Old Testament, New Testament

[Michael Wrenn]

Christ was explaining not only the doing of the Law but the spiritual meaning behind it, and by doing so He showed even more deeply how man is unable to obey it perfectly, thereby putting to shame the Pharisees legalism. Smarty pants.

Why, thank you for the compliment.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm waiting to see if any of these people have the guts to tell you what they've told me -- that you don't believe God's word; that you're a God-hater; blasphemous; a cancer to be cut out of Christ's Body; an apostate heretic on the way to Hell, etc. I believe the same as you do regarding this thread's subject, but there's one difference -- you as a mod have the power to banish them to outer darkness.

Skan does not deny 1sam 15;2-3 is in the bible...like you and your buddy Olsen do. You would like to censor anyone who tells you the truth...I understand. The truth can hurt someone who avoids it.
Skan and I disagree quite often. But to his credit...he seeks to use the bible to present his position. He believes in all 66 books also...just ask Him!

His current position opposes calvinism also, but he does not go off the rails and say calvinists are all wrong,and not believers as you do.:wavey::wavey:
If the day comes that he drifts to where he denies massive portions of scripture,like the Exodus account, I would certainly confront him openly and to his face...and I am sure he would do the same for me,if I denied the scriptures.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Skan does not deny 1sam 15;2-3 is in the bible...like you and your buddy Olsen do. You would like to censor anyone who tells you the truth...I understand. The truth can hurt someone who avoids it.
Skan and I disagree quite often. But to his credit...he seeks to use the bible to present his position. He believes in all 66 books also...just ask Him!

His current position opposes calvinism also, but he does not go off the rails and say calvinists are all wrong,and not believers as you do.:wavey::wavey:
If the day comes that he drifts to where he denies massive portions of scripture,like the Exodus account, I would certainly confront him openly and to his face...and I am sure he would do the same for me,if I denied the scriptures.

I don't want to censor anyone; that's your department, as evidenced by what you said when I posted the Olsen article.

The truth doesn't hurt me. I'm not afraid of the truth, but you should be because it will condemn you.

You continue to misrepresent me, but that's all you can do because the truth is not in you. Nowhere have I said or implied that I do not believe in all 66 books of the Bible - I do, plus I take the Anglican position on the Apocrypha.

Nowhere do I say or imply that Calvinists are not believers. I think they are believers, but that their doctrines are wrong.

But go ahead and continue to post falsehoods about me; it will all catch up to you one day.

 

[Amy.G]

Why, thank you for the compliment.

You're welcome. It was in response to this,

Originally Posted by Michael Wrenn
And what was the point of the episode of the Sermon on the Mount, hmmm?

 

[Skandelon]

Icon,

Can you provide actual quotes from Olsen and/or Wrenn where they deny 1 Samuel, the Exodus account, and massive portions of scripture are in the bible? I looked but I can't find those quotes.

Thanks.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do, plus I take the Anglican position on the Apocrypha.

I've no intention of entering this debate, but I'm interested as to what you believe the Anglican position on the Apocrypha is, and how it would differ from a Baptist position.

Steve

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon,

Can you provide actual quotes from Olsen and/or Wrenn where they deny 1 Samuel, the Exodus account, and massive portions of scripture are in the bible? I looked but I can't find those quotes.

Thanks.

Yes...I can. If I could not...I would not post like I am.

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

All we have are reports that God told them to do these things and that they did them.

The texts don’t explain the all the circumstances or reasons

Here in his second pointwe have:
alleged divine commands
all we have are reports that God told them

Skan ...when is says thus saith the Lord...is that alleged. or actual????
is it God's word...or just second hand reports???
There are so many throughout the article..i will extract the words in this same fashion;
nobody interprets all the texts of terror literally in the sense that they believe they are all equally God’s will

Among the most terrifying of them are the impreccatory Psalms. There the Psalmist, presumably writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Are the psalms inspired...or presumably inspired, unless Olsen disagrees with the content of the psalm???

here about Exodus:

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).

