Old Testament, New Testament

[Iconoclast]

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

Well that is fine....What I posted was accurate. You can call me a whatever you want, but i see you have no real desire to deal with the verses of scripture, which is what I posted to begin with.You claimed you were mis-represented...you have been asked to clarify your position .....but you just repeat what you posted earlier;

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.

You stand by your statements....I will stand by mine:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Do you agree with this statement????

I wouldn't word it that way, but I think I know what he means, which is why I asked you to reconcile such things as the law which calls for stoning of adulterers and Jesus' treatment of the harlot caught in adultery? Would you accuse Jesus of the same thing you accused Roger Olsen for since he didn't obey the clear commands of the law?

I believe the sermon on the mt and the OT revelation CAN be reconciled, but one has to acknowledge the distinctions between law and grace first.

 

[Amy.G]

My problem with Michael Wrenn is that he will not just come out and say if he believes Jesus is the same God as is in the OT or not. It's a simple yes or no answer. That is what I'm trying to get to.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well that is fine....What I posted was accurate. You can call me a whatever you want, but i see you have no real desire to deal with the verses of scripture, which is what I posted to begin with.You claimed you were mis-represented...you have been asked to clarify your position .....but you just repeat what you posted earlier;



You stand by your statements....I will stand by mine:thumbs:

You had a chance to begin with to respond to me in a Christlike manner; you did not but instead have called me apostate, a heretic, a God-hater, a cult founder, spreading cancer in the church, among other things. Therefore, instead of letting myself get drawn into sinking to your level and being warned for doing that, I choose not to respond to you. I have answered everything up till now, but no longer.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

My problem with Michael Wrenn is that he will not just come out and say if he believes Jesus is the same God as is in the OT or not. It's a simple yes or no answer. That is what I'm trying to get to.

I believe Jesus is the Logos of John 1, the creator of the universe, Who was before the Old Testament, during the time of the OT, the NT, after the NT, today, and forever.

Does that suit you?

 

[12strings]

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.

I read the article you linked, and he says about what you have said...the question is, what is the next step if they can't be reconciled?

-Say God ordered those killings and we can't understand why?
-Simply say they can't be reconciled and we have to stop there?
-Say God did not order those killings and the OT Israelites recorded that he did in their scriptures to defend their actions?
-some other option i haven"t thought of?

which of these are you proposing?

 

[Amy.G]

I believe Jesus is the Logos of John 1, the creator of the universe, Who was before the Old Testament, during the time of the OT, the NT, after the NT, today, and forever.

Does that suit you?

No. Is Jesus the SAME God as the OT God?????

 

[preacher4truth]

No. Is Jesus the SAME God as the OT God?????

He's hiding.

Most who hold false doctrine hide behind elusive, yet revealing statements. Some provide 'links' to their belief systems, allegedly and seemingly ashamed to state them openly in public.

The thing is, not one real Baptist I know holds to his beliefs.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No. Is Jesus the SAME God as the OT God?????

That's really as foolish question to ask me considering how I have already answered. I don't know what you are trying to prove, but I know I don't trust you one bit.

However, my answer to your question is YES

 

[Michael Wrenn]

He's hiding.

Most who hold false doctrine hide behind elusive, yet revealing statements. Some provide 'links' to their belief systems, allegedly and seemingly ashamed to state them openly in public.

The thing is, not one real Baptist I know holds to his beliefs.

In light of my answer above, what does that make you?

I've never, ever, hidden what I believe here and never will. That's why I have been the target of such invective.

Funny, I know quite a number of Baptists who hold to many of my beliefs; thing is, they can't be found in either the far left camp or the fundamentalist camp.

Think I'm hiding? Here's a link to my website where you can read what I believe in our Statement of Principles, and also some of my personal beliefs. I have posted it elsewhere, but I re-post it here especially for your convenience:

http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/

Oh, and it just occurred to me: You accuse me of hiding, yet my real name and location is plainly there for all to see. So, where is your real name and location? You are the one who is hiding. Too funny.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't believe anyone here (especially Roger Olsen) is arguing that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT, but someone would have to be blind or lack all objectivity to deny there is a CLEAR difference in the revelation about God in the two accounts. So, if the God is the same, what has changed? Could it be the REVELATION?

