Spiritual Death

[JonC]

lol, Here we have the JonC, I do not understand anything you post, so I will deride it, Baloney fallacy..These posts were getting back to several ideas Martin offered, and I am more than confident he will readily grasp them and be edified by them.

Your objections are duly noted and filed and I am sure you can offer your ideas in one of the many similar threads you start...so good luck with that my friend. Thanks for your positive and edifying "thoughts". once again;

To sum up your attack, I mean "thoughts";

1]BUT their position is dead on arrival. They miss two fundamental issues.

2]First, neither have maintained logical consistency. But have engaged a formal logical fallacy

3]all they can do is continue to offer commentary neither can understand).

4] Ignoring this makes their explanations nothing but nonsense, a complex building on no foundation at all. Just a bunch of someone else's words they do not grasp.

Thanks again for these keen insights,lol

LOL.... I hate to break to to you but the inverse fallacy is a real formal logical fallacy. I am saying you have to address that before you try to build doctrine. And you need to define your terms.

This is not insult but trying to help you stand on firmer ground. Go back and do that and then see how your (or the one you borrowed) argument stands.

 

[Iconoclast]

Martin, sorry for that interruption;

From the very beginning God revealed that His kingdom is characterized by peace, the heart of which is delightful intimacy between Creator-Father and image-son.

The Fall devastated this intimacy and erected an insurmountable barrier between God and man, and therefore between God and the rest of the created order. The peace that had defined the “very good” creation had been replaced by estrangement and enmity;

thus the promise to crush the serpent was the promise to restore the creation to its shalomic state; the recovery of sacred space would bring the recovery of peace.

- With this background it becomes evident why the biblical storyline introduces the terminology of peace within the context of the Israelite kingdom. That kingdom represented the typological fulfillment of the recovery first promised in Eden. The seed of Abraham –the national extension at that time of the “seed of the woman” – were being restored to the Creator-Lord by His gathering them to Himself in His sanctuary-land. Adam’s estranged descendents, expelled from God’s dwelling place in Eden, had now been, as it were, restored to a new Eden.

God intended the Israelite theocracy to be a typological expression of the kingdom structure first portrayed in Eden and then made a matter of promissory oath after the Fall.

As such, this kingdom was itself to be characterized by the peace of divine Father and covenant son dwelling together in perfect intimacy and harmonious delight. But being merely a type of the true kingdom pledged in Eden, the theocracy only held out the notion of peace as an ideal – an ideal that it never saw realized.

The kingdom of Israel was never intended to fulfill the promise in Eden; its role was purely prophetic and preparatory. Being a typological representation of the true kingdom, it was necessarily preoccupied with the matter of peace, but for the very same reason it could not realize that peace. The fundamental alienation between God and man continued throughout its duration, and soon Israel’s prophets began to speak of a coming day of destruction and desolation. The Israelite kingdom would not long endure, but its decreed passing provided the platform for the parallel prophetic promise of a future kingdom in which the oath of reconciliation and peace would at last be realized.

 

[Iconoclast]

InTheLight,

I just scrolled through another three (four?) gigantic multi-colored copy-and-paste jobs by Iconoclast and read about two sentences. Snooze.

Could you summarize these essays in your own words, please?

And please quit with the multi-colored fonts.

These "cut and paste jobs" are sheep food ITL.
Do you ever read anything at length?
Are you a daily bread kind of I read something today?
I doubt you have ever considered what This Pastor has offered here.Why dis parage it without reading it?
If you read it and look up the verses and do not agree...fine. You do not have to.

These posts are primarily for Martin M...I know he is interested in such study as well as other likeminded brethren.
It is available for you and others if time permits.
The readers digest version is God in redemptive history goes about to restore Shalom and Shabbat, peace and rest In Christ.

Do not hurt yourself ITL trying to read the whole thing, which takes maybe 4 minutes to read through, but much longer to look up and consider the verses.
Many here do not like to do that, but no one forces them to look.
The multi colored fonts are to provide distinction where I believe it necessary. They are not for everybody.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I had not had a chance to sit and offer you more on this until now.
take your time and enjoy seeing the work of God in the recovery of sacred space, peace and rest.

