Slowly moving my wife towards Reformed Theology from IFB theology

[quantumfaith]

You are clueless at best.....Unbiblical at your worst.You make drive by statements like this,when someone answers you you run and hide rather than offer anything biblically. If you feel you have a biblical point than offer one.
The "theological box" that you disparage is what you lack for the most part.
You feel you have better theology offer it...I have not seen any "pearls" from any of your posts that i can recall.

He does not have to Icon. Let it also be know, that just because you recite massive missives replete with scripture citations does not suggest that you are correct, you simply "think" and suspect that doing so makes all things correct.

Now I am going to hide.

 

[Iconoclast]

quantumfaith


QF..hello...no need to hide.Let's discuss which is better.

He does not have to Icon.

I do not know sag 38.As much as he says we try and keep a neat little theological box....he has one also.He says that as if it gives him high ground and he is condescending to speak at us...not with us.

If sag38 has a conviction that differs that is between him and God.If he believes in his heart that we hold error...okay fine.If he comes into a debate site,and a study site do you think it is possible that he actually can engage in such a discussion without the snotty little comments?

Could he post something, some verses an article, something to indicate why he see's it differently? is that too much to ask?

Let it also be know, that just because you recite massive missives replete with scripture citations does not suggest that you are correct

,

QF you say you teach math.If i attend your class for a month and never see you write a number, equation , or formula on the board....would I have a right to question you on it.

I try to offer good verses, articles, or study helps that would provoke thought and growth. You suggest it does not suggest I am correct.
Okay fine enough....so why not react and say- your article says this - but from where i stand you are not looking at this verse correctly because....

That would be more helpful than this drive by junk that RM,and sag38, andJK and some others do.

QF....Do you think I would post something that was full of error???
Why would anyone post what they believed was in fact wrong?

you simply "think" and suspect that doing so makes all things correct.

Now I am going to hide.

I used to believe Dispensational premill was the truth and there could not be a viable alternative not because I actually knew the other views well enough but because the premill teachers and books said it was so.

When I looked seriously at the other views and could not answer as well as I had been taught to believe...i moved away from that view and still am unsettled but certain things have become clear.

With the truth of God's grace...I have much more to learn,however the basic framework is rock solid.I have in earlier days looked at the best writing I could read against the view but they all fell away as inconsistent .

I do not believe God wants us to wander around our whole Christian life,and not know what we believe at all...as if it is all still a mystery and we cannot know at all.This makes for weak and mushy christians.

Let me pick on DHK, or the poster Gerald Perry senior.I believe they can handle it. They both are the fundy types of brothers.On certain topics I can stand side by side with them...deity, sin,the blood of Jesus being perfect, the scripture alone as our complete authority,etc they are good at going against cults and catholics holding to a works salvation.

Then we have areas where we part company.I have gone after DHK pretty hard sometimes and yet he stands with what he knows...Lord willing ,until he knows better.I have no doubt that he will make a gospel presentation when he has opportunities{Despite his theological error on some issues}

i call it error because i have already offered him some of what i can on it and he does not see it that way. {yes..he thinks i have error also}nevertheless I like that he will speak boldly what he knows ...like Apollos...until Aquila and Priscilla offered him some new ideas.

GP sr. also will openly confess Christ....different and more restricted than I would adding some legalism in some of the time.{ he would not see it as legalism. but under his churches idea of what Biblical separation is}
yet i am confident that he will conduct himself morally and witha view to the bible as the answer to people.

If we start there and move forward is better than drive by attacks ,then run and hide tactics.

QF...if someone does not want the theological discussion should'nt they go in the entertainment room or coffee house and discuss how to make rice krispy treats instead ?:wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

quantumfaith


QF..hello...no need to hide.Let's discuss which is better.


I do not know sag 38.As much as he says we try and keep a neat little theological box....he has one also.He says that as if it gives him high ground and he is condescending to speak at us...not with us.

If sag38 has a conviction that differs that is between him and God.If he believes in his heart that we hold error...okay fine.If he comes into a debate site,and a study site do you think it is possible that he actually can engage in such a discussion without the snotty little comments?