What we know of God is changing, not God. So, what may have appeared to be God's will in the OT (i.e. stone the adulterer) turns out not to be God's will in the NT (i.e. go and sin no more). This distinction is a perfect object lesson in the difference between law and grace.

Could it be that God wanting to first make LAW understood revealed certain aspects of his holiness and wrath without much clarity as to its full implications? Could it be that some of that revelation was misinterpreted and misapplied throughout the ages by men? Aren't Calvinists the first to point out the 'anthropomorphic' language of the OT when it speaks of God relenting and changing his mind? So, why are they so keen on insisting revelations regarding his wrath in regard to the law must be so literally applied? Why not allow the revelation of the authoritative WORD (Christ) help us understand the less clear revelation of the OT texts?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't believe anyone here (especially Roger Olsen) is arguing that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT, but someone would have to be blind or lack all objectivity to deny there is a CLEAR difference in the revelation about God in the two accounts. So, if the God is the same, what has changed? Could it be the REVELATION?

What we know of God is changing, not God. So, what may have appeared to be God's will in the OT (i.e. stone the adulterer) turns out not to be God's will in the NT (i.e. go and sin no more). This distinction is a perfect object lesson in the difference between law and grace.

Could it be that God wanting to first make LAW understood revealed certain aspects of his holiness and wrath without much clarity as to its full implications? Could it be that some of that revelation was misinterpreted and misapplied throughout the ages by men? Aren't Calvinists the first to point out the 'anthropomorphic' language of the OT when it speaks of God relenting and changing his mind? So, why are they so keen on insisting revelations regarding his wrath in regard to the law must be so literally applied? Why not allow the revelation of the authoritative WORD (Christ) help us understand the less clear revelation of the OT texts?

An excellent post, but be careful. Your sensible and discerning post will open you up to charges of apostasy from "the crew" here.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Atheists often point to the God ordained slaughter of the innocents in the OT and then Jesus saying Let the little children come to me. Some use dispensationalism to explain the different ways God deals with mankind. Actually, usually when reading the prophets I have visions of an apocalyptic ending to America for her sinfulness and rebellion. If judgment comes it certainly won't be limited to adults in nature and scope. Nevertheless, there is a difficulty here, and to deny such or pretend it doesn't exist isn't very helpful.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Atheists often point to the God ordained slaughter of the innocents in the OT and then Jesus saying Let the little children come to me. Some use dispensationalism to explain the different ways God deals with mankind. Actually, usually when reading the prophets I have visions of an apocalyptic ending to America for her sinfulness and rebellion. If judgment comes it certainly won't be limited to adults in nature and scope. Nevertheless, there is a difficulty here, and to deny such or pretend it doesn't exist isn't very helpful.

Your post is a good one.

Yes, dispensationalism says God deals with mankind differently in different eras. I don't agree with dispensationalists, but I understand their position on this, and at least they have a position and explanation, unlike some here who just want to throw around nasty epithets and accusations.

 

[Iconoclast]

I wouldn't word it that way, but I think I know what he means, which is why I asked you to reconcile such things as the law which calls for stoning of adulterers and Jesus' treatment of the harlot caught in adultery? Would you accuse Jesus of the same thing you accused Roger Olsen for since he didn't obey the clear commands of the law?

I believe the sermon on the mt and the OT revelation CAN be reconciled, but one has to acknowledge the distinctions between law and grace first.

Jesus as God and law giver could have stoned the woman to death.
That he choose to have mercy on her and forgive her sins is His perogative.

Roger Olsen clearly posted a bogus article, and I would suggest it is you with the wrong lens on it.....with your zeal for all things anti -cal.
let me list for you again from the article:

about the proper interpretation of Old Testament “texts of terror.” They are often mentioned by Calvinists to contradict my contention that the God of high Calvinism, insofar as that theology is consistent, is a moral monster

The God of calvinism is the biblical God. So mr.Olsen then is saying that he believes this God is.....is a moral monster

If you deny the God of calvinism is the biblical God, then your previous post is a contradiction. because Olsen[and anyone else who is hyper sensitive ]does not understand the teaching correctly...he makes his unfounded claims.

First, I think there is a huge difference between that and God predestining people to everlasting torment in hell

Predestination is used by God to explain how he has ordained to sanctify the Elect,conforming them to the Image of The Son...his careless mis-use of the teaching, like several here on Bb do...is without scriptural warrant.

