1. 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!

I'm Sorry, We all make assumptions--let's START OVER

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by William C, Feb 8, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 4
  1. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    If every Israeli mother had hidden her male child three months in a closet and then put him in an ark of rushes and onto the Nile River; would God have been able to pick Moses out; or would they each have been named Moses since this means drawn forth?

    I don't know why my mind works in this way, but your assumption leads down a road into which I am assuming the adversary is very pleased that we go.

    What happens to Christ's statement "Thy word is truth." Remember Sanctify them through thy truth:

    John 17.17

    Are we not sanctified through the truth which is God's truth, and if we are sanctified, does this not mean we have been set apart?

    Bro. Bill, I do not want to seem to be simply argumentative; however, I cannot come across in any other way. You say over and over we have not addressed your question. I do not know how to address something that is so full of holes. Have you ever filled a bucket of water with a hole in the side of it, you can only fill that bucket to the level of the hole and then the water is going to run out of it, then all the bucket will hold is below the line of the hole. It cannot hold more.

    You said everything that applied to the saints applied also to the apostles, but not everything applying to the apostles did so to the saints.

    then you said the apostles are saved by grace and added trusting etc.

    And that the saints are saved by grace and added trusting etc. but also that of these was required faith because they only heard the proclaimation of the Gospel.

    I would submit to you that Paul did not have to believe the appearance on the Damascus Rd. was Christ, but that he did so because he met his effectual calling and he was made willing to believe it; that which gave the apostle authority not given to the others was the witness they possessed of the resurrected glorified Christ.

    Toss your bucket over the fence, you'll get more water to the flock with one not full of holes.

    Bro. Dallas
     
    #61 Frogman, Feb 12, 2003
  2. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Dallas and Sturgman, when you approach my assumption with Calvinist lenses and on top of that trying to argue to support your view, it does seem like my bucket is full of holes. Why? Because all of the scripture you know and all of the information you've gained has been based upon those assumptions being supported by the texts.

    Dallas, at least Sturgman, is objective enough to admit the "possiblity" of my assumption and I know of many, many others who don't agree with me but at least have enough objectivity when approaching the text to see that both possiblities are viable.

    The fact that you, Dallas, and Npetreley, don't even have the objectivity to at least "see" the possiblity goes to prove your unwillingness or lack of ability to look at the text from another perspective. With all due respect, that is a sign of stubborn ignorance.

    Look at people who insist on "organ only" worship. Or "KJV" only bibles. These people won't even consider another person's points of view. They close their minds tightly around the lenses they are comfortable with and refuse to look at any passage in any other light. That's just plain ignorance.

    Sturgman, has in no way abandoned his beliefs. He has continually supported his viewpoint, but he as done so with objectivity recongizing how some texts could be seen in other lights. That is a sign of intelligence, teachablity, and security in his beliefs. He is not so insecure about his beliefs that he feels that he can't submit to the "possiblity" of other renderings in a text. I doubt Sturgman will stop being Calvinistic because of our discussions, but I can assure you he will be stronger in his own faith because he has been willing to view the scripture with objectivity. That's all I request of anyone.

    With Respect,
    Bro. Bill
     
    #62 William C, Feb 12, 2003
  3. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Objectivity, that's all the serpent asked also.

    Bro. Dallas.
     
    #63 Frogman, Feb 12, 2003
  4. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you even know the meaning of the word objectivity. You sound like an 95 year old fundy who thinks the KJV in the only inspired rendering of the Bible.

    Also, consider this. The Calvinistic resurrgance in Baptist life would have never began without people approaching the scripture objectively,...... woah...maybe your right....objectivity maybe a bad thing after all. Never mind.

    EVERYONE KEEP YOU MINDS CLOSED TO READING THE BIBLE IN ANY OTHER LIGHT THAN WHAT YOUR WERE TAUGHT GROWING UP, YOU DON'T WANT TO GO AND LEARN ANYTHING NEW. :D
     
    #64 William C, Feb 12, 2003
  5. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    My raising wuz 'mong Arminians Bro. and I have been reading scripture since I wuz old 'nough to read, cause of my reading, sir, I now reject the idea of the free-will of man, ability to be lost once saved, etc. All to the disbelief of my family. When sumthing is not scriptural it is not scriptural, that's all...

    You are correct (2/3) I am KJVO, I am 'fundy' but I am not 95. Though it gives many great pleasure to insinuate that I am behind the times. As long as it is the times that are changing and not God's Word, I believe I am going to be all right. All truth is revealed in Scripture, there is nothing 'new to learn.'

    Bro. Dallas
     
    #65 Frogman, Feb 13, 2003
  6. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    My raising wuz 'mong Arminians Bro. and I have been reading scripture since I wuz old 'nough to read, cause of my reading, sir, I now reject the idea of the free-will of man, ability to be lost once saved, etc. All to the disbelief of my family. When sumthing is not scriptural it is not scriptural, that's all...

    You are correct (2/3) I am KJVO, I am 'fundy' but I am not 95. Though it gives many great pleasure to insinuate that I am behind the times. As long as it is the times that are changing and not God's Word, I believe I am going to be all right. All truth is revealed in Scripture, there is nothing 'new to learn.'
    </font>[/QUOTE]KJVO, really? That explains a lot. To each his own brother. I prefer the original Greek myself, but if you like the "thees"; "thous" and "whatsoevers"; it's all good.

    Bill
     
    #66 William C, Feb 13, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 4
Loading...