plain, simple, and clearly understood truth

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I agree that it does contain a lot of truth - but as Calvin notes that bit about Christ going to hell is an addition that has been called into question.

GE:

Good day! I see you're on line -- excellent!

Calvin is the man who explained to me this enigma (created by who knows whose distorted picture of it).

I'll look up the pages in his Constitutions and let you have them, DV. (I say for everything DV because life is at its hectic pace and I really won't be able to tell how long I'll be in a position for things like posting on this forum.)

Now what I learnt from Calvin and others like especially my favourite theologian, Klaas Schilder, is that one should not look at the word-sequence of the Confession, but one must notice its stress through word-order. (How it originally happened I find nothing wrong with as to explain through God's Determination.)

They say, and greatly and deeply elaborate on the truth of it, that Jesus descended into hell's depths of misery and punishment, ALIVE, BEFORE, and while, and through, dying and death.

For example, Schilder's massive Trilogy, spends almost the whole of the three books on "Christus aan het INGANG van zijn Lijding; Christus in den DOORGANG van zijn lijden; en, Christus bij den UITGANG van zijn lijden" ("Christ on Trial; Christ IN HIS SUFFERING; Christ Crucified") -- i.e., Jesus' experiencing of eternal hell ---- that was and is, His ATONING suffering that earned and completed forgiveness for sins -- BEFORE He actually gave over the spirit to His Father.

That article of the Confession has become most precious to me.

 

[D28guy]

Bob Ryan,

"The interesting thing is that when they reach their "limit" (whether they are a tea cup, a mug or a barrell of information before they hit bottom ) -- you can always take the last substantive challenge to their views and see it as a gaping chasm in their doctrine - for they clearly have no answer for it."

Sometimes, but other times it could be because the person has come to realise that they are "talking to a brick wall", and they are tired of spinning their wheels endlessly.

I know that I have had the "I'm talking to a brick wall" feeling many times...a couple here lately.

Mike

 

[steaver]

But EVERYBODY has a "stopping" point on all subjects and you can usually tell what it is because when they hit it - they immediately resort to --
1. Ad Hominem - your team is not as well favored as my team - so "maybe you should go away"
2. Talk to hand - the head is not paying any attention to any points raised if they do not already agree with me.
3. Glossy terms where grand success is claimed non-stop and insult is dished out as the "icing" on the claim for success. This antic is interesting because they spend so much space claiming to have succeeeded in some mythical exchange (usually one where they merely "posted" rather then succeeded) - that you wonder why they are not filling this waste of space-post with posting the "substance" they claim to have already had.

And "EVERYBODY" would include BobRyan as well? Or "everybody" with the exception of BobRyan? Just wondering. :thumbs:

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Includes BobRyan IMHO

But to get there - you have to hit the same 'empty space' in my doctrinal argument that is the pre-requisite for the "limit indicators" I posted - and you quoted.

If that should happen on this board I would hope I would have the grace and integrity to avoid the natural "knee-jerk" reaction that is built into our fallen sinful human nature - but I can not claim with certainty that I would actually do so well if the tables were turned.

To be honest - the vast majority (if not all) on this board have been very obliging when it comes to my arguments in that they have not followed the details of the points raised down to the point where I actually "needed" to find something "else" that they did not have a thorough and complete answer for -- By simply capitualating at the early stages of their debate logic by transparently circling back to points already answered (and then not answering the points raised at that second and third level of the discussion) those who oppose my views have allowed me the luxury of highlighting the unnanswered points in the later stages of the debate instead of continuing on to some point where I too might have run out of road.

Hint: "I don't like that point you raised because I don't like to think of it the way the text says it" is not actually "an answer". Rather it is a red flag to me saying "keep going back to that Bible point because this is where they are stuck and have no real answers".

It saves me from having to be in that same cornered position that "theoretically" might have happened had they actually carried the topic forward with cogent Bible-based answers.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is another point to ponder. The Bible does not contradict and in fact only teaches ONE truth on Baptism, Escatology, the nature of the soul, law, grace, the Gospel etc.