Second, we have no way of knowing all the circumstances of those alleged divine commands and actions of the Israelites

Alleged Divine commands???? sounds like :
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

This is saying we do not have the word of God! we need olsen and others like him to question God's word????

We do not see Jesus or any of the apostles casting doubt on the scripture..they just quote it and believe it.

Third, nobody interprets all the texts of terror literally in the sense that they believe they are all equally God’s will.

When the holy scripture{ not so called texts of terror} when they say thus saith the Lord who is olsen to tell us it was not God's will...equally or otherwise.

Among the most terrifying of them are the impreccatory Psalms. There the Psalmist, presumably writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cries out to God and says he wishes his enemies’ childrens’ heads would be bashed against rocks.

God says all scripture is God breathed....not presumably written
. tell me how this constant denial of the scriptures as God's word..are in any way christian?????

Of course, fundamentalists will cry “liberal!” against anyone who dares to question whether God literally commanded Israel to slaughter babies or slaughtered them himself (as in the killing of Egypt’s firstborn sons during the Exodus).

It is excessive hubris for any to put themselves over God's word.It is an outright denial of scripture.....The fact of the importance of the blood of the passover is put into doubt if the firstborn were not destroyed .When i see the blood I will passover you means nothing if the firstborn were not killed being uncovered. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us 1Cor 5:7 is based on this account ,,,that he is so eager to doubt.

I adamantly reject that libelous accusation. Nobody takes everything in the Old Testament literally. Many stories in the early parts of the Old Testament especially are simply head-scratchers. The whole point of “progressive revelation” is to say that the New Testament sheds light on the Old Testament and helps us relativize some of the things attributed to God there.

All false teachers call it libel...when they are caught in their ungodly errors.
We do not relativize anything..as he would has has do.

What is the best clue to God’s character and will, Jesus or the author(s) of Joshua and Judges

Another clear and blatant denial of God's authoritative word.

Without doubt the earliest baptists (including Baptists) were “New Testament Christians.” They did not think everything in the Old Testament was truth for Christians to believe and obey. That is, they read the Bible backwards, as it were. They relativized the Old Testament in light of the New.

No thanks....you can believe what you want...but when someone denies the word over and over... that is a heretic and to be avoided.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

WOW! I assure you Roger Olson is no heretic. I have read much of his work and although I do not agree with everything he says. He fully believes in the Scriptures as much as anyone here although I do have to say, his article should have been better written. I can see how anyone not otherwise familiar with his work might see him as denying some Scripture he should have re-read this article before he posted it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The God of Calvinism is the biblical God -- uh huh. And it took Calvin to discover him there.

 

[preacher4truth]

He's trippin'.

He's been asked numerous times about the Deity of Christ, being ever elusive, and just now answers.

Hmmmmmmm. Interesting.

Then he turns 'hiding' into a line that since he uses using his real name as his user ID as proof he isn't hiding, and that if it is not used, one is? LOL. Yes, everyone who doesn't use their real name as a user ID on the BB is hiding. :laugh:

Son, you've missed the point by miles.

The fact that it was like pulling teeth to get you to answer on the Deity of Christ is quite telltale. :wavey: I've never witnessed ANY real Baptist struggle to give a direct affirmative answer to that question. Your last 'answer' looks to be more hiding and out of pure reluctance. :thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

WOW! I assure you Roger Olson is no heretic. I have read much of his work and although I do not agree with everything he says. He fully believes in the Scriptures as much as anyone here although I do have to say, his article should have been better written. I can see how anyone not otherwise familiar with his work might see him as denying some Scripture he should have re-read this article before he posted it.

Hello HoS,

Welcome to BB.
I have never heard of this person...olsen.....based on what I quoted directly from his article...do you see anything in those quotes that you think is Correct??/
Either I am completely mis-reading his article...or he is out to lunch....big time:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

Hello HoS,

Welcome to BB.
I have never heard of this person...olsen.....based on what I quoted directly from his article...do you see anything in those quotes that you think is Correct??/
Either I am completely mis-reading his article...or he is out to lunch....big time:thumbs:

Olsen also embraces Open Theism as valid. There is an article on his own blog where he defends it. It's not hard to see why, as arminian theologys logical end would go that route.

He's out there. No need to wonder why, with one who endorses him here, wonder no longer.