Taking credit for your salvation

[praise_yeshua]

Bump for @praise_yeshua …

I don't know if I want to continue this conversation or not. Part of me does and another part feels like it is useless. I will probably deal with it from a more exhaustive perspective in a critical response to the false doctrine of Arminianism.

Relative to the argument concerning "Revelations"....
Suffice to say that there isn't a single "early church father" that doesn't lie and has no problem in doing so. I only accept internal evidence relative to textual criticism of any extant manuscript. You can accept all the "higher criticism" that pleases you. I will not. Nor do I feel the need at any level to blindly accept the canonical construct of the Protestant Canon without question. Again. I do my own work. I use the witness of the extant manuscripts and the study of languages to establish written Truth. I do so word by word based upon historical evidence contained within the writings themselves.

The church at Jerusalem was destroyed in the attack and countless unknown Christian lives were taken out of this world. Any common sense reading of the historical narrative will accept this truth. I'm not a Preterist nor even a Partial Preterist. However, evidence is evidence. The "church" was "whittled down" to small remnant after these events which affected the written extant historical record contained in relevant writings for centuries there after. (2nd to 5th century).

If you want to have this discussion, I suggest you learn about the development of the biblical canon before you try to engage me with the words of men you're using as absolute evidence.

 

[TibiasDad]

Suffice to say that there isn't a single "early church father" that doesn't lie and has no problem in doing so.

And what “internal evidence relative to textual criticism of any extant manuscript” do you evidence as proof of this?

I only accept internal evidence relative to textual criticism of any extant manuscript.

And yet I do not recall seeing any such evidence being presented in any of your posts. I’m game for any such type of evidence. Sadly, I have seen none!


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

And what “internal evidence relative to textual criticism of any extant manuscript” do you evidence as proof of this?



And yet I do not recall seeing any such evidence being presented in any of your posts. I’m game for any such type of evidence. Sadly, I have seen none!


Doug

Your responses such as this is why I'm reluctant to have this conversation with you.

You lead with a commentary of your choice while I appealed to events concerning the destruction of Jerusalem wherein this manuscript is judged relative to internal evidence. I identified my methodology and a high level summary of why your methods mean nothing. Deal with them or not. Doesn't matter to me.

 

[TibiasDad]

The church at Jerusalem was destroyed in the attack and countless unknown Christian lives were taken out of this world.

Where does this come from? You’re talking about Revelation and “higher criticism”, then suddenly you are talking about the church in Jerusalem being attacked and destroyed with “countless Christian lives [being] taken out of this world”! What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the dating of Revelation?

Any common sense reading of the historical narrative will accept this truth. I'm not a Preterist nor even a Partial Preterist. However, evidence is evidence.

So if you’re not a preterist, when was the book written. Only preterists hold to an earlier date, while most other scholars maintain the traditional later dating of it being written in the early to mid 90’s. It is not a “higher criticism” position, which in my experience indicates a decided tendency toward liberal thinking, which conservatives decidedly reject.

The "church" was "whittled down" to small remnant after these events which affected the written extant historical record contained in relevant writings for centuries there after. (2nd to 5th century).

1) Again, what to what events are you referring?

2) What historical records were affected, and how does that mitigate the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation?

If you want to have this discussion, I suggest you learn about the development of the biblical canon before you try to engage me with the words of men you're using as absolute evidence.

Throwing around terms like “absolute” is hyperbolic nonsense. I simply quoted several sources of differing perspectives to show the consistency of opinion.

Secondly, the history of the biblical canon is not primarily a textual argument. It is one of acceptance as being divinely inspired by God. This is determined largely by the references of the earliest church fathers to the various books written by the apostles and their close associates, ie, Mark and Luke.

Some of the more disputed books were Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, James, and Revelations.

I’ll continue this later…


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Where does this come from? You’re talking about Revelation and “higher criticism”, then suddenly you are talking about the church in Jerusalem being attacked and destroyed with “countless Christian lives [being] taken out of this world”! What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the dating of Revelation?

Again. Just more of why you're not capable of actually have an real discussion here on the topic. Internal evidence in textual criticism requires that you FIRST begin the text. Once you have confirmed what the text actually says, you then attempt to match the historical context as relative to the text. Not before. Never before.

That is not how higher criticism works. Higher critics start just like you're doing. You start with the commentary you prefer and then attempt to reconcile it against the historical record. In this, your desires lead you. Not the text.

