Monday, April 30, 2007

Some more comments on Emergent Church

Thom has weighed in over at the Living Room blog. Here is my response:

Hi Thom,

I agree w/ you on two things:

1) that debate over at my blog is hard to keep up w/...I don't know how better to organise it, but I'm open to suggestions! It doesn't help that I'm verbose and Adam is super-verbose. :-)
2) I too question the worth of continuing to respond here, but I have high hopes for you guys - you don't disdain discussion and that's more than one can say for lots of other people.

I note in passing that changing one letter out of an expletive goes a fair distance in displaying the state of your heart. Just saying.

As for me being a "street preacher", I misspoke. Here's what Dave said:

--You come across to me as a corner preacher with a bullhorn, tracts, and a giant billboard strapped to your body, “Repent, the end is near!!!” I do hope that isn’t an accurate representation (it likely isn’t, but all that I have to go on is the tone and attitude that comes across in your writings), but based upon your fixations with calling people out and cornering individuals that you know very little about…this is the way you come across to me.

Insulted? Well, words do hurt, you know. I challenge anyone to point out where I have made a similar negative comparison to Dave. I don't think it's unclear why Dave chose the abusive corner preacher to compare me to. You may think it's all b/c of me, but again, you'd have to point out where I've acted like one for that to stick.

THOM: I am more concerned that you (like most preachers) would advise Dave to be deceptive in relating to others where he is in his personal walk with God.

Why do you think it is commendable to question basic and obvious truths in the Bible? On one level I can see why that would be good - **IF** it leads to the strengthening of one's faith in that Bible and in those truths. For it to lead one elsewhere is nothing less than idolatry and is terrible.
For a leader like Dave to post such things on a public forum like a blog is worse yet - what kind of example is he setting for his people? Can you let me know what good you hope to see come from this?

THOM: Deception, that’s how most failures in ministry happen.

Losing faith in and showing lack of confidence in the msg doesn't help either, you know.

THOM: Searching for truth and living it is never a “waste of time”.

Agreed, but this is not the right kind of "searching for truth" that a leader should engage in.

THOM: And spend time better by teaching people, what exactly?

See, this is one of those things that SCARES me about the Emergent Church conversation. You don't know what to teach people?
1) Maybe you should ask your pastor.
2) If you are the pastor, for God's sake step down.
3) If you don't have a pastor, join a church and get one/some.
4) If you do have a pastor and he doesn't know, for God's sake go find another church.

The Scripture, Thom. The Gospel. You know, the stuff that's going to save your soul if you stop getting in its way?


Friday, April 27, 2007

A guide to comparing Hymenaeanism w/ orthodox Christianity

Adam wants to compare our viewpoints. Let's see how they match up.

Dada: All are loved by God, approved to do tasks they were designed to do.

Alan: All are loved, but only some are accepted to be saved from judgment and "hell" (which doesn't exist in the Bible at all). God is quiet sometimes, so people "wait" to "hear" God's "call" to "plant" something, somewhere, which often fails, because people don't listen or God has different plans.
1) Obviously Hell is clearly described in the Bible, so that's one thing.
2) God is often quiet, but not always.
3) Though many people do so, it's probably not best to "wait for God's call". A better biblical paradigm is to weigh a course of action 1st biblically, 2nd morally, 3rd w/ wisdom, and then decide.
4) Things fail b/c of sin or b/c God is teaching us. So why should it be some big deal if a human enterprise fails? Especially if God's glory is displayed through it?
5) Nobody who is unredeemed is "approved" by God to do anything except repent.
Dada: The Body is all of humanity, each individual born with certain talents. Each can do good for others, if they so choose.

Alan: The Body is only those believers who hold to a strict series of viewpoints that are not proven in the Bible, or are counter to other parts of the Bible. No one really knows what they're supposed to do.
1) Romans 3 says that nobody seeks to do good. Heb 11:6 and Romans 8 tell us that no one can please God w/o faith. Adam is way off a biblical paradigm.
2) Adam has far to go to prove that parts of the Bible are "counter to other parts" of it.
3) It's quite easy to know what to do. You can start by reading the Bible and following it.