Thanks so much for these fascinating insights. I have only had the chance to skim through them as yet - once again I am in the midst of sermon preparation and devising a new Bible-study series - but I will spend some time looking through them again and, hopefully, find something helpful to add.
Keep it coming, bro; don't be discouraged by scoffers - better to ignore them. Remember Proverbs 27:22 and relax.

 

[Iconoclast]

LOL.... I hate to break to to you but the inverse fallacy is a real formal logical fallacy. I am saying you have to address that before you try to build doctrine. And you need to define your terms.

This is not insult but trying to help you stand on firmer ground. Go back and do that and then see how your (or the one you borrowed) argument stands.

JonC.

I do not see the Apostles in Acts 15, [or anywhere else] saying...
this is an inverse fallacy, this is begging the question, this is argument absurdum, and all of these philosophical man-made debate fallacies used to avoid interacting with the biblical data.
they might have a place somewhere, but not in my world.

I am here in the truck stop before driving my next 700 miles, None of the drivers are worried about such nonsense , inverse fallacy, etc. They want to know about sin, and salvation, peace and rest, and the eternal state.

You can live in that world which I flat out reject as a time waster.
I would rather look up the verses offered, not to rip down what is offered by a pastor who is much sharper than I am, but with a view to understand redemptive history and where it winds up.
He offers theology that drawing heavily from several solid theologians.
To my eye, primarliy Gerhardous Vos.

You might not understand it, but that is the beauty of it. You do not have to.
i am sure all the reformed brothers will see it straight away.
They might not agree with all of it, but they are welcome to differ and consider what is offered.
I do not shut anyone down or all those nasty things you say about me, I have a view that i can express as well as anyone on here.

You have started several threads opposing what I and martin have offered. That is wonderful, enjoy them with the others who like your musing on partial statements and slightly altered posts.

 

[Yeshua1]

To borrow from @Iconoclast, my post sliced through his and @Martin Marprelate 's like a knife through butter.

Here is why - they both hold a detailed and interesting position (with a lot of true statements and Scripture). BUT their position is dead on arrival. They miss two fundamental issues.

First, neither have maintained logical consistency. But have engaged a formal logical fallacy. Second, neither have been able to provide the definitions which should have been worked out at the start.

That is why anything they have built has failed (all they can do is continue to offer commentary neither can understand).

I am sure this is obvious to most here. They have to work through the meaning of spiritual life (via scripture) before they can discuss its absence. And we have to be logically consistent. Ignoring this makes their explanations nothing but nonsense, a complex building on no foundation at all. Just a bunch of someone else's words they do not grasp.

We know that Adam was created by God to have spiritual life, as he was in a relationship with his creator, without need for the Messiah yet!

 

[JonC]

JonC.

I do not see the Apostles in Acts 15, [or anywhere else] saying...
this is an inverse fallacy, this is begging the question, this is argument absurdum, and all of these philosophical man-made debate fallacies used to avoid interacting with the biblical data.
they might have a place somewhere, but not in my world.

I am here in the truck stop before dring my next 700 miles, None of the drivers are worried about such nonsense , inverse fallacy, etc. They want to know about sin, and salvation, peace and rest, and the eternal state.

You can live in that world which I flat out reject asa time waster.
I would rather look up the verses offered, not to rip down what is offered by a pastor who is much sharper than I am, but with a view to understand redemptive history and where it winds up.
He offers theology that drawing heavily from several solid theologians.
To my eye, primarliy Gerhardous Vos.

You might not understand it, but that is the beauty of it. You do not have to.
i am sure all the reformed brothers will see it straight away.
They might not agree with all of it, but they are welcome to differ and consider what is offered.
I do not shut anyone down or all those nasty things you say about me, I have a view that i can express as well as anyone on here.

You have started several threads opposing what I and martin have offered. That is wonderful, enjoy them with the others who like your musing on partial statements and slightly altered posts.

They did not. I am not talking about what you have piled on here (your unsupported ideas).

I am talking about assuming the inverse of what is said. That is a logical fallacy.

