Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100007 | ||
"Your right sermons are not Biblical they are Biblically based and hopefully are founded on Biblical principals and rooted in truth. However I have heard many that were Biblically based but not founded on Biblical principals and therefore rooted in false doctrine." All of us have. "Let us not elevate a doctrine of man to level it does not deserve. It may quote scripture, it may contain Biblical truths but it is not scripture it is nothing more that a Biblically bases opinion/statement constructed by man." Yes, I agree again. Now, which of us is committing that error? If I had a dime for every time my wife heard "that's MAN's doctrine" or "that's MAN's teaching" or "that's MAN's interpretation" while growing up in churches of your denomination, I could retire today. It seems that every time certain people want to put their point of view above critique, they play the "MAN's doctrine" card, thereby implying that they are promoting "GOD's truth." "Why do you want to shut down the forum. It seems that since Lockman has made an effort to relieve the forum of the burden of redundant endless arguing certain groups have launched a campaign to harm the forum rather than abide by it’s rules and terms." Are you really that incapable of detecting satire? You must have a hard time with 2 Corinthians. I have "launched a campaign" now? Come on, man! :) "Anytime you modify a word of scripture to suit your understanding of scripture then I think it is fair to say your applying man's interpretation to scripture. However when you apply a literal interpretation then you doing nothing more than repeating scripture." I disagree. It is more than repeating Scripture. If that were so, then there would be no need to do anything from the pulpit than just open the Bible and start reading. EVERYONE interprets. The question is, "Who is interpreting correctly?" --Joe! |
||||||
2 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100027 | ||
Joe Your the one raising the fuss over someone calling the Westminister Confession doctrine of man. So what is your point? EdB |
||||||
3 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100032 | ||
'Your the one raising the fuss over someone calling the Westminister Confession doctrine of man. So what is your point?' A fuss? Is it a "campaign" or a "fuss"? :) I thought my point was obvious: 'EVERYONE interprets. The question is, "Who is interpreting correctly?"' --Joe! |
||||||
4 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100034 | ||
Joe That isn't the point at all. The thing that started this discussion was John Hepting calling the WCF nothing more than an opinion of man (my wording). Then you and John jumped on him crying foul, saying the forum header prohibits that. I merely came to his defense saying the forum header was placed there to end the none productive, endless, circular, hateful debates that have so recently arisen over denominational issues. By him calling the WCF a work of man did not show any denominational bias unless you think the WCF is inspired. Your right everyone interprets scripture so let's stop beating our 'sola scriptura' drums. EdB |
||||||
5 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100040 | ||
"That isn't the point at all. The thing that started this discussion was John Hepting calling the WCF nothing more than an opinion of man (my wording)." That is your wording (which, incidentally, is very different from the manifesto found in your profile). His was that what I believe is "not Biblical at all." Those are very different statements. "Then you and John jumped on him crying foul, saying the forum header prohibits that." Please understand: I am not crying foul. I am wholeheartedly making fun. The people who think that their own opinions do not reflect denominational biases are doofuses (is that the plural? or is it "doofi"?) Those who appealed to the new moderator to "put a stop" to skirmishes that they too frequently initiate(after the previous moderator had already handed down a "ruling" on this one) are just plain silly. Maybe you know some of those people... The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. However, I hope you think it is biblical and "more than an opinion of man." --Joe! |
||||||
6 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100042 | ||
Joe Once again you bring it down to a personal level. "Doofuses" and "silly" certainly aren't endearing terms. The rules of the forum says no post should be written just to stir up trouble and I think that is exactly what you doing. My question is why? Because Lockman said no more denominational debates? Joe what good has come out of these debates? What has been resolved? May I answer? NOTHING. What has been the outcome? Animosity, anger, hatefulness, hurt, bitterness and the things we want so much to display to the world watching how Christians shoot other Christians Now since Lockman has decided there will be no more such debates show what you made of, take the high road and get on board. EdB |
||||||
7 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100057 | ||
'Once again you bring it down to a personal level. "Doofuses" and "silly" certainly aren't endearing terms.' They weren't meant to be. Neither is referring to people as "vipers" and "blind guides" and "whitewashed tombs" or "ravenous wolves" or "hypocrites," nor telling people that they are Satan or that their daddy is the devil, nor suggesting that those who insist on circumcision should completely emasculate themselves, nor referring to one's parishoners as "foolish." Sometimes "endearing" just isn't appropriate, and good old biblically sanctioned satire is called for. "May I answer? NOTHING. What has been the outcome? Animosity, anger, hatefulness, hurt, bitterness and the things we want so much to display to the world watching how Christians shoot other Christians" Then stop debating. --Joe! |
||||||
8 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100063 | ||
Joe I wasn't debating I was trying to keep the record straight. Joe call it humor, call it satire, call it anything you want, but you know exactly what you were doing using those terms and this new list is even worst. Enough said. EdB |
||||||
9 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100078 | ||
"I wasn't debating I was trying to keep the record straight." What a coincidence! Me, too! :) "Joe call it humor, call it satire, call it anything you want, but you know exactly what you were doing using those terms and this new list is even worst." You do know where I got the "new list," right? :) I wasn't directing the other "epithets" at anyone in particular, just providing them by way of illustration. I do stand by "doofus," however. :) --Joe! |
||||||
10 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100082 | ||
Joe Yes I know where the list came from. And while you claim your no aiming at anyone, you in fact are. They are in your sights right now. And that ought not to be brother. EdB |
||||||