Between your posts #85 & #120 I posted 3 - #87, #102 & #110 - all on topic & direct considerations of your posts.
While I appreciate your priorities, I'm disappointed not to receive a reply.
-
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!
Dispensational Things...pt2
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Between your posts #85 & #120 I posted 3 - #87, #102 & #110 - all on topic & direct considerations of your posts.
While I appreciate your priorities, I'm disappointed not to receive a reply.
I feel your pain.
However, in your posts all I saw was you putting forth your own particular dispensational scheme. I am not really sure what you wanted me to reply. I gave the Ryrie dispensations and you gave your own. End of story, to me.We are baptists, so the ONLY infallible and inspired source for doctrines is the Bible.period.
What did you think of my point #84?Iconoclast and Covenanter have piled on so many posts over the weekend that there is no way I can answer them without spending hours of time needed for other things: many papers I have to correct from two block classes, preparation for the two classes I am now teaching (Greek 102 and a brand new class, Bible Translaiton Theory and Practice, for a brand new MA in Bible Translation our seminary is offering--awesome!); taking a seminary class myself; our new Japanese NT, etc.
I will just answer one point here, which is that I said that the type was a figure of speech, but Iconoclast said it wasn't. I discussed with my son, who teaches hermeneutics, and he pointed out that a type is a literal historical event illustrating a literal past historical event--therefore it cannot be a figure of speech, since those are not literal. So, Iconoclast, you were right--except that a type is literal.
Beyond that, Icon accused me of so many things in his posts. I don't respond well to bullying (who does?), so I'm just going to abandon any more posts on this thread. For Icon: I don't have to reply to any of your posts, so your demands that I do ring hollow. As I have told you many times, you have long and involved posts, and often your points are irrelevant.
Having said those things, I see a great need for a thread on figures of speech, so I will start one, hoping that everyone can keep to the subject--which has not happened here.
You were right on target.
I feel your pain.
Are you trying to portray that I said "You're right on target" to you? Because I didn't.
Or, are you complaining that I answered his and not your posts? Yours were long and complicated, and his was answerable with 5 words.
Or, are you complaining that I answered his and not your posts? Yours were long and complicated, and his was answerable with 5 words.
prophecy70
Active Member
When did the Apostles go through a figure of speech lecture?
Christ lectured them about not understanding His metaphor of the leaven of the Pharisees: See Matt. 16:5-12.
But normally people understand figures of speech naturally. They are part of the "universal grammar" that God has put into the mind of every human being.
Are you trying to portray that I said "You're right on target" to you? Because I didn't.
Or, are you complaining that I answered his and not your posts? Yours were long and complicated, and his was answerable with 5 words.
I expected a "funny" response" to my last post hijacking yours - but I would have been quite happy with your acceptance of my posts with that 5 word response.
Alas and alack, but I couldn't accept them and still maintain my own position.
prophecy70
Active Member
1.2 Billion catholics 6 Million Lutherans 85 Million Anglicans. And yes I know not every single one believes it.
"This is my Body This is my Blood"
Figure of speech?
Did 1800 years of the church, not know figures of speech until dispensationalism came about in the 1800s?
Is it really all that simple John?
Alas and alack, but I couldn't accept them and still maintain my own position.
Of course you couldn't - because accepting them would mean abandoning your own position. Surely that is what our discussions are all about - persuasive Scriptural argument.
Actually, only 30% of Catholics believe it becomes the literal blood and body of Christ, according to a survey done in the '90s. Yes, it actually is that simple.
For crying out loud, you can just look at the wine and bread and say, "Hmm, that doesn't look like real flesh and blood." Then you can taste it and say, "Yep, I was right." Duh!
And news alert: Lutherans and Anglicans do not have the same doctrine as Catholics.
Come on, I know you are smarter than this. Are you trying to tell me you've come to agree with the ridiculous Catholic doctrine on this? Read 50 Years in the Church of Rome, by Chiniquy, and find out how stupid transubstantiation is.
Last edited:
prophecy70
Active Member
Actually, only 30% of Catholics believe it becomes the literal blood and body of Christ, according to a survey done in the '90s. Yes, it actually is that simple.
For crying out loud, you can just look at the wine and bread and say, "Hmm, that doesn't look like real flesh and blood." Then you can taste it and say, "Yep, I was right." Duh!
And news alert: Catholics and Lutherans do not have the same doctrine.
Come on, I know you are smarter than this.
Wow thanks for clarifying, that is not exactly the same. I would of never guessed. Sarcasm Alert
Is the Sacramental Union that Lutherans hold to.....not "real presence"?
even 30 percent of 2 billion is 600,000,000.
Thats a lot of people who do not have the God Given figure of speech knowledge
It's real presence, but not the wine and bread physically changing into flesh and blood. Come on, you don't actually believe with the Catholics that Jesus was advocating cannibalism, do you? Really????
Oh, they have it, they're just brainwashed by the Catholic priests into disregarding their own linguistic common sense (what us linguists refer to as universal grammar). And by the way, there are not 2 billion Catholics in the world.
Wow, I'm having a great laugh. Never thought I'd see a Baptist on the BB standing up for transubstantiation. Anything to prove me wrong about figures of speech, I guess. 
No offense meant, Prophecy 70, but you're just being weird.