And I am saying you would do better to first define all terms involved (neither you or @Martin Marprelate have done that).

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks so much for these fascinating insights. I have only had the chance to skim through them as yet - once again I am in the midst of sermon preparation and devising a new Bible-study series - but I will spend some time looking through them again and, hopefully, find something helpful to add.
Keep it coming, bro; don't be discouraged by scoffers - better to ignore them. Remember Proverbs 27:22 and relax.

Thank you... I know you and others will profit from these helpful thoughts and gleanings from Vos and others...Sermon prep first.

These small samples were excerpts from a 62 message series on sermonaudio which I will link here. the sermon notes are available when you scroll down. These notes I link are from 3 PDF files sent to me and used by permission from Pastor culver when i spoke with Him a few years ago.
I had them printed out at staples and have hundreds of pages of notes as a result.
here is the introduction to the 62 message series.
part1 of 62

Introduction -- Discerning God's Dwelling Place (Sacred Space)

 

[Iconoclast]

"Martin Marprelate,

]Thanks so much for these fascinating insights. I have only had the chance to skim through them as yet - once again I am in the midst of sermon preparation and devising a new Bible-study series - but I will spend some time looking through them again and, hopefully, find something helpful to add.
Keep it coming, bro; don't be discouraged by scoffers - better to ignore them. Remember Proverbs 27:22 and relax.

here we get to it ;
2. The Formation of Sacred Space in Christ

By His own affirmation, Jesus is the subject of all the Old Testament Scriptures. And since the Old Testament is the record of God’s redemptive determination and its progressive outworking on the stage of history, it follows that redemption has its focal point in Christ’s person and work. But the ultimate goal of redemption is the recovery and consummation of sacred space. God sent His Son into the world for the purpose of renewing and restoring the whole creation to Himself; His eternal will is that, in the administration of the fullness of the times, He would sum up all things in Christ Jesus.

Thus the New Testament affirms that Jesus is the fulfillment of sacred space. In Him and by virtue of His work, the estranged creation has been reconciled to its Creator, the focal point of which is the reconciliation of the Father and His image-son. And recognizing that Jesus is the fulfillment of sacred space and that all of salvation history leading up to His coming was determined by and directed toward this fulfillment, it becomes clear how all things that preceded Christ come to converge in Him.

All things converge in Him, but they equally flow out of Him. Everything subsequent to the “Christ event” presupposes and draws upon it just as everything before it anticipated and prepared for it. And in that God’s ultimate purpose in Christ is the consummate realization of sacred space, one would expect that, just as sacred space is fulfilled in Him, so also it is formed in Him. This is exactly what the New Testament reveals, and it does so in three primary ways.

a. The first has logical primacy and points only indirectly to the formation of sacred space in Jesus. This is the fact that He is presented as the destroyer of the earthly temple. The temple epitomized sacred space as the realm in which God manifests His relational presence in His creation, especially with respect to His imagebearer. Sacred space is God’s design for His creation, so that the indication of the temple’s demise couldn’t help but raise the expectation of some sort of recovery.

1) The Old Testament witness, in fact, shows that such an expectation is fully warranted. Each manifestation of the Lord’s earthly sanctuary met its appointed end: The portable tabernacle was superseded by Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem, and that temple, in turn, was torn to the ground by the Babylonians. Inasmuch as they were temporal and symbolic, the sons of Israel should never have expected them to continue forever, and the same applied to the second temple constructed under Zerubbabel.

During the time of its construction, the Lord sent Zechariah to Zerubbabel and the recovered exiles to encourage them to complete their work of rebuilding. Together with Haggai, he affirmed Yahweh’s presence with them in their labors and His intention that the glory of this latter temple would exceed that of its predecessor, however insignificant and inglorious it appeared to them by comparison. Strength and resolve for their work were to come, not from what they saw, but what Yahweh promised.