Dada: God's Relevation was about Israel (the Whore of Babylon), the 7 heads of the Beast were 7 real kings of Rome, the churches were real churches of the 1st century.

Tim LaHaye: In the future, God will really send some scary 7-headed monster that a real woman will ride and Jesus will come riding in on a horse to vanquish this beast, all the while billions of Christians will flee to the mountains of Judah. God will then pull bodies out of the ground and everyone all over the world will see this happen in Jerusalem. A new Temple will be built, only to be destroyed again and it will be replaced by a huge chunk of gold miles in width and height and depth.
1) As I said before, I don't have an established eschatological opinion at this time, though orthodox Preterism has its advantages.
2) Adam apparently has a problem seeing how God could possibly "pull bodies out of the ground". But a lover of God's Word doesn't.
3) Adam apparently has a problem understanding imagery in literature, specifically related to the "chunk of gold".
4) For what you said here, it would be better to ask Tim LaHaye.
5) You forgot to add the following for your own position:

Me helping Dada define his own position: Since all that stuff already happened, there is no hope for a Resurrection, there is no way to know what is morally right or wrong to do, evildoers will never be punished, the Bible is worthless anymore, and all we have is "the Spirit" (ie, our own subjective preference of ways of living) to guide us.

Dada: The reason God is silent is because He is done and reigning, leaving the Spirit to guide us.

Alan: God isn't silent, He only talks to a few, so He must not like the rest of the world since they are unworthy.
1) God calls to all, and all know He exists. But very few listen.
2) In one sense He loves the unredeemed, and in one sense He hates them.

A good comparison can be really helpful. May our minds be conformed to God's, not to the flesh. {brief edit here}

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Heresy in its own words

Adam sez:

In my previous political "career" I discovered some notions in politics that were either undiscovered previously, or the dots had never been connected before.

If Satan was the one pulling people to Evil, God has no reason to Judge the people.

the idea of a Rapture and Bodily Resurrection to me is non-sensical.

Just because Jesus was seen and felt by His believers does not mean that the body presented was the body to be.

(In biblical times) What if people did not understand the feeling of love that everyone can feel today? Maybe it didn't exist. What if people could not hear the Spirit as people can today? We don't know the realities of love or the spirit before Christ's Resurrection (other than sexual lust and pan-love). Who knows?

Being a liar today has no more grave consequences as it did 2000 years ago.

The Truth is that Christ and God are done with their work in the mortal realm.

But theology doesn't matter, you know.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Back on point

Well, it's clear that I've been having a fair amount on my plate around here recently. Many thanks to those who have commented - I appreciate your time and thoughts and I enjoy the interaction.

If Adam B Dada is still hanging around and if he has time and inclination to continue to interact, I would like to ask him to focus his efforts on responding to 3 questions in particular.

1) Adam makes much of the chronological language of the Scripture, saying "'soon' means a short time, not more than 2000 years", etc. Why then make the "millennium" of Revelation into around 40 years?

2) Since 1 Cor 15 and Philippians 3, not to mention 1 John and the Gospels, make it clear that
A: Christ's resurrected body was physical and glorified, immortal, at the same time
B: Our bodies, upon the great Resurrection, will be like His,

how can Adam tell us that the Resurrection has already happened? What happened to the awesome, glorified body?

3) Why have I, a liar (it necessarily follows that I am a liar if Adam is correct) about Jesus, His Parousia, and His Scripture, entered into the eternal Kingdom in light of Revelation 21:22-27?

I am a Narrow Mind addict

I am a big fan of Gene Cook's The Narrow Mind web broadcast.
He's diggable b/c he challenges all worldviews that set themselves up against the truth of God's Word, he unashamedly proclaims his allegiance to God's Word, and he has such a variety of different topics on his show. And b/c it's a great name for a radio show!
One day he's taking a call from a Jehovah's Witness. The next he's dealing w/ Hyper-Preterism (Hymenaeanism). The next he's expounding on Covenant Theology (which I find interesting though I'm not sure about where I stand as far as that goes). Next he's dealing w/ atheist after atheist after atheist in regard to these atheists' own presuppositions. Next he's talking about Jesus' reincarnation in Puerto Rico.

