Old Testament, New Testament

[Michael Wrenn]

Oh, and this is where he was consigned to Hell Preacher. In answer to your question.

Better be careful; this bunch is fond of consigning people to hell -- they might do that to you soon.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Who is this Olson?

 

[12strings]

The problem is the article doesn't actually say what the author believes about the OT terror passages...He says you can't reconcile NT teaching with them, but he gives no solution, and he hints at a solution that would call the truth of those OT passages into question.

 

[Skandelon]

Olsen also embraces Open Theism as valid. There is an article on his own blog where he defends it.

Certainly you must grow tired of purposefully misrepresenting others? Here are Olson's actual words from the article where he defend Openists from being misrepresented as 'process theologians' because he is educated enough to know the difference:

"Throughout this controversy several evangelical thinkers, writers and speakers simply stated to their audiences that I am an open theist. They had no ground or basis for this as I had never (and still have never) identified myself as an open theist and have always identified myself as a classical Arminian. At least twice evangelical writers attributed quotes to me that I never said or wrote. When challenged, they could not show where I said or wrote those things. In one case, the man wrote me a letter of apology and in another case the man relentlessly defended his attribution in spite of being unable to show where I said it....

To me, open theism, though mistaken, is much to be preferred over five point Calvinism, with its belief that Christ died only for the elect. By historical standards, that doctrine is a novelty. I have found only one instance of it before Theodore Beza–the 9th century monk Gottschalk who was imprisoned for that teaching (and others similar to later Calvinism). Even Calvin did not believe in it.
​

It is sad that one brother cannot correctly represent another in an objective and reasonable discussion about very weighty matters of the faith. :tear:

 

[preacher4truth]

Certainly you must grow tired of purposefully misrepresenting others? Here are Olson's actual words from the article where he defend Openists from being misrepresented as 'process theologians' because he is educated enough to know the difference:

"Throughout this controversy several evangelical thinkers, writers and speakers simply stated to their audiences that I am an open theist. They had no ground or basis for this as I had never (and still have never) identified myself as an open theist and have always identified myself as a classical Arminian. At least twice evangelical writers attributed quotes to me that I never said or wrote. When challenged, they could not show where I said or wrote those things. In one case, the man wrote me a letter of apology and in another case the man relentlessly defended his attribution in spite of being unable to show where I said it....

To me, open theism, though mistaken, is much to be preferred over five point Calvinism, with its belief that Christ died only for the elect. By historical standards, that doctrine is a novelty. I have found only one instance of it before Theodore Beza–the 9th century monk Gottschalk who was imprisoned for that teaching (and others similar to later Calvinism). Even Calvin did not believe in it.
​

It is sad that one brother cannot correctly represent another in an objective and reasonable discussion about very weighty matters of the faith. :tear:

You're being ridiculous as usual and there is no need to cry. Through your tears you've failed to read what I actually have stated and began an attack based upon your false assumptions. You really ought to clean that mess up and apologize.

What's really sad is that you as a 'mod' have misrepresented me and have assumed this position of assumption in hopes to make it as if I've stated Olson to be an open theist.

Nothing is further from the truth.

First, I never stated Olson to being an open theist, something you've highlighted in the quote as if I did. No need to highlight a portion that doesn't apply to me nor rebutt, nor represent anything I've stated. Rather, what you should do is read what I actually stated.

Anyhow, that's a total strawman from you and is typical.

In fact, in your blind zeal to misrepresent me, you actually quoted a portion of Olsons that shows he accepts open theism as valid...claiming it is misrepresented.

To sum up, I said Olson sees it as valid, and you've given evidence for that.

To me, open theism, though mistaken, is much to be preferred over five point Calvinism, with its belief that Christ died only for the elect.

Right theres part of his validation of the system. That you will never see this as a validation is a given.

Anyhow, congrats! I knew you'd come through! :laugh: :wavey: :applause:

 

[Skandelon]

The problem is the article doesn't actually say what the author believes about the OT terror passages...He says you can't reconcile NT teaching with them, but he gives no solution, and he hints at a solution that would call the truth of those OT passages into question.

I disagree. While there are certainly some poorly worded statements, I think he does clearly address a 'solution' or common approach to reconciling the NT with the OT:

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....