Jerusalem, as the “city of the great King,” and the temple, as His throne, were to be destroyed because of unbelief and rejection. Not recognizing the day of Yahweh’s redemptive visitation (cf. Luke 1:68-69), Jerusalem was to again be made desolate, never to be restored to its former glory. The reason was not the seriousness of her sin, but the fact of fulfillment. By virtue of Christ’s atoning death, resurrection, and enthronement as the Son of David, sacred space had at last been fulfilled. Zion was now to be restored, but as a spiritual dwelling and sanctuary rather than a physical one (ref. Isaiah 52:1-54:17). The physical sanctuary – which had served to separate God and man as much as bring them together – had served its pedagogical purpose; true intimacy had been secured in connection with the true sanctuary, putting an end to the veil of separation between divine Father and image-son (Matthew 27:51

 

[Iconoclast]

V. The Ultimacy of Sacred Space in the New Creation

The recovery and consummation of sacred space is God’s overarching and all-encompassing goal for His creation. This is the “summing up of all things in the heavens and earth in Christ” in which Father, Son, and Spirit will have reconciled the whole creation and brought it – with man as the focal point – into perfect, everlasting communion with them.

Sacred space is fulfilled and reformed in Jesus Christ, and His central place in this comprehensive work of renewal and recovery highlights the fact that it focuses on the divine/human relationship. The goal of God’s work of redemption is the consummation of His relationship with His image-son, and this work – in every respect – is wholly Christocentric. Sacred space – first revealed in the Garden and then portrayed with increasing clarity in God’s covenant dealings culminating with the Israelite kingdom – has been fulfilled in Christ and is presently being formed upon Him as its foundation. But another component is crucial to the equation, and that is the permanence of His work. The renewal and recovery that Jesus effected must be ultimate to be of full and eternal value. More than that, if they aren’t final and ultimate, they haven’t fulfilled the promise set out in the Scriptures; in that case, Jesus isn’t the Christ. But the truth is that Jesus is the promised Priest-King and He has ushered in everlasting righteousness by His self-offering as the Lord’s Christ and the Last Adam.

A. New Creation in Christ – the Restoration of Zion

In considering the ultimacy of Jesus’ work it is appropriate once again to return to the promises of the Old Testament and compare them with the New Testament’s presentation of and commentary upon Him and what He has accomplished. Does it affirm the notion that He has permanently restored the whole creation to God and inaugurated the everlasting kingdom as the prophets declared the Messiah would? In answering that question it is arguably best to begin most broadly, and that means starting with the concept of Zion. The reason is that it embraces virtually every theme and component associated with Old Testament kingdom theology as it predicts and portrays the final and full recovery of sacred space.

1. Development and Significance of the Zion Motif

a. Zion as a Physical Concept

Importantly, the Scripture first introduces the concept of Zion in relation to David’s conquest of Jerusalem. Having reconciled and united the twelve tribes of Israel under his kingship, David turned his attention to the Jebusite city of Jerusalem. Since Israel’s initial conquest of Canaan under Joshua – and despite numerous assaults upon the city through the intervening centuries, Jerusalem had remained outside of Israelite control. Now David set his sights upon it, not as another point of conquest in expanding his kingdom, but with the conviction that, in Jerusalem, the law of the central sanctuary would finally be fulfilled (Deuteronomy 12:1-14, 14:22-26, 16:1-11, etc.). Jerusalem would become the “city of David,” but such that David would establish Yahweh’s sanctuary and royal seat there (2 Samuel 5:7-9; cf. 1 Kings 8:1 and 1 Chronicles 29:23).
192
1) From that time forward, Zion was associated with Jerusalem as the capital of the Israelite kingdom (later, the capital of Judah) (Psalm 51:18, 147:12; etc.). In that regard, Zion represented first of all the seat of David’s kingdom. But, more importantly, it represented the city of the Great King; Jerusalem was God’s chosen dwelling place and the seat of His dominion (ref. Psalm 48:1-3, 76:1-2, 135:21; cf. also Matthew 5:34-35). There His glory-presence resided between the wings of the cherubim in the Holy of Holies with the ark serving as the symbolic footstool of His throne (2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 28:2; cf. also Psalm 99:1-2, 132:7 and Exodus 25:17-22). Thus men came into Jerusalem to meet with and worship Him, and out from Jerusalem flowed the administration of His rule.

