Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232910 | ||
You are right I did miss that one. An excellent article written by a renowned author, researcher, apologist and theologian, NOT! It was written by John K Mckee a man whose one aim is the defense Messianic Christianity. A movement which openly and readily admits it wants to retain its Jewish heritage. Do you think it may be just a little biased? The only mention to antinomianism I found from skim reading was this, “Holding the Law of God in very low esteem can lead to what is theologically termed antinomianism—the denial of the importance of the Law of God. Alexander M. Renwick, in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, remarks that “It refers to the doctrine that the moral law is not binding upon Christians as a rule of life. In a wider sense it is applied to the views of fanatics who refuse to recognize any law but their own subjective ideas which they usually claim are from the Holy Spirit.” Holding is God’s law in very low esteem is not the driving thrust of Dispensationalism, nor is a topic that any dispensational writers that I’m aware have broached. Nor is it something either you or Doc have provided tangible proof of having occurred. Now let us stop this nonsense. Dispensationalist abhors antinomianism just as you do and it pointless to continue trying to find a remote or isolated comments if one exists that says differently. Doc said what he said and only his God and himself knows his intent. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to continue in this attempt to prove dispensationalist hold to Antinomianism. I can only imagine major supporters of the Lockman foundation and the NASB Bible will be surprised to learn of this relationship. |
||||||
2 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232911 | ||
EdB, You said, "End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to continue in this attempt to prove dispensationalist hold to Antinomianism" You continue to twist and misrepresent my words. I have never tried to suggest that modern dispensationalism as a rule advocates antinomianism. If you will go back to my first post you will see that I clearly distinguished modern dispensationalist from the ones found in its early days. Just because you reject that distinction does not give you permission to take my statements and suggest I personally am applying them without distinciton. Second, I have only attempted to show a link between early dispensational thought and antinomianism. I never suggested that they actively taught antinomianism by name. I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting my words and trying to present me as attacking those who I would gladly call brothers and friends. In Christ, Beja In Christ, Beja |
||||||
3 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232913 | ||
And I asked for a book, article or paper authored by a Dispensationalist that shows that relationship. Instead you provide a portion of a text that was evidently part of a sermon, so it is fair to say it was taken out of context, as proof Scofield taught antinomianism. And no where does he even suggest in words or idea the two tests you got from dictionaries as proof of antinomianism. If I have misrepresented your words it was unintentional. What I protest was what I thought you were defending. Doc made the connection without distinction of old and new dispensationalism and you jumped in to defend his position. Again I meant no misrepresentation. As I said I think this discussion is ended unless you want to make another charge against me. |
||||||
4 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | azurelaw | 232915 | ||
Dear EdB, I see that you have long been a forum participant since 2001 and my experience in reading some of your past posts no doubt have been pleasant and a blessing. Yet, I feel sad to see your below statement unfair and lacking brotherly love. "As I said I think this discussion is ended unless you want to make another charge against me." I really cannot understand how could you presume Beja's motive if he would continue the discussion. From your such statement, are you saying if he continues to respond, he will be liable to setting any charges against you (be it legitimate or not)? Shalom Azure |
||||||