But inside the RCC, and eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Church of England, etc (Those Catholic groups not protesting points of the Gospel along with Luther) we have numerous views just as we do in the more Protestant churches of non-Catholic origin.

Yet the Bible does not agree with ALL on ALL points (by definition). So how is it that humanity is so quick to abandon exegesis and to simply eisegete its own truths "at some point" in it's reading of scripture. EVEN when it is saved "saints" on both sides of the debate?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Includes BobRyan IMHO

But to get there - you have to hit the same 'empty space' in my doctrinal argument that is the pre-requisite for the "limit indicators" I posted - and you quoted.

If that should happen on this board I would hope I would have the grace and integrity to avoid the natural "knee-jerk" reaction that is built into our fallen sinful human nature - but I can not claim with certainty that I would actually do so well if the tables were turned.

To be honest - the vast majority (if not all) on this board have been very obliging when it comes to my arguments in that they have not followed the details of the points raised down to the point where I actually "needed" to find something "else" that they did not have a thorough and complete answer for -- By simply capitualating at the early stages of their debate logic by transparently circling back to points already answered (and then not answering the points raised at that second and third level of the discussion) those who oppose my views have allowed me the luxury of highlighting the unnanswered points in the later stages of the debate instead of continuing on to some point where I too might have run out of road.

Hint: "I don't like that point you raised because I don't like to think of it the way the text says it" is not actually "an answer". Rather it is a red flag to me saying "keep going back to that Bible point because this is where they are stuck and have no real answers".

It saves me from having to be in that same cornered position that "theoretically" might have happened had they actually carried the topic forward with cogent Bible-based answers.


In Christ,

Bob

So, correct me if I am wrong, it includes you but you have never done such on this board.

God Bless!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Posted by Steaver:

Quote:
But EVERYBODY has a "stopping" point on all subjects and you can usually tell what it is because when they hit it - they immediately resort to --
1. Ad Hominem - your team is not as well favored as my team - so "maybe you should go away"
2. Talk to hand - the head is not paying any attention to any points raised if they do not already agree with me.
3. Glossy terms where grand success is claimed non-stop and insult is dished out as the "icing" on the claim for success. This antic is interesting because they spend so much space claiming to have succeeeded in some mythical exchange (usually one where they merely "posted" rather then succeeded) - that you wonder why they are not filling this waste of space-post with posting the "substance" they claim to have already had.

Steaver concluding:


And "EVERYBODY" would include BobRyan as well? Or "everybody" with the exception of BobRyan? Just wondering. :thumbs:

GE:

Best example of : "3. Glossy terms where grand success is claimed non-stop and insult is dished out as the "icing" on the claim for success. This antic is interesting because they spend so much space claiming to have succeeeded in some mythical exchange (usually one where they merely "posted" rather then succeeded) - that you wonder why they are not filling this waste of space-post with posting the "substance" they claim to have already ha" .....

Geuss what? : 3. Glossy terms where grand success is claimed non-stop and insult is dished out as the "icing" on the claim for success. This antic is interesting because they spend so much space claiming to have succeeeded in some mythical exchange (usually one where they merely "posted" rather then succeeded) - that you wonder why they are not filling this waste of space-post with posting the "substance" they claim to have already had.

You can spin!

 

[BobRyan]

So, correct me if I am wrong, it includes you but you have never done such on this board.

God Bless!

I am pretty good at avoiding subject titles where that is likely to happen sir.raying: :type:

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Case in point -- look at the "talking to the dead" thread.

This is a "softball" for me and you have to admit it!

Agnus is reduced to arguing that Christ is "praying to the dead" in John 11 when He commands Lazarus to be resurrected.

I mean really- how much easier could this be for me??!

Agnus even lobbed one over to me about Luke 20 and MAtt 22 regarding Christ saying that "God is NOT the God of the dead"... Again - I couldn't have ASKED for a more perfect setup for my argument.

The Bible is providing so much "air cover" on that subject that I could basically close my eyes and throw a dart and it would hit a target with basically no challenge at all. This is due to the subject matter and the position I am taking - it has nothing to do with the relative strength or weakness of people on either side.

In Christ,

Bob