I am coming to a greater and greater appreciation, as time goes on, of Gene's demeanor and have always appreciated his stance on the truth of Christ, eschewing the 'rah-rah, America' rhetoric of too many conservative American Christians today and always making sure the truth is spoken. Catch his webshow live or as podcast/download. And may God continue to bless the study of His Word.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Transmission vs inspiration

David Bryan has recently claimed that:
this issue with holding a "high view" of Scriptural innerancy that is free even of historical or mathematical contradiction (as opposed to a supposedly "low" one wherein these things are allowed for) is one on which you yourself have been inconsistent. If it does not matter if a canonical book of Scripture as accepted today contains numerical discrepancies ("Did God lose count somewhere between Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles?") then it should not matter that the book of Judith contains a curious reference to Nebby, King of Assyria.
in reference to my accusation of Eastern Orthodoxy's resembling liberal Prot-ism. I admit 2 things:

1) I came to that conclusion (ie, that EO-xy in many ways resembles liberal Prot-ism, particularly in terms of epistemology) a while back (ie, more than 2 yrs ago) and then kind of forgot why I did, b/c I shortly thereafter ceased heavy polemical discussions on the subject, and
2) I forgot to list my 2nd objection to the Book of Judith's canonicity earlier. Not only does it list Nebuchadnezzar as king "in Nineveh" (as opposed to "king of Assyria") (which I mentioned), but it also places the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem chronologically prior to its destruction (which I neglected to mention).
W/ that in mind, I apologise to David Bryan for not putting all my cards on the table at first. 'Twas bad of me.

David Bryan has challenged me on the copyist errors of the OT, as listed by Ben in the first link Bryan posted.
I note in passing that Ben and I once discussed the biblical basis for capital punishment over AIM chat; he finished it by appealing to papal decree. Just sayin'.

In my combox, David Bryan neglects to mention that, in his subsequent forum post he "stand(s) corrected; point conceded."
'Twas in response to this link, posted by another member of the forum, that he said that.
So we can go ahead and disregard Ben's post, as David Bryan went on to say in his comment here. And he himself seemed back then on the forum to agree that this is unimportant.

Finally, it may not have been sufficiently brought out by either of us in our 2004 convo the difference between inspiration and transmission of the biblical text. My claim is that the original manuscripts (MSS) were inerrant, not necessarily the copies.

Bryan asks:
how do we know which number to "correct," as did the editors of the NIV? Do we know for certain in each case that one number is more ancient than the other?
I'm not certain how we know. But again, that's why I said what I said at the time, which was:
is it absolutely necessary to know for certain which numbers are the correct ones in each of these cases? Which important Church doctrine rests on getting these right at this time in the modern era? These comprise such a small amount in comparison to the vastness of the biblical text that it's not worth the worry.
Bryan asks:
Also: even if these were mere "copyist errors," is it not still a contradiction within the manuscripts God saw fit to preserve for the Church? How do we know that these lost, "original" manuscripts did not also contain these discrepancies?
How could it be a contradiction w/in the MSS? This stuff is God-breathed, man.
And obviously God did not see fit to preserve the copies w/o any error - that's, um, how there are those errors.
Speaking of which, this just occurred to me - this is eXACTly what I was talking about when I compared EO-doxy w/ liberal Prot-ism. Doubting the biblical MSS - it's like a can't-miss proposition for Roman Catholic and EO-dox apologists. Never ceases to amaze me - it's the old saw-off-the-limb approach.

As for James vs Paul...I dunno - we can keep talking about that too, maybe we can put headers on our comments. Or you could tackle it on your blog.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Define God in 138 words or less

OK, here goes...
The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
This in response to the question raised: What are God's traits?

I cheated, though - I lifted this from the London Baptist Confession of Faith.