“He [Smyth] sees the Old Testament as containing types or signs which point to a higher truth or principle. So, the types are not to be maintained, but the principles behind them are.” (p. 101) However, according to Smyth, the principles are all in the New Testament and stated more clearly there than in the Old Testament. ... Christians always interpret the Old Testament in light of the New and relativize the Old.

I will boldly say that baptists, in keeping with our origins, ought to read the Bible backwards. That is, we must interpret the Old Testament in light of the New and relativize the former in light of the latter.​

What's interesting is that Calvinists do this all the time when it suits their interests. (i.e. God relents or changes his mind; or God regrets creating man, etc) And I wonder how many here still follow all the liturgy prescribed in the OT text? NONE. So, they are talking out both sides of their mouths in order to disparage someone they know little about. Pretty typical unfortunately.

 

[12strings]

I disagree. While there are certainly some poorly worded statements, I think he does clearly address a 'solution' or common approach to reconciling the NT with the OT:

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....

“He [Smyth] sees the Old Testament as containing types or signs which point to a higher truth or principle. So, the types are not to be maintained, but the principles behind them are.” (p. 101) However, according to Smyth, the principles are all in the New Testament and stated more clearly there than in the Old Testament. ... Christians always interpret the Old Testament in light of the New and relativize the Old.

I will boldly say that baptists, in keeping with our origins, ought to read the Bible backwards. That is, we must interpret the Old Testament in light of the New and relativize the former in light of the latter.​

What's interesting is that Calvinists do this all the time when it suits their interests. (i.e. God relents or changes his mind; or God regrets creating man, etc) And I wonder how many here still follow all the liturgy prescribed in the OT text? NONE. So, they are talking out both sides of their mouths in order to disparage someone they know little about. Pretty typical unfortunately.

I don't think this answers the more fundamental question of, as he puts it someone "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)."

The Problem comes to light in this statement of his:

They did not think everything in the Old Testament was truth for Christians to believe and obey.

That "believe" word is the problem. He seems to be saying that not everything in the OT is truth for christians to "Believe". No one is saying that all of the OT was written for us to OBEY, but Paul says those things happened, and were written down for us to learn from as an example. How are we to learn from them if there are certain parts we don't "BELIEVE"?

He keeps saying "relativize the OT in light of the New" which could be perfectly fine if taken one way, but could be very problematic if taken another way. He simply does not define what his solution is to the historicity of those "terror" passages.

 

[Skandelon]

I honestly see your point and I agree with your main premise, and I really can't speak for Olson because I'm not aware of his full intent. BUT, I really didn't take it in the same way you did when I read the whole article.

Going back to my previous example. Would you say that Jesus believed what the OT said when it commanded us stone adulterers? If so, why didn't he do it? See my point?

Its not that we don't believe it was revealed in that manner, or that it didn't happen, but we need to 'understand' and 'interpret' those teachings in light of all we now know of God through the revelation of Christ. Make sense? I know there is a difficult line to walk there, but both sides are walking it, its just that some are honest and objective about the fact they are doing so.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I honestly see your point and I agree with your main premise, and I really can't speak for Olson because I'm not aware of his full intent. BUT, I really didn't take it in the same way you did when I read the whole article.

Going back to my previous example. Would you say that Jesus believed what the OT said when it commanded us stone adulterers? If so, why didn't he do it? See my point?

Its not that we don't believe it was revealed in that manner, or that it didn't happen, but we need to 'understand' and 'interpret' those teachings in light of all we now know of God through the revelation of Christ. Make sense? I know there is a difficult line to walk there, but both sides are walking it, its just that some are honest and objective about the fact they are doing so.

That's really what I was trying to get at. Where did I fail?

 

[Skandelon]

That's really what I was trying to get at. Where did I fail?

When you allowed the personal attacks get to you and started resorting to those methods rather than sticking with the issue at hand.

We all do it sometimes, well at least I have done it and I always regret it. Its hard not to defend yourself when attacked, but that is what Christ calls us to. We have to die to ourselves and be ok with being attacked for what we believe is truth. Its not really about us anyway.

 

[12strings]

I honestly see your point and I agree with your main premise, and I really can't speak for Olson because I'm not aware of his full intent. BUT, I really didn't take it in the same way you did when I read the whole article.

Going back to my previous example. Would you say that Jesus believed what the OT said when it commanded us stone adulterers? If so, why didn't he do it? See my point?