So if you’re not a preterist, when was the book written. Only preterists hold to an earlier date,

Your lack of experience is showing. This isn't even remotely true. "Only preterists".... geesh. Again. You talk in absolutes when there is no such thing as "Only Preterists" relative to the dating of Revelations.

Absolutely no one with experience in the subject would ever say such a thing as this.

while most other scholars maintain the traditional later dating of it being written in the early to mid 90’s. It is not a “higher criticism” position, which in my experience indicates a decided tendency toward liberal thinking, which conservatives decidedly reject.

I hear "climate alarmist" in your "voice". Define "most scholars"???? Higher critics?

I'm more conservation that any of you. That has nothing to do with my theology. I go where the truth leads. I make conservatives, moderates and liberal theologians all angry with my positions. Such things don't even enter my mind because they are absolute foolishness.

The vast majority of all prophecy was fulfilled in the Death, Resurrection and ASCENSION of Jesus Christ. ALL prophecy centers around Jesus Christ. The idea that there is this vast amount of prophecy left to be fulfilled is contrary to any common sense approach to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. I don't believe the Resurrection is past nor am I a hyperliteralist nor an Amillenialist. The land that is in middle east that is only now partially occupied by Jews is owned by the heir of Abraham. Jesus Christ. One day Christ will return and gather His Bride to himself. If you want to count me among anyone what that position, then do tell what name would you give that position?

I do my own work. I feel ZERO desire to please you. Zero. My desire is to please God and wherever that takes me.

I'm going to stop right here. Unless I change my mind, I'm just going to forget this argument. I'm not ready or able at the moment to lead you any place where we can have a meaningful conversation.

 

[TibiasDad]

I do my own work. I feel ZERO desire to please you. Zero. My desire is to please God and wherever that takes me.

Nobody seeks your pleasure. At least I have no desire for you to please me. If you only wish to please God, then remember that loving your brother is paramount to pleasing God.

One who does their own work in a vacuum is akin to the old saying that “a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool as a client!” I say this in kindness and love. I fear that you are establishing your own self serving standard of right and wrong without scrutiny, and thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You claim that “I identified my methodology”, which as far as I can tell is explained as being “internal evidence relative to textual criticism of any extant manuscript”

That is hardly a methodology in whole, and besides, methodology is not the issue. I certainly begin my own research with the text in its original form, thus we are not different from each other in this respect.

I have yet to see any exegetical response to any objection that has been raised against your position. You have objected to Arminians, Wesleyans, and Traditionalist, as well as Calvinist. (And I would have to guess that Lutherans and Catholics would be countered as well.) That would, it honestly seems to me, leave very little room for your conclusions to find a foothold of legitimacy when you think every position is, at least wrong, if not heresy, but your opinion is flawless.

I'm going to stop right here. Unless I change my mind, I'm just going to forget this argument. I'm not ready or able at the moment to lead you any place where we can have a meaningful conversation.

Proverbs 27:17As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.

“To forget this argument” is to make yourself weaker! Perhaps that is why you’re “not ready or able at the moment to lead you any place where we can have a meaningful conversation.”

You have stated yourself that you can’t “have a meaningful conversation”, but that is not my feeling at all. I am quite certain that I can, and I am willing to do so. No man is an island, and no legitimate argument is either. To hold such isolated views is the same modus operandi of cult religions like the JW’s. I don’t want that to be your position, and the only way to avoid it is to subject our personal conclusions to outside criticism. It is one thing to disagree, even strongly, but another to dismiss outright and condemn outright with no critical argument as to why.

Again, I do not say any of this as a degradation of you personally, but as I would as a pastor to anyone in my church whose means of approach to a situation was ill advised, I would speak forthrightly as I have done here; I am sincerely concerned for you as a brother in Christ!

I will always be open to discussing this with you. But the ball is in your court.


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nobody seeks your pleasure. At least I have no desire for you to please me. If you only wish to please God, then remember that loving your brother is paramount to pleasing God.

One who does their own work in a vacuum is akin to the old saying that “a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool as a client!” I say this in kindness and love. I fear that you are establishing your own self serving standard of right and wrong without scrutiny, and thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You claim that “I identified my methodology”, which as far as I can tell is explained as being “internal evidence relative to textual criticism of any extant manuscript”

That is hardly a methodology in whole, and besides, methodology is not the issue. I certainly begin my own research with the text in its original form, thus we are not different from each other in this respect.