Could he post something, some verses an article, something to indicate why he see's it differently? is that too much to ask?


,

QF you say you teach math.If i attend your class for a month and never see you write a number, equation , or formula on the board....would I have a right to question you on it.

I try to offer good verses, articles, or study helps that would provoke thought and growth. You suggest it does not suggest I am correct.
Okay fine enough....so why not react and say- your article says this - but from where i stand you are not looking at this verse correctly because....

That would be more helpful than this drive by junk that RM,and sag38, andJK and some others do.

QF....Do you think I would post something that was full of error???
Why would anyone post what they believed was in fact wrong?





I used to believe Dispensational premill was the truth and there could not be a viable alternative not because I actually knew the other views well enough but because the premill teachers and books said it was so.

When I looked seriously at the other views and could not answer as well as I had been taught to believe...i moved away from that view and still am unsettled but certain things have become clear.

With the truth of God's grace...I have much more to learn,however the basic framework is rock solid.I have in earlier days looked at the best writing I could read against the view but they all fell away as inconsistent .

I do not believe God wants us to wander around our whole Christian life,and not know what we believe at all...as if it is all still a mystery and we cannot know at all.This makes for weak and mushy christians.

Let me pick on DHK, or the poster Gerald Perry senior.I believe they can handle it. They both are the fundy types of brothers.On certain topics I can stand side by side with them...deity, sin,the blood of Jesus being perfect, the scripture alone as our complete authority,etc they are good at going against cults and catholics holding to a works salvation.

Then we have areas where we part company.I have gone after DHK pretty hard sometimes and yet he stands with what he knows...Lord willing ,until he knows better.I have no doubt that he will make a gospel presentation when he has opportunities{Despite his theological error on some issues}

i call it error because i have already offered him some of what i can on it and he does not see it that way. {yes..he thinks i have error also}nevertheless I like that he will speak boldly what he knows ...like Apollos...until Aquila and Priscilla offered him some new ideas.

GP sr. also will openly confess Christ....different and more restricted than I would adding some legalism in some of the time.{ he would not see it as legalism. but under his churches idea of what Biblical separation is}
yet i am confident that he will conduct himself morally and witha view to the bible as the answer to people.

If we start there and move forward is better than drive by attacks ,then run and hide tactics.

QF...if someone does not want the theological discussion should'nt they go in the entertainment room or coffee house and discuss how to make rice krispy treats instead ?:wavey:

I like rice Krispie treats so do you DARE cast any dispersion on "them".

I would welcome you into my math class, I will even give you your choice of Basic Math (arithmetic) or Differential Equations.

There is a fundamental difference between "theology" and mathematics, or science in general. Theology is not "measureable" and is somewhat open to the interpretive skills and background of the interpreter. Perhaps, that is why I "appreciate" mathematics so much. Aside from mathematics under construction, that which is established with rigor is beyond any argument of interpretation. Theology, on the other hand, is to a very large extent dependent upon interpretive skill and background. Unlike a hard science, it is not observable and measureable with any metric. When one participates in a theological debate, very rarely do they do more than toss scripture back and forth in a bumper sticker sort of way.

I do not feel "qualified" to participate to any great extent in such an exchange. The only "winners" are those in their own minds and their already settled positions.

My "grief" is not necessarily with ones theology (assuming it maintains essentials of christianity) but with the high handed postulating and pontificating that accompanies such.

Sorry for rambling

 

[agedman]

I like rice Krispie treats so do you DARE cast any dispersion on "them".

I would welcome you into my math class, I will even give you your choice of Basic Math (arithmetic) or Differential Equations.

There is a fundamental difference between "theology" and mathematics, or science in general. Theology is not "measureable" and is somewhat open to the interpretive skills and background of the interpreter. Perhaps, that is why I "appreciate" mathematics so much. Aside from mathematics under construction, that which is established with rigor is beyond any argument of interpretation. Theology, on the other hand, is to a very large extent dependent upon interpretive skill and background. Unlike a hard science, it is not observable and measureable with any metric. When one participates in a theological debate, very rarely do they do more than toss scripture back and forth in a bumper sticker sort of way.

