Going by.."What is Written"

[JonC]

I know enough of church history, but I deal with scripture, not your unreliable musings and rewrites from dubious sources. Like I said, you lack much biblical understanding, despite your boasting about your supposed accomplishments, that are not really verified anywhere.
I will follow proven men who are faithful to truth, as you lean on your own understanding, like proverbs warns about.
You still have not read or dealt with any of the posted material, so you will not see it anytime soon.

Dubious sources? We have the actual history from the first sources.

Christianity has a very rich history. There are myths, but we also have facts abd original sources. We know, for example, how Penal Substitution Theory developed. We know how the Satisfaction and Substitution theories developed. We know how Recaitulatiin developed. We know that Satisfaction Theiry is the majority view within Christianity today. These are facts.

You follow Murray, who had very questionable beliefs.

I have read most of the material you posted. But I do not place my faith in men

If you post from the following writers you can assume I have already read it:

Knox
Murray
Owen
Spurgeon
David Wells
Piper
Packer
Michael Chrichton (exceot The Great Train Robbery)
Clement
Aquinas
Ignatius

 

[Zaatar71]

Dubious sources? We have the actual history from the first sources.

Christianity has a very rich history. There are myths, but we also have facts abd original sources. We know, for example, how Penal Substitution Theory developed. We know how the Satisfaction and Substitution theories developed. We know how Recaitulatiin developed. We know that Satisfaction Theiry is the majority view within Christianity today. These are facts.

You follow Murray, who had very questionable beliefs.

I have read most of the material you posted. But I do not place my faith in men

If you post from the following writers you can assume I have already read it:

Knox
Murray
Owen
Spurgeon
David Wells
Piper
Packer
Michael Chrichton (exceot The Great Train Robbery)
Clement
Aquinas
Ignatius

Here again this poster seems to avoid the topic, in favor of his own speculation. he cannot deal with professor Murray as is quite obvious now. In both threads we see a pattern of avoidance and deflection. That is okay. When people cannot answer the scriptures offered, what can they do?

They talk about anything else to cover that they cannot deal with the scriptures, even if they claim they follow what is written.
For example, this thread is not about Church History. It is not about who I "follow".
It is not about someone's reading list. Lol
It is not about accusations that I have placed my faith in men, lol
It is not about spaceships going to Mars
It is not about what kind of bait to use to catch fish, lol

it is not about anything but "what is written" which this poster does not discuss.
here is the question from the OP.
Some posters make such claims that they are only going by..."what is Written in scripture"
They then claim that all other "men", pastors, professors do not go by What is Written! Only they have a direct understanding of what is written.
They seek to dismiss truth claims and theology as just the words of men. Here is such a quote!
The question is. Is this valid? he can post it, but does it hold up to scrutiny? In other words,
Can we teach the bible teaches a trinity, unless we find a text somewhere that writes that very word, Trinity? Do all sermons preached from Pulpits only be Bible readings? If a God called Pastor or preacher offers to give the sense of scripture, is that valid, or can we only believe what some of these type of posters offer?
What do you say?

 

[Ben1445]

Yes...your new interpretations are a red flag.

Because in the spirit of the thread, you believe the Bible and anyone who disagrees with you is an automatic red flag. But because you started the thread, everyone must accept that you agree with the Bible first and foremost. So when others call into question your beliefs, although they also believe the Bible, they are suspect and you are not.

The premise of this thread is the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever seen. I was impressed with the thread for several posts. I couldn’t believe that the Calvinism debate community had actually got together to talk on the same side of a topic.

It didn’t last. As soon as someone questioned the validity of the original poster’s doctrine, the very heart of the OP was out the window and the red flags were up. Suddenly only the OP interpretation of the Bible is correct.