I have yet to see any exegetical response to any objection that has been raised against your position. You have objected to Arminians, Wesleyans, and Traditionalist, as well as Calvinist. (And I would have to guess that Lutherans and Catholics would be countered as well.) That would, it honestly seems to me, leave very little room for your conclusions to find a foothold of legitimacy when you think every position is, at least wrong, if not heresy, but your opinion is flawless.



Proverbs 27:17As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.

“To forget this argument” is to make yourself weaker! Perhaps that is why you’re “not ready or able at the moment to lead you any place where we can have a meaningful conversation.”

You have stated yourself that you can’t “have a meaningful conversation”, but that is not my feeling at all. I am quite certain that I can, and I am willing to do so. No man is an island, and no legitimate argument is either. To hold such isolated views is the same modus operandi of cult religions like the JW’s. I don’t want that to be your position, and the only way to avoid it is to subject our personal conclusions to outside criticism. It is one thing to disagree, even strongly, but another to dismiss outright and condemn outright with no critical argument as to why.

Again, I do not say any of this as a degradation of you personally, but as I would as a pastor to anyone in my church whose means of approach to a situation was ill advised, I would speak forthrightly as I have done here; I am sincerely concerned for you as a brother in Christ!

I will always be open to discussing this with you. But the ball is in your court.


Doug

Who is your pastor or direct report? I'll talk to them or the council that dictates your fellowship. You're an unethical and immoral man.

Maybe you will listen to those to whom you report.

As I've said before, I will debate you publicly among peers. This is the next step for me. You have the advantage of editing my posts here. That is over.

 

[TibiasDad]

Who is your pastor or direct report? I'll talk to them or the council that dictates your fellowship. You're an unethical and immoral man.

Maybe you will listen to those to whom you report.

As I've said before, I will debate you publicly among peers. This is the next step for me. You have the advantage of editing my posts here. That is over.

I submit myself to the authorities here; if my words are incorrect or not in keeping with the guidelines and the spirit of the rules here, I will accept their judgment.

I know my intents and they are only for your benefit. I can do nothing more than try to be honest with you. If my peers here on the forum deem me to be in error, I will seek to make whatever corrections or apologies they see fit.

@civic, @Administrator, @Mod2, @Predestined

PS I put my name on everything I post. Everyone knows who I am, and what I am professionally. I’m not perfect, but I own everything I post! If that is unethical or immoral then one of us needs to reevaluate their understanding of these terms.

Doug

 

[Administrator]

Who is your pastor or direct report? I'll talk to them or the council that dictates your fellowship. You're an unethical and immoral man.

Maybe you will listen to those to whom you report.

As I've said before, I will debate you publicly among peers. This is the next step for me. You have the advantage of editing my posts here. That is over.

I'm the one that does the editing of posts at BAM. None of the moderators edit posts. Civic can edit posts but seldom does. But what the moderators do is if a post is out of line according to the rules and they happen to see it they bring it to the administrator's attention and we handle it.

I know you two are both level-headed and intelligent people so I'm sure you'll work this out. If you have any problems be sure to let me know as we value your input.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I submit myself to the authorities here; if my words are incorrect or not in keeping with the guidelines and the spirit of the rules here, I will accept their judgment.

I know my intents and they are only for your benefit. I can do nothing more than try to be honest with you. If my peers here on the forum deem me to be in error, I will seek to make whatever corrections or apologies they see fit.

@civic, @Administrator, @Mod2, @Predestined

PS I put my name on everything I post. Everyone knows who I am, and what I am professionally. I’m not perfect, but I own everything I post! If that is unethical or immoral then one of us needs to reevaluate their understanding of these terms.

Doug

Real tangible authority to anyone is were you recognize it. You appeal to "peers" that will not chose between us. It is very clear that they won't here. Which is why I appealed to an authority that you will recognize. Appealing to someone that will not judge between us is rather silly.

I don't expect anyone to actually settle a doctrinal dispute between us. You're "unethical/immoral" posture if related to you failing to recognize that I gave you an answer. Deny that I gave you an answer it denying realty.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm the one that does the editing of posts at BAM. None of the moderators edit posts. Civic can edit posts but seldom does. But what the moderators do is if a post is out of line according to the rules and they happen to see it they bring it to the administrator's attention and we handle it.

I know you two are both level-headed and intelligent people so I'm sure you'll work this out. If you have any problems be sure to let me know as we value your input.

Yeah... I know "the rules"......

I don't get in trouble here unless it centers around Arminianism or appealing to personal conduct.

