Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 21896 | ||
I can tell that you are attempting to drag this discussion down into the ditch so I will discontinue the converstion before one says something they regret. It is amazing how individuals hide behind a forum and say stuff they would NEVER say verbatim to peoples faces. If I am wrong about RC Sproul, just simply say "You know schwatzkm, I am not sure you grasped fully what RC was teaching." Or "Could you tell me where you got that piece of info. from. I have never understood RC to say anything like that." THe way you handled the situation shows your spiritual immaturity. About RC Sproul, I heard him do a full 1/2 hour segment jumbling up the "Godlen chain of redemption." I know what I heard and will search his website in an attempt to purchase his tape. The reason why it stuck out in my mind was the gymnastics he went through to jumble up the passage. |
||||||
2 | response | Rom 1:18 | Reformer Joe | 22028 | ||
My spiritual immaturity? You are the one who micharacterized my argument as an Arminian one, and then proceeded to say that R.C. Sproul would "string me up and shoot me" for what I said, as if he were my lord and savior and inventor of Reformed theology. You then misrepresented his clear teachings in a forum in which he apparently does not participate, and me correcting and rebuking you on this is spiritual immaturity? It is horrible to come out in the public square and make unfounded accusations of another believer in Christ and misrepresent the theology that he holds. If I went onto another bulletin board and said something along the lines of, "You know that old Schwartzkopf denies the Trinity," I hope you would wish someone there to correct me. And you still have not addressed the substance of the content of the post or the other one. I clearly expounded the Reformed understanding of Romans 8. It is the one Sproul holds to as well. What is wrong with it? And you still have ignored the Scripture passages you requested as support of my views. If you see this as me "dragging the discussion down into the ditch," so be it. And I would make precisely the same point I made in person as well. The only difference would be that it would be an interchange of voices rather than a series of written communications, which in itself changes the dynamic of the discussion. If you do indeed find evidence of Sproul "jumbling things up," please cite it verbatim for us so that I can make a full apology to you and the rest of the forum. Until that time, I will stick to what he wrote on p. 145 of his book _Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology_: "Reformed theologians understand the golden chain as follows: From all eternity God foreknew his elect. He had an idea of their identity in mind before he created them. He foreknew them not only in the sense of having a prior idea of their personal identities, but also in the sense of foreloving them. When the Bible speaks of 'knowing,' it often distinguishes between a simple mental awareness of a person and a deep intimate love of a person. The Reformed view teached that all whom God has foreknown, he has also predestined to be inwardly called, justified, and glorified. God sovereignly brings to pass the salvation of his elect and only of his elect." Disagree with Sproul if you want, but understand a view before criticizing it. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | response | Rom 1:18 | Radioman | 22033 | ||
Joe: I have been reading your writings on the forum from the beginning. Your points are always well thought out, well researched and well written. I notice that you do not just write off the top of your head. You are thorough and accurate in every factual matter with which you deal. Any dabbler or babbler who thinks he can just waltz in here and with a few "witty" postings refute your points is very much mistaken. On the forum I've said all along that before one attempts to disprove or refute a position, he had better be very familiar with that position in order to write intelligently about it. Bravado and sophistry are themselves marks of immaturity and are no match for a knowledgeable, articulate believer such as yourself. Keep up the excellent, excellent work. Radioman P.S. To attack the razor sharp mind of R.C. Sproul with a dull butter knife is laughable at best. |
||||||