(edited to add wit)

Monday, April 16, 2007

Questioning how good God is


Ouch - you stayed up late!
No need to do that again - I'll still be here. :-)
And by the way, your level of English never ceases to amaze me - it is excellent.

MINORU: I have only my own experience as the basis of making any judgments.
But you don't have to - that's why I told you the story of Jesus 10 months ago and tried to help you see how worthless and self-defeating it is to seek truth inside yourself. It's not there.

whether I should or should not judge people based on my personal experiences, I would say I should.

Are you using somebody else's standards to make decisions in your daily life ?
Yes, except for the times when I act selfishly and make decisions based on my own standards. God calls that "sin".

Are you sure those standards are really from somebody else's; not just something you understood and made part of your own experience ?
Yes. I would never have made up "take up your cross and follow Jesus" myself, for example.

If you ignore this comment, I'll promise I won't post again on same topic.
Oh no, I'm not irritated at all; I welcome your interaction. I am sorry that I did not communicate that very well.
My question was: Why do YOU post your opinions here, citing (with clear disapproval) a part of the Bible where God does something you don't like?

(complaining is) a trait that runs in my family that makes me complain if I see an oppressor.
OK. And on what basis do you conclude that being an "oppressor" is wrong?
What I'm trying to help you see is that your dislikes and preferences are just that - YOURS. There is no reason why anyone else should agree with them or act the same way you do, unless the God of the Bible exists to make those laws of right and wrong. You are taking the morality that God has helped you to see and are trying to use it to condemn Him.

In a perfect world built by perfect God, wouldn't I naturally know that what he did is morally right ?
Maybe, but I don't believe this is a perfect world. It was made by a perfect God, but the world is not perfect.

Do you think that God has intentionally made the world so that people like me would question him ?
Hmm, yes, actually. God has made the world so that people who hate the light and love darkness would refuse Him.

isn't it God's will to have his morality questioned ?
No, it is sinful to do so.

Why would he have his morality questioned if he is morally right, and there's nothing to question ?
That's the really ironic thing. There is nothing to question, but sinful people still try to find ways to question Him and His morality anyway. Like you, right now. You commented saying "God is mean and hardened that king's heart!" I said "Why is that wrong?" You said "I don't know, but it's wrong for God not to create the world so that He would never be questioned." Now I'm saying, "Why is *that* wrong?"

would you think it is okay for God to want me to be out of touch with reality ?
Yes. God is the definition of good.

Why doesn't the God show me the evidence to get in touch with reality ?
There is plenty of evidence, but you only selectively use logic and rationality in your comments protesting that God doesn't give you enough evidence. That's not God's fault.

I think of you as well educated person wishing good for the world
Yes. And the highest good for any person is to repent of their sin and fall in love with Jesus Christ and be His follower.

Or do you live your life wishing your neighbors to be miserable every day?
Only until they give their life to Jesus.

What's your opinion on terrorism ?
It's a terrible thing, but I'm not sure how it's relevant.

My objection about God is that he is too personal with his driving motivations to be taken in full context of "all-mighty, all-knowing, all-perfect".
But I think that if He were less personal, you'd find a reason to complain about that too.

Perhaps God is not all-perfect on the personal level.
God is the definition of good, so He can't improve. But I don't know how you could know that He is less than perfect. How could you know that?

If he is the only one God, is it unfair for me to expect him to be all-perfect?

If God is "all-whatever-they-say-of-him", by definition there was no need to do it in the first place.
I've already shown why that reasoning is flawed.


this particular phrase about making "his spirit stubborn" appears several times in the Old Testament.
Yes it does, you are 100% right.

it appeared as if the God has intervened with Sihon king of Heshbon and made significant change to his mind to cause (read: set up) certain events to happen.
God is in control of *everything*. He not only intervenes, He is in total control.

Could not he foresee the events and prepared it so that he did not need to make adjustments afterwards ?
I don't see why He could not have done it that way. But He did it His way. On what basis do you think it might be better the way you suggest?

If God is almighty (read: capable of setting things up the right way from the very beginning), why did he leave out the final touch ?
Because He didn't want to.

