Explain
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The sad state of family life in the UK
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
= Reynolds' theology doesn't agree with mine.
If I need to explain that to you, you don't need to be in the discussion.
Thanks for confirming you have no argument and are running away
Your theology is a blatant departure from traditional Christian doctrine.
In what way?
Not running away. Simply have no time to waste on someone with absolutely no knowledge of the Old Testament.
Did Christians in England 200 years ago believe like you? 300? 500?
So no argument at all then. Thanks for clarifying.
Most Christians in England 500 years ago believed the world was flat and the Earth was the centre of the solar system. Your point?
"Refusing to get in a braying match with a Jack Ass does not mean the Jack Ass Won." A quote from my Cherokee Indian grandmother, not directed at anyone in particular. Just random wisdom.
So now you're resulting to insults, which is the last refuge of one whose argument is intellectually bankrupt.
Keep digging that hole...
Keep digging that hole...
Your theology has departed from tradition of the faith. Because science was in infancy does not mean theology was.
We have had this discussion before. The scripture has been posted. Your response was that you rejected the plain text of scripture because it disagreed with your idea of what you think God should be. Why waste time on you again? Your answer will be the same. You reject the plain truth of Scripture because it does not harmonize with your god of your own design.
You still haven't explained how I am supposed to have departed, or, indeed, what this 'tradition of the faith' is to which you refer - whose tradition? The Catholics'? The Baptists (who weren't even around 500 years ago!)? Yours?
All you've done is make bold but utterly bare assertions with no evidence adduced to back them up.
All you've done is make bold but utterly bare assertions with no evidence adduced to back them up.
Right, OK, thank you , now we are getting somewhere. I don't reject Scripture, I merely reject your interpretation of it.
Do you see the difference?
I know the difference. You reject the plain stated truth of some scripture. The instance that is most blaring is God commanding Saul to kill women and Children. The text is plain. There is no room for interpretation. It is a literal inspired historical account. You reject it.
You don't know the traditional Christian protestant beliefs?
No. I reject your literal interpretation of it just as you reject the allegorical interpretation. Neither of us 'reject Scripture'.
Which Protestants? Which beliefs? The Calvinists? Or the Arminians? The pedo-baptists? Or the credo-baptists? The dispensationalists? Or the Covenanters? Lutheran LCMS? Or Lutheran LMS?