The tenth plague...the death of all the firstborn is the whole backdrop of the passover account...which speaks of Christ;
7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

11And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.

12For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

13And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.


It does not say this day will be a memorial to you, until roger olsen says that the Lord did not really give this command. This is inexcusable and a direct attack on scripture and the God who gave it.

then he whines that people call him liberal????get serious...


Then we have this:

Originally Posted by Michael Wrenn
Simply because it does not reflect who Jesus was and what He taught. If Jesus is the perfect image of God, how can the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, be reconciled with how God is presented in some places in the OT? It can't.

But you still cannot reconcile and harmonize the Sermon on the Mount with the blood lust that you perceive to be part of the character of God as shown in some places in the Old Testament.

But, you see, I don't believe the God of the Old Testament was filled with blood-lust. I do, however, believe some of his claimed representatives were -- just like some today are.

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[/QUOTE]

I asked several times for clarification....I asked specifically if the command listed in 1 sam 15;2-3....can be reconciled with the sermon on the mount.

he will not answer...there were other troubling ideas on other threads,several have questioned him...he just concludes that he is being persecuted.

 

[12strings]

Yes...I can. If I could not...I would not post like I am.

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

All we have are reports that God told them to do these things and that they did them.

The texts don’t explain the all the circumstances or reasons

Here in his second pointwe have:
alleged divine commands
all we have are reports that God told them

Skan ...when is says thus saith the Lord...is that alleged. or actual????
is it God's word...or just second hand reports???

Quote:
Among the most terrifying of them are the impreccatory Psalms. There the Psalmist, presumably writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Are the psalms inspired...or presumably inspired, unless Olsen disagrees with the content of the psalm???

here about Exodus:

Quote:
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).

...Then he whines that people call him liberal????get serious...

Skan, These are exactly the things I was concerned about when reading this article. I am still surprised that you are defending these statements.

Your Explanation of interpreting the OT in light of the NT (which no one is arguing with, by the way) is light-years away from what this author is saying.

You seem to be simply saying there are things that don't seem to make sense and we should follow Jesus' teaching on a matter if there is a distinction.

This author is not saying what you are saying. He is saying, by using terms like "alleged" to question whether God actually did the things the OT (God's word) says that He did.

 

[Iconoclast]

The CAC affirms that the Bible is absolutely true and trustworthy and is the written word of God which bears witness to the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ. We prefer to reserve such terms as "inerrant" and "infallible" to God alone, lest the Bible should be made an idol by some.

The CAC, unlike many Protestant communions, but in accord with Anglicanism and Methodism, holds that reason, tradition, and experience are also sources of authority for the church, but that these are secondary to the Spirit and the Bible.

However, we have grounds for believing that God does not alter His saving activity toward those who have died. For instance, 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6 strongly suggests that the apostolic mind thought that change is possible in the life beyond.

Thus, the ancient practice of prayers for the dead does not have to imply a belief in purgatory; it could be done on the basis of the belief that God, directly and through those who serve Him, continues to seek those who have closed themselves off from God.


If this is true, then the door to hell is locked only from the inside. For these reasons, I believe that the door to repentance is never closed -- neither in this life, nor in the next.

Inerrancy of Scripture

The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture is a controversial one; I believe one reason for this is that there are several definitions of the doctrine. Another reason is that some are intent on shoving their definition down people's throats. One large Protestant denomination has been torn apart over this very controversy. For these reasons and others, I avoid this term; I prefer to simply affirm that the Bible is true and trustworthy and is the written word of God which bears witness to the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, These are exactly the things I was concerned about when reading this article. I am still surprised that you are defending these statements.

Read back through the thread and you will see that I'm not defending any of their statements. I'm defending what I believe may be the intent of poorly worded statements.