If this action was intentional, does it not suggest that God has a personality (e.g. leaving things for later instead of doing NOW) ? If God has a personality, what are his traits ?
Any Christian will tell you that God has a personality, yes. His traits are many: loving, just, righteous, holy, pure, wrathful, merciful, graceful, generous, forgiving, powerful, patient. There's more but that's all I can think of right now.

A person who loves to trample on others are rarely peaceful with his own family. What are we to expect in heaven ?
God is not a man. A **person** who tramples on others is a bad person, yes. God is not "trampling" on people - He is changing the world to make the world better by using sinful people.
I think that part of your problem is that you think people are better or at least as good as God. People are bad. I'm not sure how someone could be familiar with human history and think that people are good.
In heaven, we can expect those who love Jesus to be with Him forever, worshiping Him. But unless you repent and change your mind, you will not be there. And that makes me very sad.

A person who loves to trample on others are rarely peaceful with his own family. What are we to expect in heaven ?
I don't think that king left any writings, so it is impossible for us to know what he was thinking.

it only raises the suspicion of God being sneaky and bending people against their free wills
You don't need to be suspicious - the Bible tells us openly and clearly that God does that sometimes.

or that he is not all-knowing and all-powerful and needs making adjustments along the way.
The Bible tells us that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, so it's not telling us that.

Is it a cumulative translation error, or incorrectly added text ?
I do not think there are any variations in the manuscripts, so it's not that. And it's not a mistranslation.
It's just that your attitude needs to change.

I just wish that people would write bible in plain text, not requiring expert re-interpretation.
You think it's unclear because you don't like it. Its meaning is obvious, but I only expect those who love God to accept it.

Peace to you,

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Universalists everywhere, or, Paul vs James

It looks like not only is AB Dada a universalist, but it's looking like Dave Parker is too!
This conversation just amazes me more and more w/ virtually every statement from either Adam or Dave.

I was asked about the doctrine of Paul vs James 2, so I answered:

FF Bruce's commentary on Galatians 5 can prove handy:

"To seek it [justification] through faith in Christ was to seek it on the ground of God’s grace; to seek it through legal works was to seek it on the ground of their own merit…Paul has already made it clear (3:10) that those who seek justification through legal works do not attain it (cf. Rom 11:7), but rather incur the curse of the law; what he emphasizes here is the incompatibility of faith and works, of divine grace and human merit, where justification of the sinner before God is in question.

Here [5:5] is such a reference, however; by contrast with the vain hope of righteousness by legal works, he says, we who believe in Christ are enabled by the Spirit, through faith, to wait confidently for the hope of righteousness. The law holds out no such sure hope as this. The ‘hope of righteousness’ is the hope of a favourable verdict in the last judgment (Rom 2:5-16). For those who believe in Christ such a verdict is assured in advance by the present experience of justification by faith…In their case the eschatological verdict of ‘not guilty’ is already realized."

--F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Erdmans 1988), 231-232.

And here is a quick cut and paste of some quotes in an article dealing w/ this topic from here...

"There is no reason to assume that James was commenting on Paul. Notice that there is no reference in his epistle to Jewish/Gentile relations in the church, which is the point of departure for the Pauline doctrine.

And there is no reason to assume that James is using the word in the same specialized sense as it acquires in Pauline thought. A word is not a doctrine. The reason we have a Pauline doctrine of justification is not because Paul uses the word, but because he has laid out a detailed theological model of justification—such as you don’t find in James.

From what I can tell, James is making a much simpler point, where faith and works are equivalent to hearing and doing (1:22-25). Don’t be hearers of the word only, but doers as well. This is a common admonition in is not the ground of our justification. The ground of our justification is penal substitution. Faith is merely a condition of its individual application to the sinner...sanctification is a necessary condition of salvation, but not a condition of justification.
...we’re not talking in generic terms about man’s relation to God, but in specific terms about the sinner’s relation to his Judge."