 

[Ben1445]

Some posters make such claims that they are only going by..."what is Written in scripture"
They then claim that all other "men", pastors, professors do not go by What is Written! Only they have a direct understanding of what is written.
They seek to dismiss truth claims and theology as just the words of men. Here is such a quote!
The question is. Is this valid? he can post it, but does it hold up to scrutiny? In other words,
Can we teach the bible teaches a trinity, unless we find a text somewhere that writes that very word, Trinity? Do all sermons preached from Pulpits only be Bible readings? If a God called Pastor or preacher offers to give the sense of scripture, is that valid, or can we only believe what some of these type of posters offer?
What do you say?

and again, he posts that he has the truth of God, and others do not right here;

Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

 

[JesusFan]

I know enough of church history, but I deal with scripture, not your unreliable musings and rewrites from dubious sources. Like I said, you lack much biblical understanding, despite your boasting about your supposed accomplishments, that are not really verified anywhere.
I will follow proven men who are faithful to truth, as you lean on your own understanding, like proverbs warns about.
You still have not read or dealt with any of the posted material, so you will not see it anytime soon.

At best, Jon C should state that this are HIS views regarding pst, and other doctrines, but then he leaps into stating that those who see it differently than him on these issues are reading the bible wrongly, reading into it, are wrong, etc

Pst and wrath of God are not pagan concept, nor misunderstaning the scriptures, as those are the majority views of reformed and Baptist for a very long time

 

[JesusFan]

Because in the spirit of the thread, you believe the Bible and anyone who disagrees with you is an automatic red flag. But because you started the thread, everyone must accept that you agree with the Bible first and foremost. So when others call into question your beliefs, although they also believe the Bible, they are suspect and you are not.

The premise of this thread is the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever seen. I was impressed with the thread for several posts. I couldn’t believe that the Calvinism debate community had actually got together to talk on the same side of a topic.

It didn’t last. As soon as someone questioned the validity of the original poster’s doctrine, the very heart of the OP was out the window and the red flags were up. Suddenly only the OP interpretation of the Bible is correct.

No, he instead is stating that one cannot be claiming that their views alone are what the bible really teaches, as that would mean that person has supernatural insight afforded to those such as the Apostles themselves, as one can disagree with doctrine of grace, pst etcm but cannot claim per bible are automatically wrong

 

[Ben1445]

No, he instead is stating that one cannot be claiming that their views alone are what the bible really teaches, as that would mean that person has supernatural insight afforded to those such as the Apostles themselves, as one can disagree with doctrine of grace, pst etcm but cannot claim per bible are automatically wrong

As he continues to do exactly what he claims everyone else does

I was impressed with the thread for a second. It was nothing more than claiming to have the higher ground first.
It sounded good but it is too difficult to put into practice.

 

[JonC]

The premise of this thread is the most hypocritical thing . . .

It could be, but it does not have to be.

We all accept (or should) Scripture as true. So this is the common ground. But we all hold different understandings and doctrines

We cannot, for example, have a meaningful discussion about the Atonement if we are merely talking one another's understanding. We have to get to that common ground ("what is written" in God's Word).

This is why when somebody asks me what I believe I try to present my belief using Scripture. If there are differences in interpretation we go from there. But if I cannot find any passage that states my beluef then it is probably a belief not worth holding.

When we interpret a text there is an actual text to interpret. We can disagree about the meanings of a text, but the text has to be there.

For example, there are different interpretations of ἱλασμός in 1 Jn 2:2. The Greek word can mean propitiation, atoning sacrifice, sin offering, expiation; one who makes propitiation/expiation.


One argue that John is speaking of Jesus as the One who addresses God on our behalf (propitation).
Another argue John is speaking of Christ as being the means to remove our sins (expiation).
Some argue John is addressing Christ as both the One who Advocates on our behalf (propitiation) and as the means of removing sins (expiation).

All three interpretations look to the biblical text. All three are legitimate interpretations.

I would argue tgat Christ is the Propitiation for our sin because verse 1 has Christ as our Advocate in mind (which, to my mind, means advocating with the Father) rather than sins themself in focus.


On this board people tend to offer their theology and theories as if they were interpretations when in fact they are understandings built upon interpretation (among other things).

That is why people often talk past one another, and no actual understanding of opposing views occur.

In any debate there are presuppositions set forth (things that all sides can agree upon). All sides here should agree that God's Word takes precedent, even though they hold different theologies, philosophies and theories. The starting point has to be "what is written", from there interpretations of "what is written".

If the interpretation of the actual text is flawed then there is no need to go on to build a theology or theory.