2) Jerusalem’s elevated topography (2 Samuel 19:34; 1 Kings 12:27-28; cf. also Zechariah 14:16-17) together with its status as Yahweh’s sanctuary led to another component of Zion symbolism. As Zion referred to the city of the Great King, so it also denoted Mount Zion – the mountain of His sanctuary (cf. Psalm 48:1-3, 74:2; 2 Kings 19:20-31; Isaiah 10:12, 24:23; also Isaiah 2:1-3; Micah 4:1-2). The concept of the Lord’s dwelling as a holy mount existed long before the conquest of Jerusalem (ref. Exodus 15:17), and so it was natural – as well as geographically appropriate (Psalm 125:1-2) – that Zion should extend to the notion of Mount Zion.

b. Zion as a Relational Concept

The Scripture associates the motif of Zion first and foremost with the city of Jerusalem as the capital of the Israelite kingdom. But Jerusalem was much more than a capital city because the kingdom of Israel was more than just another earthly empire. The Israelite kingdom was a covenant kingdom: Yahweh was the true King in Israel and the citizens of the kingdom were His covenant children.

And so, over time Zion’s initial signification was broadened to embrace another crucial point of symbolism. Jerusalem (Zion) was the seat of the covenant kingdom; it was the place of Yahweh’s residence from which He exercised His reign and communed with His covenant children. Jerusalem epitomized sacred space, and for that reason Zion later came to symbolize the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel (ref. Isaiah 1:21-23), and then, by metaphorical extension, the people of Israel themselves as His covenant children.

It is in this respect that the prophets began to speak of Zion as Yahweh’s covenant wife whose obligation of faithfulness was to bear faithful children for Him (cf. Isaiah 50:1 with 49:14-23, 54:1-17; also Hosea 1:2 and 2:1-16). Thus they referred to the children of Israel collectively as the daughter of Zion (cf. Isaiah 1:1-8, 37:21-22, 52:1-9, 62:1-12; Jeremiah 6:1-2; etc.) and individually as sons of Zion (Lamentations 4:1-2; Joel 2:23; Zechariah 9:13). If Zion served as the central symbol for the covenant kingdom, it preeminently symbolized the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Abraham’s seed that defined that kingdom.
193
c. Zion as a Messianic Concept

Inasmuch as the concept of Zion enfolds all of the Bible’s kingdom

 

[JonC]

I just scrolled through another three (four?) gigantic multi-colored copy-and-paste jobs by Iconoclast and read about two sentences. Snooze.

Could you summarize these essays in your own words, please?

And please quit with the multi-colored fonts.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I can summarize it on one word. Spam.

 

[Jerome]

Taste the rainbow!

 

[Yeshua1]

I can summarize it on one word. Spam.

How about Skittles?

 

[percho]

I believe the light in Genesis is light (like from the sun).

God is going to cast Satan into the Lake of fire.

So, this light, "Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that good: G 1:3,4 - was this light, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." G 1:16?

What is the light of Acts 26:18? What is the darkness of Acts 26:18?

Your best guess, who was and where was, the great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, when God said. "Let there be light,"?

 

[JonC]

So, this light, "Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that good: G 1:3,4 - was this light, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." G 1:16?

What is the light of Acts 26:18? What is the darkness of Acts 26:18?

Your best guess, who was and where was, the great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, when God said. "Let there be light,"?

In that context, I believe the Light was already there (He did not need to be spoken into existence).

 

[JonC]

The problem is not whether @Iconoclast is correct. The problem is the points he has made that were dependent on faulty logic and his inability to first define terms.

The people he posts may be correct. But they are not here to argue their positions. Icon is here and seems not to grasp the position he holds. He cannot define the terms or logically argue the points he borrows.

The very first thing @Iconoclast and @Martin Marprelate should have done was define all relevant terms. But here we are, late in the discussion, and they cannot. When pointed out the fallacy they should have reviewed how they worked through the issue.

But they just push forward like a bulldozer not even pausing to grasp the error obvious to most who consider their posts.