I just find it interesting that if we are talking about the OT texts where God says he is about to destroy Israel but after Moses prayer for them He changes his mind and has MERCY on this that Calvinists will go through all kinds of gyrations to explain that away, but someone even questions a text where God destroys babies and they slap on the liberal label and away weeeee go. It's just seems like such a double standard.

Please explain to me why are Calvinists soooo concerned about explaining away texts where God is presented as merciful and willing to change his plans of destroying people, but will fight with such rancor (as witnessed on this thread) to protect the exact literal blood thirsty language of any text where God's vengeance and wrath is unchanging? I mean, if God would have wiped out Israel in Exodus instead of changing his mind when Moses prayed would you like that verse too and not try to explain it away as 'anthropomorphic?'

Could it not be that much more than JUST the 'God changing his mind' texts are 'anthropomorphic' in nature? GASP!!! LIBERAL!!! ONLY THE CALVINISTS CAN DECIDE WHICH TEXTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ANTHROPORMOPHICALLY!!! :smilewinkgrin:

Your Explanation of interpreting the OT in light of the NT (which no one is arguing with, by the way) is light-years away from what this author is saying.

He probably does go further than I would, as I already stated long ago, but I UNDERSTAND what he is intending to convey and I'm not seeing it as much different from what many Calvinists do to make their system fit.

This author is not saying what you are saying. He is saying, by using terms like "alleged" to question whether God actually did the things the OT (God's word) says that He did.

Did god ACTUALLY change his mind? Did God ACTUALLY regret creating man? etc etc etc.... I think you get the point.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You're welcome. It was in response to this,

I know, I know. Lighten up, Amy.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I've no intention of entering this debate, but I'm interested as to what you believe the Anglican position on the Apocrypha is, and how it would differ from a Baptist position.

Steve

I believe I posted this elsewhere, but I'll post it again: From the 39 Articles of Religion, Article VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
"And the other Books ( as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:"

So, Anglicanism takes a mediating position between Catholicism and Protestantism on the Apocrypha, as in many other things.

I believe the Baptists would hold to the Protestant position. The Anglicans read from the Apocrypha in church occasionally; I don't believe the Baptists would do that.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[convicted1]

The NT is a declaration of OT prophesies. Look @ Adam, Joseph, the Passover Lamb of Exodus 12, the Scapegoat of Leviticus 16, just to name a few, these are OT "types" of Jesus Christ.


The OT goes along with the NT, because the NT is showing the OT prophecies being fulfilled.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Icon,

Can you provide actual quotes from Olsen and/or Wrenn where they deny 1 Samuel, the Exodus account, and massive portions of scripture are in the bible? I looked but I can't find those quotes.

Thanks.

He can't with me, and the quotes from me that he uses to allegedly prove he can, in the post below yours, do not prove it at all. He is reading into it what he wants to see. I have said basically what you are saying, but he calls me all those vile things and unjustly charges me with things made up from his own mind. He doesn't call you those things, even though our positions are the same. Wonder why? I know why.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The CAC affirms that the Bible is absolutely true and trustworthy and is the written word of God which bears witness to the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ. We prefer to reserve such terms as "inerrant" and "infallible" to God alone, lest the Bible should be made an idol by some.

The CAC, unlike many Protestant communions, but in accord with Anglicanism and Methodism, holds that reason, tradition, and experience are also sources of authority for the church, but that these are secondary to the Spirit and the Bible.

However, we have grounds for believing that God does not alter His saving activity toward those who have died. For instance, 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6 strongly suggests that the apostolic mind thought that change is possible in the life beyond.

Thus, the ancient practice of prayers for the dead does not have to imply a belief in purgatory; it could be done on the basis of the belief that God, directly and through those who serve Him, continues to seek those who have closed themselves off from God.


If this is true, then the door to hell is locked only from the inside. For these reasons, I believe that the door to repentance is never closed -- neither in this life, nor in the next.

