Old Testament, New Testament

[Michael Wrenn]

There is something I hate: I hate it when people claim to speak for God but do not know God, or when they claim to represent God but are lying, or who claim to act for God's purpose or in His name but are really acting for their own purposes and out of their own hatred.

The first century Judaizers and Pharisees did this; the Catholics and Magisterial Reformers did this when they killed others ostensibly for Christ.

There are some on this very forum who are doing this.

"By their fruits you shall know them."

 

[Skandelon]

Michael,

It is not permitted to question one's salvation (or the 'god' they worship), or to call them a "liar" or accuse them of "lying" in the public forum, as that is unnecessarily inflammatory. Handle such things through PM if necessary or report posts of those who you believe need to be addressed by a moderator if you can't settle the matter privately. Just debate the facts of the matter and avoid personal attacks.

Thank you.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael,

It is not permitted to question one's salvation (or the 'god' they worship), or to call them a "liar" or accuse them of "lying" in the public forum, as that is unnecessarily inflammatory. Handle such things through PM if necessary or report posts of those who you believe need to be addressed by a moderator if you can't settle the matter privately. Just debate the facts of the matter and avoid personal attacks.

Thank you.

I would be glad to do so. Did you give this same warning to iconoclast? He told me I made my god up, and other vile accusations. I didn't start this; I didn't say anything personal to him to begin with; I responded to his vile personal attacks by defending myself and going on the offensive. I never wanted it to degenerate into this and still don't. But I hope this is not like the NFL, where often the one responding gets flagged and not the original instigator.

I would love to engage in civil discussion about all kinds of matters, even the most controversial, without being called apostate, blasphemous, heretic, a hater of God, etc., as this person and others have done. While not acceptable, I realize, I wish it to be known that any personal stuff coming from me has been in response to same coming first from others. But from now on, I'll do as you suggest and report these attacks to you. Get ready, though; you're going to be busy because I get this stuff several times a day.

 

[Skandelon]

I didn't read through the whole thread, just opened it and saw your last post. If you didn't report Icons post then it probably won't get read by a moderator. I didn't give you an infraction or anything serious, just a reminder. Remember what our mothers use to tell us, "Two wrongs don't make a right." You are responsible for your actions not theirs.

Typically the best thing to do is ignore such posts, and report them if they are way over the top.

Have a great day!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I didn't read through the whole thread, just opened it and saw your last post. If you didn't report Icons post then it probably won't get read by a moderator. I didn't give you an infraction or anything serious, just a reminder. Remember what our mothers use to tell us, "Two wrongs don't make a right." You are responsible for your actions not theirs.

Typically the best thing to do is ignore such posts, and report them if they are way over the top.

Have a great day!

I will do so, and in fact already have with a post directed at me.

You have a great day, too!

 

[Iconoclast]

MW...

You have posted more vile lies about me than anyone here.

really......well okay maybe I misunderstood you...let me ask you this simple question here is 1 sam 15:2,3.....do you believe "thus saith the Lord of hosts"

2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Do you believe this is the word of God....as it is written???Did God say destroy all they have.....slay man and woman,infant and suckling???

Do you believe this is the God of jn 3:16...or the God who taught the sermon on the mount????

Answer please!

or here in lev 18:
The same question...

25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

There is something I hate: I hate it when people claim to speak for God but do not know God, or when they claim to represent God but are lying, or who claim to act for God's purpose or in His name but are really acting for their own purposes and out of their own hatred

Really...I hate that also...especially when it is someone who says they are a pastor...but then speaks against the biblical God, and His people....who post articles about the biblical God and accuse Him of evil motives....
I despise those who do that...boasting of false gifts;
10But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.


I did not know we had so much in common:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Ok guys, we all know one of you thinks the Calvinistic doctrine represents the 'biblical God' and the other thinks the non-calvinisitic doctrine represents the 'biblical God.' That is just question begging to keep pointing it out and is the lowest form of debate. It serves only to inflame and is circular in nature. It is silly.

Debate the doctrines themselves and please and stop with inflammatory language. Please.

 

[Amy.G]

MW...
really......well okay maybe I misunderstood you...let me ask you this simple question here is 1 sam 15:2,3.....do you believe "thus saith the Lord of hosts"

Do you believe this is the word of God....as it is written???Did God say destro all they have.....slay man and woman,infant and suckling???

Do you believe this is the God of jn 3:16...or the God who taught the sermon on the mount????

Answer please!

Good luck. I asked him the same thing and his answer was quoting me a creed.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

MW...




really......well okay maybe I misunderstood you...let me ask you this simple question here is 1 sam 15:2,3.....do you believe "thus saith the Lord of hosts"




Do you believe this is the word of God....as it is written???Did God say destro all they have.....slay man and woman,infant and suckling???

Do you believe this is the God of jn 3:16...or the God who taught the sermon on the mount????

Answer please!

or here in lev 18:
The same question...

25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.




Really...I hate that also...especially when it is someone who says they are a pastor...but then speaks against the biblical God, and His people....who post articles about the biblical God and accuse Him of evil motives....
I despise those who do that...boasting of false gifts;
10But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.


I did not know we had so much in common:thumbs:

I will not respond to you, but I will report you when you make charges like the one above that I put in bold.

It is not possible to have a civil discussion with you, so I'll not try.

 

[Amy.G]

Ok guys, we all know one of you thinks the Calvinistic doctrine represents the 'biblical God' and the other thinks the non-calvinisitic doctrine represents the 'biblical God.' That is just question begging to keep pointing it out and is the lowest form of debate. It serves only to inflame and is circular in nature. It is silly.