 

[TibiasDad]

Real tangible authority to anyone is were you recognize it. You appeal to "peers" that will not chose between us. It is very clear that they won't here. Which is why I appealed to an authority that you will recognize. Appealing to someone that will not judge between us is rather silly.

I don't expect anyone to actually settle a doctrinal dispute between us. You're "unethical/immoral" posture if related to you failing to recognize that I gave you an answer. Deny that I gave you an answer it denying realty.

What is your date for the writing of the Book of Revelation?

What textually defines that date?

If I’ve missed the answers to these questions, I apologize, but I am not aware of any response from you regarding these questions.

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

What is your date for the writing of the Book of Revelation?

What textually defines that date?

If I’ve missed the answers to these questions, I apologize, but I am not aware of any response from you regarding these questions.

Doug

It is more than just the date of Revelation.

I referenced the destruction of Jerusalem. I referenced the later date of the higher critic. You deny the very construct of textual criticism. I don't have to give a specific date. Anyone would know that my position does not match your commentary of choice. I'm not going to deal with exhaustive details of your commentary of choice. Those are not your words. I'm not going to waste my time dealing with words that are not your own. I've wasted countless words in my life arguing commentaries to only have unethical men deny what their commentary of choice stated. I gave it up. I'm not going to do it for you.

This is the last I'm going to say about this unless you want to deal with those who actually have meaningful authority over you. No. I don't recognize anyone but God as having authority over me.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Spurgeon from his sermon "The Sum and Substance of all Theology"

I was preaching, not very long ago, at a place in Derbyshire, to a congregation, nearly all of whom were Methodists, and as I preached, they were crying out, "Hallelujah! Glory! Bless the Lord!." They were full of excitement, until I went on to say in my sermon, "This brings me to the doctrine of Election." There was no crying out of "Glory!" and "Hallelujah!" then. Instead, there was a great deal of shaking of the head, and a sort of telegraphing round the place, as though something dreadful was coming. Now, I thought, I must have their attention again, so I said, "You all believe in the doctrine of Election?" "No, we don't, lad," said one. "Yes, you do, and I am going to preach it to you, and make you cry 'Hallelujah!' over it." I am certain they mistrusted my power to do that; so, turning a moment from the subject, I said, "Is there any difference between you and the ungodly world?" "Ay! Ay! Ay!" "Is there any difference between you and the drunkard, the harlot, the blasphemer?" "Ay! Ay! Ay!" Ay! there was a difference indeed. "Well, now," I said, "there is a great difference; who made it, then?" for, whoever made the difference, should have the glory of it. "Did you make the difference?" "No, lad," said one; and the rest all seemed to join in the chorus. "Who made the difference, then? Why, the Lord did it; and did you think it wrong for Him to make a difference between you and other men?" "No, no," they quickly said. "Very well, then; if it was not wrong for God to make the difference, it was not wrong for Him to purpose to make it, and that is the doctrine of Election." Then they cried, "Hallelujah!" as I said they would.

 

[TomL]

Spurgeon from his sermon "The Sum and Substance of all Theology"

I was preaching, not very long ago, at a place in Derbyshire, to a congregation, nearly all of whom were Methodists, and as I preached, they were crying out, "Hallelujah! Glory! Bless the Lord!." They were full of excitement, until I went on to say in my sermon, "This brings me to the doctrine of Election." There was no crying out of "Glory!" and "Hallelujah!" then. Instead, there was a great deal of shaking of the head, and a sort of telegraphing round the place, as though something dreadful was coming. Now, I thought, I must have their attention again, so I said, "You all believe in the doctrine of Election?" "No, we don't, lad," said one. "Yes, you do, and I am going to preach it to you, and make you cry 'Hallelujah!' over it." I am certain they mistrusted my power to do that; so, turning a moment from the subject, I said, "Is there any difference between you and the ungodly world?" "Ay! Ay! Ay!" "Is there any difference between you and the drunkard, the harlot, the blasphemer?" "Ay! Ay! Ay!" Ay! there was a difference indeed. "Well, now," I said, "there is a great difference; who made it, then?" for, whoever made the difference, should have the glory of it. "Did you make the difference?" "No, lad," said one; and the rest all seemed to join in the chorus. "Who made the difference, then? Why, the Lord did it; and did you think it wrong for Him to make a difference between you and other men?" "No, no," they quickly said. "Very well, then; if it was not wrong for God to make the difference, it was not wrong for Him to purpose to make it, and that is the doctrine of Election." Then they cried, "Hallelujah!" as I said they would.

It's the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation which is unbiblical.