Inerrancy of Scripture

The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture is a controversial one; I believe one reason for this is that there are several definitions of the doctrine. Another reason is that some are intent on shoving their definition down people's throats. One large Protestant denomination has been torn apart over this very controversy. For these reasons and others, I avoid this term; I prefer to simply affirm that the Bible is true and trustworthy and is the written word of God which bears witness to the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Why, thank you for quoting from our website; I appreciate that service!

I guess this means that you affirm and approve our high position on the Bible, and that you understand that we believe the Bible is not to be worshiped -- that Jesus was nailed to the cross and not the Bible, but that the Bible is the divinely inspired record and revelation of that fact.

We believe in the Spirit-inspired written word of God which bears witness to the living Word of God, Jesus Christ. To us, the Bible is not a paper pope, and not something to be used to berate and revile others the way the Pharisees tried to use THE LAW against Jesus.

Thank you for your affirmation.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Read back through the thread and you will see that I'm not defending any of their statements. I'm defending what I believe may be the intent of poorly worded statements.

I just find it interesting that if we are talking about the OT texts where God says he is about to destroy Israel but after Moses prayer for them He changes his mind and has MERCY on this that Calvinists will go through all kinds of gyrations to explain that away, but someone even questions a text where God destroys babies and they slap on the liberal label and away weeeee go. It's just seems like such a double standard.

Please explain to me why are Calvinists soooo concerned about explaining away texts where God is presented as merciful and willing to change his plans of destroying people, but will fight with such rancor (as witnessed on this thread) to protect the exact literal blood thirsty language of any text where God's vengeance and wrath is unchanging? I mean, if God would have wiped out Israel in Exodus instead of changing his mind when Moses prayed would you like that verse too and not try to explain it away as 'anthropomorphic?'

Could it not be that much more than JUST the 'God changing his mind' texts are 'anthropomorphic' in nature? GASP!!! LIBERAL!!! ONLY THE CALVINISTS CAN DECIDE WHICH TEXTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ANTHROPORMOPHICALLY!!! :smilewinkgrin:

He probably does go further than I would, as I already stated long ago, but I UNDERSTAND what he is intending to convey and I'm not seeing it as much different from what many Calvinists do to make their system fit.

Did god ACTUALLY change his mind? Did God ACTUALLY regret creating man? etc etc etc.... I think you get the point.

Thank you for an excellent, discerning post!! This is just spot on!!

 

[Amy.G]

I mean, if God would have wiped out Israel in Exodus instead of changing his mind when Moses prayed would you like that verse too and not try to explain it away as 'anthropomorphic?'

Could it not be that much more than JUST the 'God changing his mind' texts are 'anthropomorphic' in nature? GASP!!! LIBERAL!!! ONLY THE CALVINISTS CAN DECIDE WHICH TEXTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ANTHROPORMOPHICALLY!!! :smilewinkgrin:

..........
Did god ACTUALLY change his mind? Did God ACTUALLY regret creating man? etc etc etc.... I think you get the point.

I'm glad you posted this because it shows your open theism side and also your lack of scripture knowledge.

The passage of Moses praying for God not to wipe out Israel is a wonderful example of God's sovereignty and mans free will all bound up into one inexplicable moment. Did God know Moses would pray for his people? Or did God just suddenly realize that He could do things a different way than He had planned?
Moses' prayer was all part of God's wonderful plan (yet Moses offered it of his own will) and also a prophecy to future generations. God told the Israelites that He would one day raise up a prophet like Moses that would save His people from their sins.

This prayer of Moses is a prophetic prayer of intercession, giving the Israelites and future generations a glimpse of the intercession that Christ would make for His people to stay the wrath of God. This is confirmed in the NT, proving that the OT and NT are in perfect harmony whether you like what you read in the OT or not.

Moses' prayer was always a part of God's plan even though it may seem to us that God changed His mind.

