Who Has Part in The First Resurrection?

[RLBosley]

I am fully convinced that I am correct in my understanding of the Scripture as I know it. If I wasn't I would change. That doesn't mean I am infallible. I know I don't have all the answers. I will always be learning. I am in a capacity where I am always teaching. That privilege in itself promotes learning.

And I would say the same.

Of course I believe I am right. If I am proven wrong I will change. But I am not so arrogant to assume that I am right on everything. I think I am, but I know somewhere I am wrong. Are you willing to admit that somewhere you are wrong? I'm not asking for a specific, just a general acknowledgment that you know somewhere you have a mistake in your theology.

 

[DHK]

And I would say the same.

Of course I believe I am right. If I am proven wrong I will change. But I am not so arrogant to assume that I am right on everything. I think I am, but I know somewhere I am wrong. Are you willing to admit that somewhere you are wrong? I'm not asking for a specific, just a general acknowledgment that you know somewhere you have a mistake in your theology.

I have before. That is not tradition. That is humility to admit that in some areas a person may be wrong and humble enough to change--nothing to do with tradition.

 

[RLBosley]

I have before. That is not tradition. That is humility to admit that in some areas a person may be wrong and humble enough to change--nothing to do with tradition.

You're getting ahead of me. I didn't say that was tradition.

Now, these areas that are wrong. You admit they are there, somewhere. How did you come to these conclusions? If they are wrong they, by definition, can't be derived solely from inerrant scripture. Is not tradition one way that we all come to errant conclusions (and even sometimes correct ones)?

 

[DHK]

You're getting ahead of me. I didn't say that was tradition.

Now, these areas that are wrong. You admit they are there, somewhere. How did you come to these conclusions? If they are wrong they, by definition, can't be derived solely from inerrant scripture. Is not tradition one way that we all come to errant conclusions (and even sometimes correct ones)?

For me? Not usually.
Not unless I was comparing a doctrine "traditionally held," not by me but normally by those in the 19th century and early 20th where something like post and amill were "the traditional views." One person generally copied from the other without during any serious Bible study in the area of eschatology.