For the purposes of this discussion, you can consider me in agreement w/ the author of that article.
My own brief commentary is this:
Paul discusses forensic justification of the dead, dirty sinner before a loving, yes, but also holy and just God in various psgs thru the NT, including Romans 2-10, most of Galatians, heavy references in Colossians, and Ephesians 1-2 (among other places). It is out of these places that the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone has been derived. I say "Reformation doctrine" simply to give it a name and set it apart, but I will be happy to defend it from biblical exegesis.

James, by contrast, as noted above, is not discussing justification of the sinner before God.
A final note - what does James' "justification" mean, then? It is the validation before witnesses of the faith that exists. In the case of Abraham, for example, he lifts the knife to kill Isaac and thus validates the fact that he has faith in the eyes of:
-Sarah his wife
-the billions who have read Genesis over the centuries

The problems of the conundrum you think I have are manifold.
1) Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, NOT by works.
Romans 3:28 says we are justified by grace apart from the works of the Law.
Romans 11:6 says that grace mixed with works is no longer grace.
Scripture thus contradicts Scripture if what you have said is true.
2) The context of the psgs out of which we derive the Pauline doctrine of justification are clearly related to justification.
The context of James 2 is not.
3) We don't know how to be saved.

Problem is, Dave, you are really giving me the impression that you believe all people will be saved (when you said "our belief or faith that Christ did these things for us is evidence of our realization that we’re no longer condemned").
2 questions:
1) Do you believe that all people are saved? If not, is the vast majority of humanity (who have ever lived) saved, ie, will they be in Heaven?
2) What is your scriptural argument for the position expressed in your answer to my 1st question?


Tuesday, April 10, 2007

More Emergent confusion

Let this be a lesson to anyone who's wondering what The Emergent Church believes. They don't know either.

Note how it's getting uglier (not in terms of tone of voice but in terms of implication of this guy Dave's doctrine) over at the Living Room blog.

Then if you have time, you can check out Dan Kimball's comments at a recent and related discussion here and specifically here.

That's a far cry from where Dave Parker is going in his discussion w/ me. I can't tell if this is really his position or whether he is just reflexively going after the guy who believes God's Word is final. Perhaps later I'll be able to tell.

Here's my most recent post to him:


As far as the questions on
-uninhibited worship
-life experiences for sermons
-love motivating us
let’s call it good. I think the explanation is sufficient. I don’t agree w/ you on 100% of it but it’s close enough that right now I don’t want to mess w/ it.

However, I am disturbed in the extreme by your comments on sola fide and the requirements for being a Christian.

–Did you not just negate your list of requirements in claiming that you hold to “sola fide”?
>>Were those things I listed works or beliefs? Beliefs. This objection makes no sense.

–Is it “justification by grace thru faith alone”, or does one also have to adhere to your list of beliefs?
>>It’s both since they are in harmony.

–And if one must adhere, then baptism must make your list! Why? You’ll not find one single post-resurrection “salvation” that does not include baptism!!!
>>I don’t deny that NT salvations were followed by baptism. So what? And that’s the key - the salvations were FOLLOWED by baptism.

–your “thru faith alone” leverages heavily against James’ “not by faith alone.”
–Regarding the “sola fide” position, have you considered that James (the brother of Jesus) and author of a canonized NT letter disagrees with you!?!
>>This is where I get really scared for you. You are a leader of a ‘faith community’ and don’t understand the doctrine of sola fide and justification vs sanctification?
And your calling out my “thru faith alone” (ie, Ephesians 2:8-9) vs James 2 is based on your inability to understand the context of Ephesians 2, Romans, and James.
Let me ask you this - how, according to YOU, are we justified before God?

–You come across to me as a corner preacher with a bullhorn, tracts, and a giant billboard strapped to your body, “Repent, the end is near!!!”
>>I have already pointed out to you that Jesus preached “Repent for the kingdom of God is near” as well as related subjects.
And I suspect I come across that way to you b/c you react almost instinctively, reflexively against the claim that God’s revelation on sin, judgment, and salvation is clear, understandable, and final.
Above, you do nothing less than accuse God’s inspired Scriptures of containing a contradiction, so maybe it shouldn’t surprise me. Do you believe the Bible to be inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed revelation of God? If not, does one exist? If so, are there others?