I do not feel "qualified" to participate to any great extent in such an exchange. The only "winners" are those in their own minds and their already settled positions.

My "grief" is not necessarily with ones theology (assuming it maintains essentials of christianity) but with the high handed postulating and pontificating that accompanies such.

Sorry for rambling

Interesting.

I once sat in an "in service" held by a mathematician (doctoral level) and he was contending that math is an example of how there is no one right answer.

I wonder what he would do you your class.

Actually, you have a point about theology. One of the earliest contentions that had to be somewhat settled by the Jerusalem church (before the apostles were dispersed) was over the matter of those who carried Jewish "law" into the world of the gentiles. There is a history of the believers "discussing" and disagreements over theological items - it is human nature to disagree, often strongly, even physically (Cain) .

I would suppose that in some mathematical symposium circles that disagreements also occur. Because I am not schooled enough, nor smart enough, I doubt that I would even recognize that a contention was an issue, much less be able to discern that the contention does not always mean high regard for the person is lost in the battle. I would probably be the type that would join a side because I always take up for the weaker and picked upon.

 

[quantumfaith]

Interesting.

I once sat in an "in service" held by a mathematician (doctoral level) and he was contending that math is an example of how there is no one right answer.

I wonder what he would do you your class.

Actually, you have a point about theology. One of the earliest contentions that had to be somewhat settled by the Jerusalem church (before the apostles were dispersed) was over the matter of those who carried Jewish "law" into the world of the gentiles. There is a history of the believers "discussing" and disagreements over theological items - it is human nature to disagree, often strongly, even physically (Cain) .

I would suppose that in some mathematical symposium circles that disagreements also occur. Because I am not schooled enough, nor smart enough, I doubt that I would even recognize that a contention was an issue, much less be able to discern that the contention does not always mean high regard for the person is lost in the battle. I would probably be the type that would join a side because I always take up for the weaker and picked upon.

We share the concern for the weaker and picked upon character.

I would suspect that your mathematician message presenter was thinking "along the lines" that mathematics is a "created language" of human kind. It is without doubt built upon assumptions (we call them axioms) which are assumed true. Such terms, such as "a point" in geometry are often seen as "undefined". In the "true spirit" of science (and mathematics) if in the future we are presented with indisputable evidence that some axiomatic statement is false, then some if not all of the mathematics built upon it crumbles. Real science should always be cognizant of that necessary truth.

 

[agedman]

We share the concern for the weaker and picked upon character.

I would suspect that your mathematician message presenter was thinking "along the lines" that mathematics is a "created language" of human kind. It is without doubt built upon assumptions (we call them axioms) which are assumed true. Such terms, such as "a point" in geometry are often seen as "undefined". In the "true spirit" of science (and mathematics) if in the future we are presented with indisputable evidence that some axiomatic statement is false, then some if not all of the mathematics built upon it crumbles. Real science should always be cognizant of that necessary truth.

When the presenter was confronted that 1 + 1 cannot assume a correct answer as other than 2, he moved from there is more than one correct answer to there is more than one way to "find" the correct answer.

Attempting to discern completely out of the area I possess no great knowledge, but if I read your post correctly, could it not be aligned with what Icon does when posting various passages of Scriptures and then showing how some coalesced them into a systematic statement of faith or creed? In effect showing that certain validity of his views by support from the major works others?


On the BB, some discussions seem to generate from the thinking that if one can pick apart a single thread of the "Calvinistic" thinking, the rest fails - just as you mentioned about the mathematics. But they don't apply that thinking to their own "scheme."

 

[quantumfaith]

When the presenter was confronted that 1 + 1 cannot assume a correct answer as other than 2, he moved from there is more than one correct answer to there is more than one way to "find" the correct answer.

Attempting to discern completely out of the area I possess no great knowledge, but if I read your post correctly, could it not be aligned with what Icon does when posting various passages of Scriptures and then showing how some coalesced them into a systematic statement of faith or creed? In effect showing that certain validity of his views by support from the major works others?