This is the problem with "cut and paste" theology. It exists in fragments and cannot stand up to examination.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeah right,lol.
Hey I heard a rumor that all theological seminaries are thinking of purging their libraries of all Gerhardous Vos spam and replacing his works with the razor sharp musings of JonC.
Sorry you could not connect the dots JonC.
Vos is a bit tough for you, as he actually uses scripture to see what the bible reveals for us.
But you debate fallacy ideas and spam jokes were so edifying that our friend Jerome offered his best thoughts on it.
Martin made short work of your opposition, and you did not interact with the links.
Maybe that was a mercy for us

When you non cals cannot interact you disparage what is offered , look to ridicule and avoid the content
We understand.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

The problem is not whether @Iconoclast is correct.

The thing is....there is no problem at all except you trying to manufacture one.

The problem is the points he has made that were dependent on faulty logic and his inability to first define terms.

The points I made were derived right from scripture, not logic even though you suggest such.
Do you notice no one else said anything like what you are saying?

The people he posts may be correct.

You cannot find fault so you offer this. What I almost never see from the non-cals on here is something like this;
You know Iconoclast or MartinM...thanks for posting this nice link loaded with Christ-centered scripture. I have never even considered what pastor Culver has offered, and I have not read much by Vos.
I would like to take some time and examine what was offered to learn more about the person and work of Jesus.
If you or ITL. or RM, or Jerome were interested in coming to truth, that is what they would post, instead of cans of spam, or complaining about the color of the posts, or waiting to say, you are arrogant and rude.

But they are not here to argue their positions

.
This was not presented in a debate format, it was sermon notes scanning redemptive history that are quite helpful. In fact,I doubt more than a handful have even looked at any presentation similar to the level of scholarship offed in this link.

Icon is here and seems not to grasp the position he holds

.

When you ask me, why are your responses to me sound hostile, it is this kind of cheap post and nasty insinuation that draw such a response from most every Cal.
I understand what is being offered better than you and most anyone on here. I have heard the sermon series three times, I have printed out the PDF files in a notebook and I add to it from other works.
Your comment in ignorance is designed to inflame matters on here, and is not fitting.

He cannot define the terms or logically argue the points he borrows.

Oh but I can. You do not want an answer. martin M, crushed your errors on penal substitution and you clain He did not answer you. he covered your weak arguments better than a fresh Sherman Williams paint job.

The very first thing @Iconoclast and @Martin Marprelate should have done was define all relevant terms.

According to you. Define them for whom? No one is interested outside of the reformed people as the link has more than two sentences.

But here we are, late in the discussion, and they cannot.

We both have and can to someone who wants answers. You just look to be divisive. You wrongly defined the terms from the get-go as you do often, so no one is interested in clarifying

When pointed out the fallacy they should have reviewed how they worked through the issue.

I told you I am not getting bogged down in that nonsense.

But they just push forward like a bulldozer not even pausing to grasp the error obvious to most who consider their posts.

There was no error, just obfuscation and those looking to find fault,

This is the problem with "cut and paste" theology. It exists in fragments and cannot stand up to examination.

The problem is you and the others have never answered any link offered because you cannot, so again you disparage it.
Not one of you non-Cals took any one portion and discussed it. In fact,most did not even read it because they are too lazy spiritually.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

I waited a few days to respond to this, as I was disgusted at your posting. I need to balance what you said, and expose your M.O. once again.

No. @Iconoclast reported my post as "off topic and ungodly" .

That was an accurate description of it.

[edited: provocative statement, false accusations removed]

That was me allowing sin into my activities on this board (it was not guarding my heart). At the time I was getting aggravated because Iconoclast had targeted me simply because I thought he was wrong. But that does not excuse my behavior.

This is another falsehood. I do not care about your doctrinal differences, just your 9th commandment violations. I comment on those very aggressively.

In the past I had tried to ignore @Iconoclast but that only resulted in him passive aggressively insulting me.

No insults. Accurate descriptions of you and your posts.

I quickly discovered that was not going to work. I want to help him but at the same time I am cautious because I have lost much of the patience I once had.

A total falsehood. You want to silence me, not help. You are not able to help and it was not requested. In fact, you need to keep your distance if the truth is known.