Its not that we don't believe it was revealed in that manner, or that it didn't happen, but we need to 'understand' and 'interpret' those teachings in light of all we now know of God through the revelation of Christ. Make sense? I know there is a difficult line to walk there, but both sides are walking it, its just that some are honest and objective about the fact they are doing so.

Then I think we are simply understanding differently what the OP article is saying, or trying to say, because nearly everyone (to a point) would agree with what you are saying here (bolded).

 

[Skandelon]

Then I think we are simply understanding differently what the OP article is saying, or trying to say, because nearly everyone (to a point) would agree with what you are saying here (bolded).

You are probably right. We all read things through lenses and when you know someone is coming from a particular view point (anti-Calvinistic in this case) then a Calvinist (generally speaking, not in reference to you at all) would tend to read him without much objectivity or grace. I imagine I and other non-Cals could do the same to someone we know is writing from a Calvinistic perspective. I'd like to think I'm above that because I read and listen to Calvinists pretty regularly and like much of what they teach.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

When you allowed the personal attacks get to you and started resorting to those methods rather than sticking with the issue at hand.

We all do it sometimes, well at least I have done it and I always regret it. Its hard not to defend yourself when attacked, but that is what Christ calls us to. We have to die to ourselves and be ok with being attacked for what we believe is truth. Its not really about us anyway.

You are right, of course.

 

[Iconoclast]

Better be careful; this bunch is fond of consigning people to hell -- they might do that to you soon.

Mw...that is because the God we worship teaches that anyone who rejects His words...are going to hell...the same word they reject will send them there;

47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The God of the bible...sends those that reject His word ...to hell.:thumbs:

Hope you are not offended by the words of Jesus....and feel the need to "report my post"..as Jesus says that those who reject His word perish:wavey:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Mw...that is because the God we worship teaches that anyone who rejects His words...are going to hell...the same word they reject will send them there;

47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The God of the bible...sends those that reject His word ...to hell.:thumbs:

Hope you are not offended by the words of Jesus....and feel the need to "report my post"..as Jesus says that those who reject His word perish:wavey:

No, you think and say whatever you want about me from now on. I'll not respond in kind. I believe in liberty of conscience -- a good Baptist principle. And I recognize your right to exercise that liberty.

 

[Skandelon]

You are probably right. We all read things through lenses and when you know someone is coming from a particular view point (anti-Calvinistic in this case) then a Calvinist would tend to read him without much objectivity or grace. I imagine I and other non-Cals could do the same to someone we know is writing from a Calvinistic perspective. I'd like to think I'm above that because I read and listen to Calvinists pretty regularly and like much of what they teach.

12strings, just to be more clear. I was in NO WAY suggesting that you were not dealing with objectivity and grace. You are one of the most objective and gracious posters here, so I just didn't want you to think that was about you personally... It was more an observation about the 'tendency' when approaching someone from a different vantage point. I hope you understand. Sorry if there was confusion on that point.

 

[preacher4truth]

Mw...that is because the God we worship teaches that anyone who rejects His words...are going to hell...the same word they reject will send them there;

47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The God of the bible...sends those that reject His word ...to hell.:thumbs:

Hope you are not offended by the words of Jesus....and feel the need to "report my post"..as Jesus says that those who reject His word perish:wavey:

Truth. I can't help but recognize the reponse you've gotten to this only reverts back to past 'offenses' and never addresses this fact. Your prior usage of those going to hell was not out of context nor was it used unjustly but Biblically, yet the matter of this truth will not be admitted to, hence the response you've been given.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, you think and say whatever you want about me from now on. I'll not respond in kind. I believe in liberty of conscience -- a good Baptist principle. And I recognize your right to exercise that liberty.

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.

 

[thomas15]

Keep posting your lies; you are digging a hole that will need a lot of repentance.

You're darn right that you are my enemy, just like the Judaizers were enemies of Jesus and the truth.

You are not by brother, either, and it's you and others of your ilk who are cancers in the Body of Christ.

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.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Truth. I can't help but recognize the reponse you've gotten to this only reverts back to past 'offenses' and never addresses this fact. Your prior usage of those going to hell was not out of context nor was it used unjustly but Biblically, yet the matter of this truth will not be admitted to, hence the response you've been given.

And this proves that whatever response I give, it doesn't matter. You will continue with your bell-clanging drivel and baseless charges. I am tired of being drawn into pointless exchanges with those of your ilk.

An appropriate expression comes to mind to describe you and yours: "Let us bray."