What establishes your hermeneutics?

1. While I acknowledge my wrongdoing here, I wish not to defend myself.

2. Personally, I find nothing juvenile about our exchanges; I thought they were in good taste, but if you thought they were juvenile, then I'm sorry about that.

3. There's nothing blatantly and intentionally inflammatory about what I wrote. I suggest you reread it in light of what has been discussed prior to it. Again, if you thought it was wrong, for that I apologize.

However, keep this in mind: That what you consider inflammatory may not necessarily be such.

 

I will also admit to contributing to the waste. I don't mean this as an excuse, but I don't take kindly to those who call us liars or self-deceived if we claim to have derived our soteriology from scripture and not from man. If webdog wants to continue to make this claim, he'll find no friendly response from me.

 

Sounds like a good idea. John Piper says that Rom 9 is "the tiger that devours freewillers". It would be interesting to see some folks that might be in the neutral corner (if there is such a thing) on the C v A debate use a good hermeneutical approach to Rom 9 and see how it comes out.

 

1. I went back and reread what Webdog said and he mentioned nothing about my post being inflammatory.

2. Isaiah40:28, If you get into a discussion on Calvinism vs. a non-Calvinism view of Scripture, it is up to you to defend your bent.

3. Some of us on BB have built a relationship where we feel comfortable to get involved in one another's discussion with someone of the non-Calvinism bent. I find nothing wrong with that.

 

I have to admit that even though I'm trying to avoid rancor these days I've silently enjoyed this old-fashioned C v A thread-hijacking row. One of these days I'm gonna take some time off from work and sit down and get with you guys - and we'll need to get Helen on line too - so I can participate in a good old free-for-all CvA brawl.

Okay, I'm evil - what else can I say?

Of course if you want to see some real combat we'll need to hunt down Joseph Botwinick and get him and Brother Bob goin at it.

BTW - Webdog, you were the instigator here.:tongue3: (that emoticon is sticking out his tongue to make you laugh at my inflammatory comment)

 

I agree, Let's not kill a good thing. :thumbs:

 

Now you seem to want to prolong the conflict.... What difference would web's answer make? Does it prove it was inflammatory? How about we just drop it?

 

I'm for that.