No offense meant, Prophecy 70, but you're just being weird.
prophecy70
Active Member
Wow, I'm having a great laugh. Never thought I'd see a Baptist on the BB standing up for transubstantiation. Anything to prove me wrong about figures of speech, I guess.
No offense meant, Prophecy 70, but you're just being weird.
I am NOT standing up for it. You are CLEARLY missing my point. The point is you argue with linguistics and act like everything you believe is so simple.
You said
I was saying if it so natural why do so many not see it? If the literalness of Dispensationalism is so plain, why the 1800s?
So please don't say Im acting weird and blatantly accuse me saying i'm standing up for transubstantiation.
Im standing up to your method, of arguing why you are right and everyone in this camp is wrong.
prophecy70
Active Member
It's real presence, but not the wine and bread physically changing into flesh and blood. Come on, you don't actually believe with the Catholics that Jesus was advocating cannibalism, do you? Really????
No actually I don't. Sorry to disappoint you and your laughing. Im not laughing.
Who brainwashed the ECF who believed it?
Again i'm not arguing it. Im arguing against your method of "Im educated"
1 billion. Sorry Im dyslexic sometimes. 1.2. Not 2.1.
John of Japan,
Yes...of course I understand John. When we offer shorter posts, or medium ones...you question those who we quote...Chilton and others...
So we step it up and post solid bible teachers in detail....then it is too long... or is it? In either case....you do not answer in kind....that is the predictable bottom line, it has been a pattern.
I am glad that we have some agreement...but I know you are not looking to understand what is being offered...you have looked a bit, and turned away.
that is your call.
i can make observations and comment however.
No bullying going on...just evasive manuevers...I understand.
Of course not...you are a free moral agent.I have not forgotten your reluctance to answer on the sun, moon, and stars, until pressed...then you offered the weak idea of shooting stars?
John i understand, I really do. God has called you to translation and other such things, that is fine,.
Perhaps...but it could be your evasion and excuses that ring hollow...
I am still working through things and like the interaction....you press the issue...but then when a response is given you run for the hills.
When I give short answers you ignore them...it was you who said..Where is the beef??? I give some beef and you flee...
John...some of my points might be....or...wait for it...you might not get it
So it is easy to dismiss the offerings than answer
One reason that might not have "happened here" is you avoided like the plague giving those things that make up a Divine Covenant.
The reason you did not do so, I suspect...is by doing so you know it would admit to a description of the covenant of redemption.
You said you see no such Covenant....I posted from many who have before me and had no trouble seeing it.
You know John...when someone goes to medical school to be a DR. and it is time to learn about the complete working of the circulatory system...the heart, the lungs, the veins, arteries, capillaries...it takes time and they need to go into great detail.
If a person just picks out one part of it....in isolation...they will not get close to the whole system at all.
You mocked the short answers, and yet when an attempt is made to frame out what is central to the bible and salvation you balk at it...
Maybe others who read will have time to look more in detail...even some of your students, because if you do not "see this in scripture" chances are you are not going to teach your students on it.
Thanks for your participation on the thread.
Yes...of course I understand John. When we offer shorter posts, or medium ones...you question those who we quote...Chilton and others...
So we step it up and post solid bible teachers in detail....then it is too long... or is it? In either case....you do not answer in kind....that is the predictable bottom line, it has been a pattern.
Yes...these are valid things...glad you are helping others.
I will just answer one point here, which is that I said that the type was a figure of speech, but Iconoclast said it wasn't. I discussed with my son, who teaches hermeneutics, and he pointed out that a type is a literal historical event illustrating a literal past historical event--therefore it cannot be a figure of speech, since those are not literal. So, Iconoclast, you were right--except that a type is literal.
I am glad that we have some agreement...but I know you are not looking to understand what is being offered...you have looked a bit, and turned away.
that is your call.
That is your point of view....i see many different people daily I think i have a pretty good read on things. I have no need to accuse you of anything.
i can make observations and comment however.
No bullying going on...just evasive manuevers...I understand.
Just as many of us thought...not a surprise.
Of course not...you are a free moral agent.I have not forgotten your reluctance to answer on the sun, moon, and stars, until pressed...then you offered the weak idea of shooting stars?
John i understand, I really do. God has called you to translation and other such things, that is fine,.
.
Perhaps...but it could be your evasion and excuses that ring hollow...
I am still working through things and like the interaction....you press the issue...but then when a response is given you run for the hills.
,
When I give short answers you ignore them...it was you who said..Where is the beef??? I give some beef and you flee...
John...some of my points might be....or...wait for it...you might not get it
So it is easy to dismiss the offerings than answer
One reason that might not have "happened here" is you avoided like the plague giving those things that make up a Divine Covenant.
The reason you did not do so, I suspect...is by doing so you know it would admit to a description of the covenant of redemption.
You said you see no such Covenant....I posted from many who have before me and had no trouble seeing it.
You know John...when someone goes to medical school to be a DR. and it is time to learn about the complete working of the circulatory system...the heart, the lungs, the veins, arteries, capillaries...it takes time and they need to go into great detail.
If a person just picks out one part of it....in isolation...they will not get close to the whole system at all.
You mocked the short answers, and yet when an attempt is made to frame out what is central to the bible and salvation you balk at it...
Maybe others who read will have time to look more in detail...even some of your students, because if you do not "see this in scripture" chances are you are not going to teach your students on it.
Thanks for your participation on the thread.
- Status