That said, I am not tempted now to respond to him in kind. His insults and accusations do not apply to me but to his own character.

There were no insults and yet we see another verbal assault by you.

[QUOTE]And that is what I want him to realize. We choose to walk in the Light or to walk in the darkness. When we hate, that hatred is a choice[/QUOTE].

Another veiled attack... Your sage wisdom is not welcomed JonC....go away. I am never going to buy what you are selling because You have shown what you are about.

For the board, it would be nice for @Iconoclast to conduct himself in a Christ-like manner.

Another attack as if JonC is the paradigm of what a Christlike post is, lol. Self-righteous much???

But more importantly for @Iconoclast he needs to conduct himself in a Christ-like manner.

This presupposes the falsehood alleged by JonC. iconoclast is no different from any other poster. We all struggle to mortify communication sins.

We cannot insult people, slander them, or attack them simply because they disagree with us.

That is yet again another false attack. Commenting on what was said or done is not an insult. It is an observation.

That is simply wrong. People will disagree. But people do not have to attack.

When you get answered in a way that you cannot respond to, you call it an attack.MM has silenced you and you go out of your way to slander him .

Other people have just as much a right to express their beliefs as does

I have said this repeatedly, so why do you suggest i do not believe this? It is yet another attack.

@Iconoclast[/USE[QUOTE][/QUOTE]R] . And we should be able to do so without being insulted, attacked or ridiculed for our views.

[B][COLOR=#b30000]Again, another attack....on and on[/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE](report shared with permission from member in post #83)[/QUOTE]

[B][COLOR=#b30000]yeah, after you already publically commented on it, lol[/COLOR][/B]

 

[JonC]

JonC,

I waited a few days to respond to this, as I was disgusted at your posting. I need to balance what you said, and expose your M.O. once again.


That was an accurate description of it.



Yes, you have, quite often in fact.



This is another falsehood. I do not care about your doctrinal differences, just your 9th commandment violations. I comment on those very aggressively.



No insults. Accurate descriptions of you and your posts.


A total falsehood. You want to silence me, not help. You are not able to help and it was not requested. In fact, you need to keep your distance if the truth is known.


There were no insults and yet we see another verbal assault by you.

[ that is what I want him to realize. We choose to walk in the Light or to walk in the darkness. When we hate, that hatred is a choic

Another veiled attack... Your sage wisdom is not welcomed JonC....go away. I am never going to buy what you are selling because You have shown what you are about.



Another attack as if JonC is the paradigm of what a Christlike post is, lol. Self-righteous much???



This presupposes the falsehood alleged by JonC. iconoclast is no different from any other poster. We all struggle to mortify communication sins.



That is yet again another false attack. Commenting on what was said or done is not an insult. It is an observation.



When you get answered in a way that you cannot respond to, you call it an attack.MM has silenced you and you go out of your way to slander him .


I have said this repeatedly, so why do you suggest i do not believe this? It is yet another attack.

[

Again, another attack....on and on



yeah, after you already publically commented on it, lol[]

You are wrong.

First, my pointing out your reasoning (If A then B means if not A then not B) as a logical fallacy is pointing out a fact. You start off with good data (Scripture) then via faulty logic arrive at a conclusion. That is not an insult. That is a fact.

Second, my asking you to provide a biblical definition of "spiritual life" was not an insult. We need to define all terms and discuss definitions before proceeding with an argument.

Beyond that, you seem to get aggravated when people ask you questions you cannot answer or they disagree with you. You lash out with insults, attacking them personally and making false accusations. You slander and try to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

This is wrong, @Iconoclast. Other people have different views. The difference seems to be they can defend their positions.

We are not attacking you when we challenge your position. I know you feel otherwise but that is simply because you cannot defend your statements. Like on Penal Substitution Theory. No one defeated me and I defeated no one. We express our views. On that thread you (and your friends) could not answer the one question I asked so you all resorted to insults. I responded in kind (unfortunately).

You have to stop trying to silence, slander, and censure all who disagree with you. It is wrong of you to do so.

AND YOU REALLY NEED TO LEARN HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FEATURE.