We humans have a tendency to put God in our little box of earthly time and space, but God is outside of that.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm glad you posted this because it shows your open theism side and also your lack of scripture knowledge.

Amy, you are better than this. Don't stoop to such levels. It is really beneath you. Please edit this and let's take the high road. Okay?

The passage of Moses praying for God not to wipe out Israel is a wonderful example of God's sovereignty and mans free will all bound up into one inexplicable moment.

I couldn't agree more.

This prayer of Moses is a prophetic prayer of intercession, giving the Israelites and future generations a glimpse of the intercession that Christ would make for His people to stay the wrath of God

I also agree with this. Great point. :thumbs:

This is confirmed in the NT, proving that the OT and NT are in perfect harmony whether you like what you read in the OT or not. ...We humans have a tendency to put God in our little box of earthly time and space, but God is outside of that.

This is the very root of all I have been arguing. Maybe you misread my intent?

 

[Skandelon]

Moses' prayer was always a part of God's plan even though it may seem to us that God changed His mind.

This quote here provides a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Honestly, I don't have a real problem with this interpretation. But notice that the text ITSELF says that God 'changed his mind.' So, its not just that it 'seems to us that God changed His mind,' the text actually says that He did.

How do some handle that? Just like Amy did, they interpret it 'anthropomorphically,' meaning they take the words of scripture as revealing something about God's actions as if He was 'like men' because that is the way it appeared to the writers of scripture as it was revealed to them. Why not take that same reasonable principle of interpretation and use it to interpret some of the 'terror' passages? Calvinists seem willing to use 'reasonable' (and sometimes what some would label "liberal") methods of interpretations to explain 'apparent contradictions' where God is revealed as acting contraction to one of his divine attributes.

Example:

1. We know God is immutable and omniscient but the OT text reveals him changing his mind and relenting. (Calvinists willing to apply 'liberal' interpretative techniques to reconcile the apparent contradiction)

2. We know God is omnibenevolent, Holy, loving, kind, patient, teaches us to be kind to our enemies, doesn't even tempt men to evil etc, but the OT text reveals him as being apparently contradictory to these attributes. (Calvinists unwilling to apply 'liberal' interpretative techniques to reconcile the apparent contradiction)

I'm merely calling you all to be consistent anytime there are apparent contradiction and not to attack another brother for doing the exact same things you do on other texts when it suits your purposes. Could it be that some of the 'terror' passages were likewise 'anthropomorphic' in nature, in that God actions are being revealed in limited human terms that are better understood in the context of all we REALLY know of God in light of the whole revelation of scripture? Understand?

 

[Iconoclast]

Why, thank you for quoting from our website; I appreciate that service!

I guess this means that you affirm and approve our high position on the Bible, and that you understand that we believe the Bible is not to be worshiped -- that Jesus was nailed to the cross and not the Bible, but that the Bible is the divinely inspired record and revelation of that fact.

We believe in the Spirit-inspired written word of God which bears witness to the living Word of God, Jesus Christ. To us, the Bible is not a paper pope, and not something to be used to berate and revile others the way the Pharisees tried to use THE LAW against Jesus.

Thank you for your affirmation.

Then being you are thankful, can you answer by way of clarification when the bible says this:
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.


Did the God of the sermon on the mount,the God of Jn 3:16 actually say this,as the bible declares he did??? simple question.

And once again...is this the God of the sermon on the mount:

26And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?

27That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. 28And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

30And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Is this what happened....or something else???
Did God smite all the firstborn in the land ,not covered by the blood?


Is the bible ...the word of God.....or...does it contain the word of God in some places,and not others?
Skan.

Could it be that some of the 'terror' passages were likewise 'anthropomorphic' in nature, in that God actions are being revealed in limited human terms that are better understood in the context of all we REALLY know of God in light of the whole revelation of scripture? Understand

these texts are not anthropomorhic......the passover is typical of the cross.