Thanks Dave.


All that to say, I'm glad I didn't jump immediately to calling him "brother". That is an appellation that should mean something, and if applied between him and me, it loses its flavor. I love the bonds of brotherhood in Christ where they exist enough not to dilute them.

Friday, April 06, 2007


Adam has admitted defeat.

-Since Judgment is gone, of course there is no NEED, no COMMAND to be good.
-Since Christ only prayed once in public, at the request of His Apostles to teach them, we have to believe that prayer was understood to be private and personal.
-We saw God threatening to destroy the Earth in the Old Testament -- He never did.
Adam is still, of course, welcome to dialogue here, but that last one, whooo boy!
And he hasn't even gotten to the meat of my objections yet.

He is risen indeed! Have a blessed Pascha.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

I'm not trying to CONVINCE you to embrace heresy...

ADAM said: The opinions listed below are not meant to CONVINCE YOU that your views are "wrong" or "ungodly"
RHOLOGY: Then why should I or anyone else care what you have to say?

ADAM: I am happy that you have your views if they fulfill you.
RHOLOGY: The happy-go-lucky, head-in-the-sand view of the universalist. See, that's what I don't get. Everyone will be saved, there's no sin or judgment. Why do you even interact w/ me here or at the Living Room blog?

ADAM: the people of the OT, and their stories, are dung.
RHOLOGY: OK, so it's not the OT **itself** that is dung. Man, seriously, in the future you could state it better right off the bat.
But Abraham, though he was "but dust and ashes" by his own admission, yet b/c he had faith, was justified and a righteous man. We do the Atonement and power of Christ a disservice when we talk that way of His people.

ADAM: I am here to show people that my views are not anti-Christianity,
RHOLOGY: Since Xtianity is defined by the Bible, and you are in so many direct conflicts w/ biblical teaching, I cannot agree.

ADAM: The definition of heretic within the Book and also in modern dictionaries is "That which goes against the Organized Church."
RHOLOGY: I don't care about that - I am using a biblical concept.

ADAM: So why did God threaten (and do!) Judgment against Israel and the Jews? God never changes, right?
RHOLOGY: What a ridiculous argument. Does that mean God has to *change* when He *does* something different? Please - you don't believe that and I don't.

ADAM: I say His Plan changed based on saving all men.
RHOLOGY: And Jesus said different, so there again we have confirmation that you are an enemy of God.

ADAM: The Law was needed as the guardian of Israel until the true guardian came
RHOLOGY: Agreed. But WHY did we need it to lead us to Christ? Hint - it's right there at the end of v. 24.
And this "made right w/ God" = dikaioo, better translated as "justified".

ADAM: After Christ's Presence? None.
RHOLOGY: Assertion w/o an argument that nobody would accept unless and until they slammed your Kool-Aid and asked for seconds.

ADAM: The God of peace will come "soon."
RHOLOGY: Rom 16:20 - The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Not only are you allergic to context but also to accurate citations.

ADAM: English translations were coopted by mortals who desired control and profit. LaHaye, Scofield, Moody, Hinn, Hagee, the Popes -- all modified the texts to suit their own lives.
RHOLOGY: Prove it, starting w/ this question - why can I buy a Nestle-Aland Greek NT and check it against Codex Vaticanus and find 99% correspondence?

ADAM: there are also verses that are adamant against the Jews of Rome who disbelieve
RHOLOGY: It doesn't say anything about the Jews OF ROME, at least in chs 1-3.

ADAM: Revelation shows us who is to be Judged
RHOLOGY: It also says that ALL the dead will be judged, including "the sea gave up all the dead in it", and those who were not found in the Book of Life were thrown into the Lake of Fire. That's not just Israel.
It's amazing - you write so much but skip so much too.
Would you mind dealing w/ some of my main 3 points on my Hymenaeanism Discussed post? Those are more cogent to our differences.