On the BB, some discussions seem to generate from the thinking that if one can pick apart a single thread of the "Calvinistic" thinking, the rest fails - just as you mentioned about the mathematics. But they don't apply that thinking to their own "scheme."

Aaah, yes, there is more than one way to arrive at a correct answer...... That I, as a teacher of mathematics often encounter. When assisting students, I often hear the remark.....that is not how my previous teacher taught me. If you really want to delve into the "metaphysical" nature of mathematics, you should investigate the concepts of quantum mechanics (quantum physics) It demonstrates, at least to many interpretations a level of indeterminacy in our universe, at least at the level of the sub atomic. And yes I agree, one attacks single pillars of theological positions, primarily because that is a "natrual" tendency. Pick what one thinks is a weak point and exploit it. That strategerie (Bush) is use by all flavors of the theological perspective. My position and contention is that we should have a very simple and clearly expressed set of Essentials for identification as a believing Christian.....from there we should at least have a decorum of respect for the different tangents we each take in the expression and appropriation of that list of essentials.

 

[sag38]

You are clueless at best.....Unbiblical at your worst.You make drive by statements like this,when someone answers you you run and hide rather than offer anything biblically. If you feel you have a biblical point than offer one.
The "theological box" that you disparage is what you lack for the most part.
You feel you have better theology offer it...I have not seen any "pearls" from any of your posts that i can recall.

Point is proved as if your so called pearls are better than what anyone else has to offer. Now go ahead and question my salvation (in your clandestine manner) as you have done in the past with me and with other posters who don't fawn over you and you will prove my point even further.

 

[preacher4truth]

You are clueless at best.....Unbiblical at your worst.You make drive by statements like this,when someone answers you you run and hide rather than offer anything biblically. If you feel you have a biblical point than offer one.
The "theological box" that you disparage is what you lack for the most part.
You feel you have better theology offer it...I have not seen any "pearls" from any of your posts that i can recall.

Great response and I concur with the latter especially. :applause:

 

[quantumfaith]

Great response and I concur with the latter especially. :applause:

Is it any surprise? Nope.

 

[Iconoclast]

Point is proved as if your so called pearls are better than what anyone else has to offer. Now go ahead and question my salvation (in your clandestine manner) as you have done in the past with me and with other posters who don't fawn over you and you will prove my point even further.

So your casting pearls before swine remark was meant as a blessing toward the cals here.
Not hypocritical at all sag...you posts speak for themselves....I do not have to say a word...your own posts reveal your heart condition.You do not fool me however...lol

 

[sag38]

You are right the "swine" was wrong on my part. I apologize.

 

[quantumfaith]

You are right the "swine" was wrong on my part. I apologize.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

The mark of a strong and mature person.

 

[Salty]

No you did not say that....but you twice asked him this-



that is why I asked you where does a baptist church have an ....ALTAR..at all?

and what do you believe about the regulative principle?

First of all I never used the term altar call. I simply quoted what Evang7 said way back in post # 1. Personally, I prefer the term invitation. However I have no qualm with someone using "Altar call".

Now to answer you question - where does a baptist church have an altar - usually in front of the pulpit to hold communion. According to this dictionary -

Keep in mind that words can have more than one meaning.

In addition - are you advocating that Baptist churches get rid of pulpits? Daniel never used one, Moses never used one - and neither did Jesus! There fore I can honestly say that Iconoclast & E-7 beleive that baptist churches should NOT have a pulpit - as no where in Scripture a pulpit is mentioned.

So, one last time Evang- where does the Bible PROHIBIT having an altar call?
Your silence means you have spoken.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Proving the negative is a logical fallacy. Just because a particular word/phrase is not "condemned" means nothing as to its validity or appropriateness.

I gave up in the invitation system/altar call from ifb days in 1996. Never looked back. Every message I preach has a "desired response" built in for emphasis, but will let the holy Spirit of God move, not psychological manipulation.