating teachers.

Much of the distancing I believe has to do with theistic evolutionist (but not that alone, I realize there are exegetical objections aside from theistic evolution) who believe this supports their erring doctrines. And where people are introduced to the Gap doctrine, because of their theistic evolutionary beliefs of some who hold to this, the association with the Gap doctrine makes it a source of declination for many. And of course I would always contend that many erring brethren hold to many doctrines we hold to, this does not mean because they somehow misapplied a doctrine to support an error of their's we throw it all out (an again I clearly understand this is not the only reason for some to reject it, for some it is purely exegetical, I just use this one because of its significant impact for rejection).

One does not need to hold to theistic evolution, which is quite contrary to the clear creation chronology in Scripture, to hold to the Gap doctrine. And in fact many have come to understand its exegesis and interpretation without ever even considering some idea of evolution.

But that aside, I will seriously consider the thread. I have no doubt your are quite able to contend with issues with which you disagree, ask questions that lead to discovery in areas that you have yet to formulate a conclusion and recognize that with which you agree upon from past study and thought, even in areas of advanced doctrine such as this. You have aptly demonstrated an acumen for serious and weighty doctrinal considerations.

 

Isaiah40:28,
Your profile indicates that you are Presbyterian. This is a Baptist Only Forum. There is a section of the board for those who are non-Baptist. Please post in that section of the board, per the agreement that you made with BB when registering. Thank you.

 

Thanks for that note, I will make sure I post it in the Christian section for Isaiah40:28's participation.

 

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen anyone condemn you...other than to rightly state that you have been repeatedly asked to post information and have failed to do so. If you have the information, post it, so we can all take a look at it and judge the merit of this concept based on scripture. If you don't, then let it go...just don't accuse people of being "mean" to you and not wanting to learn when they have asked you repeatedly for concrete information.:thumbs:

 

I am Reformed Baptist attending a Reformed Presbyterian church as my public profile has indicated from my very first post on this board. I am not aware of any board rules that I have disregarded.

 

At no point have I accused anyone of being "mean" to me. There is absolutely no post existing where I have said this. I have recognized where the OP posted hostility toward the doctrine without ever studying it, but at no point can you ever or will you ever quote me saying anyone was "mean" to me. You are again manifesting the wish to believe you know what is in my mind and by-passing what is clearly stated.

As for the topic, it is under construction and the response will be on behalf of those interested in dialogue, discovery and debate but certainly not for those who, without studying the matter begin with condemning it without research or preparation. :thumbs: