Old Testament, New Testament

[Michael Wrenn]

MW.....agreed...each one of us are to give account of ourselves to God.
You offered an article that not only opposes what i believe..but rejects the God i worship. Did you think we would not comment on it? Did you think we would not react to the error?
Michael...both cannot be right at the same time. As written...one is right and one is wrong.
You are free to believe and post what you want...and you have:thumbs:
I and others are free to comment on the error...as you believe sincerely ,you are doing.
You personally sound like a nice guy. That is not the issue.
I have met mormons who humanly speaking are nice guys.....but a nice guy who opposes truth ,and substitues error in its place...Is he really a Nice guy??? Or does scripture refer to them as evil workers?

1.2 Timothy 4:14
Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Philippians 3:1-3
8We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth.

9I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

10Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

11Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

the goal here is for each one of us...to put forth what we believe is truth ...so the other person can reevaluate what they hold in light of verses offered...and make corrections if need be.

Sure, sure. And in so doing, call someone apostate, heretic, God-hater, god-inventor, cult inventor, a cancer, etc.

Careful; your fruit is showing.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

MW, it pains me to agree with iconoclast but he is basically on firm Biblical ground here. I'm sure Roger is a really nice guy and all but I read one of his books a few years ago and it struck me that he spends too much time trying to justify himself to his readers. He doesn't hold the same high view of scripture that many here do. Then he complains that some call him a liberal or marcian when he acts like a liberal or marcian.

I don't care if you agree with him or not. That's not the point. You haven't made it personal -- yet.

 

[Skandelon]

MW, it pains me to agree with iconoclast but he is basically on firm Biblical ground here. I'm sure Roger is a really nice guy and all but I read one of his books a few years ago and it struck me that he spends too much time trying to justify himself to his readers. He doesn't hold the same high view of scripture that many here do. Then he complains that some call him a liberal or marcian when he acts like a liberal or marcian.

I really really don't want to set myself up as the defender of another brother, especially one with whom I'm not that familiar, but from what I've read thus far I believe this is an unfair characterization. You do know that those of the NT times who had what you call a 'high view of scripture' is what Paul referred to as the 'weaker' brethren (Rm 14). A 'high' view of scripture is relative. I believe its a much HIGHER view of scripture to interpret it and understand it out of a relationship with Christ, rather than from the perspective of a literal word parsing 'intellectual.'

The term 'liberal' is also very subjective because anyone 'left' of you can be demeaned with that label. And when you carry in the baggage from the political use of the word, they you might as well hang the man.

Labeling and dismissing is a lazy 'theologian's' means to make himself feel better about his lack of knowledge on a particular issue. It much easier to label and dismiss someone than it is to understand and engage their perspective. Olson's article explains that very well. And knowing the world of fundamentalism there is NO DOUBT that he will take more criticism than those of the 'other' side will take. So-called 'liberal' theologians do a lot less criticizing of others because they tend to understand and accept GRACE. They don't feel the need to 'convict the world of sin' because they know that is the Holy Spirit's job, not ours.

 

[thomas15]

Skandelon,

As my mother used to say to me and my brother ..."Cut it out you two!".

When I say high view I mean those who take the word seriously. Olson likes to make the claim that the children of those nasty calvinist and those rotten fundies go around telling the kids of the nice methodist arminian types that they (arminians) are not really Christians. This is how he gets you on his side, not with the facts as in the Bible. He then tries to make the case that arminian theology is distorted by calvinists and that's really the problem.

He is, to be sure able to make a great case for his cause, he is a good communicator and writer. He however does not take the actual words of scripture in the literal sense like most here on this board do. He is not a liberal like as in mainline UMC liberal but he is more comfortable around them than say GARBC Baptists. Sorry if that offends.

I really really don't want to set myself up as the defender of another brother, especially one with whom I'm not that familiar, but from what I've read thus far I believe this is an unfair characterization. You do know that those of the NT times who had what you call a 'high view of scripture' is what Paul referred to as the 'weaker' brethren (Rm 14). A 'high' view of scripture is relative. I believe its a much HIGHER view of scripture to interpret it and understand it out of a relationship with Christ, rather than from the perspective of a literal word parsing 'intellectual.'

The term 'liberal' is also very subjective because anyone 'left' of you can be demeaned with that label. And when you carry in the baggage from the political use of the word, they you might as well hang the man.

Labeling and dismissing is a lazy 'theologian's' means to make himself feel better about his lack of knowledge on a particular issue. It much easier to label and dismiss someone than it is to understand and engage their perspective. Olson's article explains that very well. And knowing the world of fundamentalism there is NO DOUBT that he will take more criticism than those of the 'other' side will take. So-called 'liberal' theologians do a lot less criticizing of others because they tend to understand and accept GRACE. They don't feel the need to 'convict the world of sin' because they know that is the Holy Spirit's job, not ours.

 

[Skandelon]

When I say high view I mean those who take the word seriously.

The method of one's interpretation DOES NOT define how 'seriously' they feel about the scriptures. Did Jesus not take scriptures very seriously when he didn't follow the prescribed method of punishment for the adulterous woman? He was sinless, so why didn't he stone her? I guess Jesus just didn't take the scriptures seriously?

I believe Jesus, who was no doubt called a 'liberal' by the scribes of his day, did take scripture VERY seriously, but he also understood it in light of God's grace, which is what Olson appears to be suggesting that we do.

Olson likes to make the claim that the children of those nasty calvinist and those rotten fundies go around telling the kids of the nice methodist arminian types that they (arminians) are not really Christians.

That kind of thing happens from both sides. Calvinism is referred to as a cult by some Arminian groups and Arminianism is accused of not believing and teaching the true gospel by Calvinists. I don't like that from either group personally. It appears Olson is putting down those who are doing that against his views, but you'd need to provide his actual quote if you want me to address it.

This is how he gets you on his side, not with the facts as in the Bible. He then tries to make the case that arminian theology is distorted by calvinists and that's really the problem.

Sounds like you are making a judgement based on one blog posting meant to address a particular issue, because doesn't Olson have numerous works where the biblical text is fully expounded and his views fully made clear? Again, I wonder if you are dealing with him objectively... It certainly doesn't sound like it from what I've seen thus far.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sure, sure. And in so doing, call someone apostate, heretic, God-hater, god-inventor, cult inventor, a cancer, etc.

Careful; your fruit is showing.

Michael,


You have spoken quite openly against calvinism saying that the God of calvinism is not the biblical God.
From the point of view of calvinism the ideas you are offering do exactly these things.
I see you as in serious and complete error...departing from the historic faith. What do you think i am going to do??? encourage you in your error?

If the biblical God ...is God indeed and the God of Calvinism....would you love and worship Him as he is revealed in all 66 books of the bible...1 sam 15 included? Could you worship the God who destroyed the world of the ungodly with the worldwide flood? Sodom and Gommorah??? Can you worship that God.

You have said you cannot...so far. You have affirmed you stand by your statement that these portions of the OT.....are not describing Jesus,or the Nt teaching. If that is your statement....the description is accurate.
The historic church believes in all 66 books.It believes all of the words.
if someone does not believe...but instead teaches the opposite...what would you say about them?

 

[Iconoclast]

MW, it pains me to agree with iconoclast but he is basically on firm Biblical ground here. I'm sure Roger is a really nice guy and all but I read one of his books a few years ago and it struck me that he spends too much time trying to justify himself to his readers. He doesn't hold the same high view of scripture that many here do. Then he complains that some call him a liberal or marcian when he acts like a liberal or marcian.

Thanks for being objective Thomas:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael,


You have spoken quite openly against calvinism saying that the God of calvinism is not the biblical God.
From the point of view of calvinism the ideas you are offering do exactly these things.
I see you as in serious and complete error...departing from the historic faith. What do you think i am going to do??? encourage you in your error?

If the biblical God ...is God indeed and the God of Calvinism....would you love and worship Him as he is revealed in all 66 books of the bible...1 sam 15 included? Could you worship the God who destroyed the world of the ungodly with the worldwide flood? Sodom and Gommorah??? Can you worship that God.

You have said you cannot...so far. You have affirmed you stand by your statement that these portions of the OT.....are not describing Jesus,or the Nt teaching. If that is your statement....the description is accurate.
The historic church believes in all 66 books.It believes all of the words.
if someone does not believe...but instead teaches the opposite...what would you say about them?

Carry on, or not; either way, I don't care.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks for being objective Thomas:thumbs::wavey:

"Objective" is a word that doesn't fit you; your using the word is hilarious.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Objective" is a word that doesn't fit you; your using the word is hilarious.

Michael,
It is one thing to raise a legitimate question about any topic.The truth delights to be investigated.and the truth will stand.

it is another thing to stand apart from the historic faith,and not question, but instead seek to undermine the truth,and deny clear verses of scripture.or seek to suggest that "we " can decide to remove portions of the bible that we do not like.

Thomas disagrees with me on several issues...which is fine. But even he to His credit can see that what i protested about Olsens article is seriously and fatally flawed. Your view would be that unless we just leave everything wide open...and scripture is hit or miss...we are are pharisees???

can you answer the question.....if calvinism is biblically accurate...and 1sam15:2-3 are in the bible....can you worship that God...even if you cannot understand why he would have them destroy the Amalikites.

can you worship that God??? or NOT:thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael,
It is one thing to raise a legitimate question about any topic.The truth delights to be investigated.and the truth will stand.

it is another thing to stand apart from the historic faith,and not question, but instead seek to undermine the truth,and deny clear verses of scripture.or seek to suggest that "we " can decide to remove portions of the bible that we do not like.

Thomas disagrees with me on several issues...which is fine. But even he to His credit can see that what i protested about Olsens article is seriously and fatally flawed. Your view would be that unless we just leave everything wide open...and scripture is hit or miss...we are are pharisees???

can you answer the question.....if calvinism is biblically accurate...and 1sam15:2-3 are in the bible....can you worship that God...even if you cannot understand why he would have them destroy the Amalikites.

can you worship that God??? or NOT:thumbs:

I can answer it, but two things: (1) Calvinism is not biblically accurate, (2) anything concerning me is none of your business -- now.

 

[thomas15]

...Labeling and dismissing is a lazy 'theologian's' means to make himself feel better about his lack of knowledge on a particular issue. It much easier to label and dismiss someone than it is to understand and engage their perspective. Olson's article explains that very well. And knowing the world of fundamentalism there is NO DOUBT that he will take more criticism than those of the 'other' side will take. So-called 'liberal' theologians do a lot less criticizing of others because they tend to understand and accept GRACE. They don't feel the need to 'convict the world of sin' because they know that is the Holy Spirit's job, not ours.

The blog article makes it very clear that Olson does not like to think that Jehovah would judge those who do not take advantage of his provisions. However the Bible makes it very clear that God has and will judge the ungodly. Sometimes as in the case of Egypt during the exodus Jehovah by his direct hand does the judging, other times as in the conquest of land he uses men.

Jesus himself said that everything written in the Law and Prophets will come to pass and that the ungodly are condemed to hell. Jesus also states in Matt 24-25 that in the end times judgement OT style, the kind that Olson dislikes will come upon man. I'm sorry if this troubles you but unless one discounts the clear teaching of the Bible and of our Savior, one must accpt this. Your issues are not with me or with the teaching of Calvin or the calvinist on this board, your issues are with the Bible as the Word of God.

If you want to debate the fine points between liberal and moderates be my guest. The real debate however is between belief in the Word, all of it, or belief in only those parts that you like and feel comfortable defending in the company of those who don't believe any of it.

 

[preacher4truth]

The blog article makes it very clear that Olson does not like to think that Jehovah would judge those who do not take advantage of his provisions. However the Bible makes it very clear that God has and will judge the ungodly. Sometimes as in the case of Egypt during the exodus Jehovah by his direct hand does the judging, other times as in the conquest of land he uses men.

Jesus himself said that everything written in the Law and Prophets will come to pass and that the ungodly are condemed to hell. Jesus also states in Matt 24-25 that in the end times judgement OT style, the kind that Olson dislikes will come upon man. I'm sorry if this troubles you but unless one discounts the clear teaching of the Bible and of our Savior, one must accpt this. Your issues are not with me or with the teaching of Calvin or the calvinist on this board, your issues are with the Bible as the Word of God.

If you want to debate the fine points between liberal and moderates be my guest. The real debate however is between belief in the Word, all of it, or belief in only those parts that you like and feel comfortable defending in the company of those who don't believe any of it.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Exactly, and may I add defending those chosen parts also in the presence of others who believe only parts of it, (not limiting this only to those who don't believe any of it.)

 

[Iconoclast]

I can answer it, but two things: (1) Calvinism is not biblically accurate, (2) anything concerning me is none of your business -- now.

1]Your lack of a response ..is a response

2] You have let me know all I need to know about you....now:wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

The blog article makes it very clear that Olson does not like to think that Jehovah would judge those who do not take advantage of his provisions.

Can you quote specifics from the article? I'm not denying it may exist, but I like dealing with actual quotes in context as it is a common practice around here to pluck things out of context and misapply them.

your issues are with the Bible as the Word of God.

What issue specifically? I affirm the doctrine of hell and the wrath of God. I'm not sure what issue you're attempting to address. It helps if you quote a line or two at a time and then respond to that specific quote as I'm doing with your post now. Thanks

The real debate however is between belief in the Word, all of it, or belief in only those parts that you like and feel comfortable defending in the company of those who don't believe any of it.

It's not about belief in the Word, but how one interprets it. Apparently you think Jesus doesn't believe the OT scriptures because he didn't follow its precepts by stoning the adulterous woman...and its painfully obvious why not a single one of you will even address that point which has been raised several times now.

 

[Iconoclast]

Can you quote specifics from the article? I'm not denying it may exist, but I like dealing with actual quotes in context as it is a common practice around here to pluck things out of context and misapply them.

What issue specifically? I affirm the doctrine of hell and the wrath of God. I'm not sure what issue you're attempting to address. It helps if you quote a line or two at a time and then respond to that specific quote as I'm doing with your post now. Thanks

It's not about belief in the Word, but how one interprets it. Apparently you think Jesus doesn't believe the OT scriptures because he didn't follow its precepts by stoning the adulterous woman...and its painfully obvious why not a single one of you will even address that point which has been raised several times now.

I answered you on it.

 

[Skandelon]

I answered you on it.

Which post? I missed it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Which post? I missed it.

see post 95.....Jesus as sinless,and the law giver could have justly"cast the first stone"....but as God he chose to have mercy on her,forgiving her sin,

he did not abrogate the law...he never disobeyed the law as that would be sin.
To try in any way to suggest Jesus entertained the idea of not keeping the law ...is an evil suggestion.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

1]Your lack of a response ..is a response

2] You have let me know all I need to know about you....now:wavey:

You know nothing about me, but I know all I want to know about you, from the things you've said to and about me. I wish to stay as far away from you as possible -- here and now, and in the hereafter.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Can you quote specifics from the article? I'm not denying it may exist, but I like dealing with actual quotes in context as it is a common practice around here to pluck things out of context and misapply them.

What issue specifically? I affirm the doctrine of hell and the wrath of God. I'm not sure what issue you're attempting to address. It helps if you quote a line or two at a time and then respond to that specific quote as I'm doing with your post now. Thanks

It's not about belief in the Word, but how one interprets it. Apparently you think Jesus doesn't believe the OT scriptures because he didn't follow its precepts by stoning the adulterous woman...and its painfully obvious why not a single one of you will even address that point which has been raised several times now.

Yes, indeed it is obvious. It might upset their Calvinist, OT Christianity applecart.