Debate the doctrines themselves and please and stop with inflammatory language. Please.

Our disagreement has nothing to do with Calvinism.

It has to do with believing the scriptures, both OT and NT are the word of God. Michael seems to believe that Jesus is not the same God of the OT.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Good luck. I asked him the same thing and his answer was quoting me a creed.

And then I came back and answered you in my own words, as per your request. Did you not read that? Or are you intentionally misrepresenting the facts? No, you'd never do that.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Good luck. I asked him the same thing and his answer was quoting me a creed.

Maybe you need a reminder: see my post #51 in this thread.

Or, I'll quote it here:

"Oh, dear; my affirmation of the Nicene Creed is stating what I believe.

But going out of my way to satisfy you... yes, I believe Jesus Christ is God, not 'a' god, and I believe Jesus Christ created the universe. Now, I said Jesus Christ
instead of just Jesus or Christ so maybe you won't say I'm dividing Him into two separate natures."

 

[Amy.G]

Maybe you need a reminder: see my post #51 in this thread.

Or, I'll quote it here:

"Oh, dear; my affirmation of the Nicene Creed is stating what I believe.

But going out of my way to satisfy you... yes, I believe Jesus Christ is God, not 'a' god, and I believe Jesus Christ created the universe. Now, I said Jesus Christ
instead of just Jesus or Christ so maybe you won't say I'm dividing Him into two separate natures."

Yes, you did say that. But do you believe Jesus is the same God as in the OT?

 

[Iconoclast]

Ok guys, we all know one of you thinks the Calvinistic doctrine represents the 'biblical God' and the other thinks the non-calvinisitic doctrine represents the 'biblical God.' That is just question begging to keep pointing it out and is the lowest form of debate. It serves only to inflame and is circular in nature. It is silly.

Debate the doctrines themselves and please and stop with inflammatory language. Please.

Skan,

take a minute...and read the article posted in the original post. it states that the word of God is not really the word of God....read it and tell me if you read it the same way??? I posted quotes from the article....tell me if you believe this is a chrisitan article ay all????
I quote MW back to Him.....he says that the sermon on the mount is not able to be reconciled with the OT God???? Skan...do you believe there are two different God's?///
This is not in any way a christian position...not by any stretch.....Tc and others see it exactly the same way....

When you read the article...and others linked on the bottom right hand corner...this guy Olsen has a clear anti-cal agenda.....look for yourself!

many here on BB do not undetstand calvinism.....but they do not deny the scriptures are infallible,and inerrant:thumbsup:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I believe the Sermon on the Mount can't be reconciled with the portrayal of God in some parts of the OT. I stand by that. But I wanted to clear up what I believe instead of being misrepresented.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The problem with some on this forum is that they don't believe any non-fundamentalist can be a Christian. Simple as that.

 

[Skandelon]

Icon,
I know Roger and that is not what he is saying. You are reading him through your own lenses and not doing so with any kind of objectivity. I don't agree with all his views, but he is not saying what you accuse him of saying.

The OT says to stone adulterers and Jesus said, "Ye without sin cast the first stone." The OT says 'an eye for an eye' but Jesus taught us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. Anyone who doesn't recognize the fulfillment and clarity that Christ (The Word) brought to the OT and its manner of revelation doesn't understand the difference between the old and new covenants, or law and grace.

 

[Skandelon]

Icon,

You and I have had enough discussions for you to know that one of the main reasons I have rejected Calvinism is because they can't seem to understand the difference between Law and Grace.

Case and point: You think that biblical proof that men cannot attain righteousness by law is proof they cannot attain righteousness by faith. You all don't seem to understand that the coming of Christ, His Spirit, the Gospel and the Church is God's response to the problem of the Fall, not just an extension of law by which men are born hopelessly lost.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon,

You and I have had enough discussions for you to know that one of the main reasons I have rejected Calvinism is because they can't seem to understand the difference between Law and Grace.

Case and point: You think that biblical proof that men cannot attain righteousness by law is proof they cannot attain righteousness by faith. You all don't seem to understand that the coming of Christ, His Spirit, the Gospel and the Church is God's response to the problem of the Fall, not just an extension of law by which men are born hopelessly lost.

Skan.....we have our differences that is true....But the question is ...you do not eliminate parts of the OT to try and present your view.
I, mandym, tc, saturn neptune, amy g allr ead the article the same way...
In one of my earlier posts I quoted portions of it.
Whatever Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount, was not a contradiction of Ot portions of scripture....it was a correction and expansion of some of the mis-understandings of Ot theocratic law.....not two seperate Gods.
I have asked M WRenn to respond to 1 sam 15,2-3, and lev 18...to 'clarify his position. he claims i have lied about it,

here is his recent statement;

I believe the Sermon on the Mount can't be reconciled with the portrayal of God in some parts of the OT. I stand by that. But I wanted to clear up what I believe instead of being misrepresented.

Do you agree with this statement????

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Skan.....we have our differences that is true....But the question is ...you do not eliminate parts of the OT to try and present your view.
I, mandym, tc, saturn neptune, amy g allr ead the article the same way...
In one of my earlier posts I quoted portions of it.
Whatever Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount, was not a contradiction of Ot portions of scripture....it was a correction and expansion of some of the mis-understandings of Ot theocratic law.....not two seperate Gods.
I have asked M WRenn to respond to 1 sam 15,2-3, and lev 18...to 'clarify his position. he claims i have lied about it,

here is his recent statement;



Do you agree with this statement????

And I said I will no longer try to discuss anything with you.