ECT The Good News - Free Issue of TableTalk Magazine
- Thread starter Ask Mr. Religion
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
Again, you are on ignore. If you ever want off that, let someone know you want to make it right. I'm not sure if you know how that function works. Even your neg rep disappeared. I just see a name "Doom" with "This message is hidden because Doom is on your ignore list." It'll be difficult to get my attention after we are no longer in the same thread. Well, right now actually. I'm done here.
Doom
New member
:rotfl:
You accuse me of acting like a "child" and then you keep responding to someone you are apparently "ignoring". What a tool :loser:
You let me know when you are going to apologize for making your broad jumping conclusion about my avatar. Until then, you are just a clanging gong and a babbling twit.
Lon
Well-known member
From the PDF:
Now I would remind you, brothers,
of the gospel I preached to you, which
you received, in which you stand, and
by which you are being saved, if you
hold fast to the word I preached to
you—unless you believed in vain. For
I delivered to you as of first importance
what I also received: that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with
the Scriptures, that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.of the gospel I preached to you, which
you received, in which you stand, and
by which you are being saved, if you
hold fast to the word I preached to
you—unless you believed in vain. For
I delivered to you as of first importance
what I also received: that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with
the Scriptures, that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day
Cruciform
New member
Ad hominem rhetoric---the last resort of one with no actual argument to offer.
The apostles all engaged in apologetics, that is, in rationally defending the doctrinal content of the Christian faith, the substance of which is the Gospel itself. I'll go with the apostles rather than your glaringly unbiblical and even unchristian opinion, thanks.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Doom
New member
Already made the argument, you dummy. I quoted you what the apostle Paul says about using apologetics. And every time you deny it, you will be called a "dummy" again, simply because.... well, you are one.
"And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."
No they did not. Not a single one of them did.
False.
"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
I just proved (once again) the the apostle Paul agrees with me, and would call you a "dummy".
You'll need to keep -> it <- on ignore, permanently.
One can sense extreme agony and bitterness in a person and can be contagious.
Many deserve to be on my ignore but the ones on my ignore
are the ones that are possessed by real demons who gets mad if you don't feed them.
Don't feed the trolls !
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: There are a few cultish MADists who think only they are going to heaven and the rest of Christianity are demons, but not the Mods on TOL (I really appreciate their balance). These mods consider the rest of us brothers and sister in Christ if we have trusted the gospel message. There are a lot of well-balanced MADists on TOL too :up: (even if it doesn't always seem like it, they aren't always as vocal as their counterparts).
Doom
New member
I've never met one, so most likely you made that up, which speaks to your childishness.
Calvinists do not believe the gospel, not because I say so, but because Paul says so.
Limited atonement is anti-Christ. It states that Jesus did not die for OUR sins. It states that Jesus only died for the sins of the "elect". Nothing could be more cultic than that.
I don't care if the Mods, or the owner consider you a brother in Christ, it just means that they have adopted a view contrary to that of Paul's gospel.
You can whine and cry and HIDE behind the "ignore" feature all day, but the fact remains, you do not believe that Jesus died for OUR sins.
Lon
Well-known member
Mid Acts Dispensationalism. Very briefly, it is that the Gospel to Gentiles is different than that to the Jews AND that a lot of the Bible is written specifically to Jews. Paul's writings are, for the most part, their only instructions.
*Note, still on iggy, Doom. You'll have to try, to get my attention in the positive manner, already discussed. I'd love to be civil and a brother in Christ with you, but you've closed that door. It cannot open again until God corrects you on this. You currently have a cult mentality that is entirely MAD and not entirely Christian. I don't judge your Christianity by it, you are simply wrong. I have no idea if you are Christian who loves and is loved by our Lord or not. As long as hate is in your vocabulary, you are off my radar. I don't care if you hate Calvinists or not. Some on TOL do. All are completely out of balance in Christ. They have no knowledge of where to draw the line, nor how to talk with adults in an acceptable manner. Such demands that my ignore list exist, and that it remains steadfast. I still won't read a thing you write until you learn to remotely see that God 'may' save even a Calvinist. Until then, we have nothing to talk about (can't, in fact). It is as much to your benefit, as it is to mine, that I have you on ignore. In Him,
Lon
(I pray the love of Christ compels you and have prayed the same since you've been on ignore)
Galatians 1
gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Romans 5
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life
Calvinists and "Pentecostals" alike hate Romans 5. And Paul is a mean spirited troll.
gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Romans 5
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life
Calvinists and "Pentecostals" alike hate Romans 5. And Paul is a mean spirited troll.
Lon
Well-known member
I TOTALLY agree with this scripture, as a Calvinist. Perhaps I'm not a Calvinist in the sense you understand one to be, however. That's not important to me. I have always appreciated that you use scripture and treated me fairly in these discussions. I have also appreciated that you consider, use our Lord's words which can never return void, and are about the business of lifting up His Word. If I am wrong, it will change me.
Doom
New member
Doesn't matter to me, I'm still exposing you as a fraud, whether you know it or not. :chuckle:
Wrong. I'm not the one who says that the once for ALL sacrifice of Jesus was "limited". That would be you.
You're an idiot, and everyone who is not ignoring my posts, and does not subscribe to the cult of Calvinism knows it.
I'm not wrong, nor can I be, unless the Bible is wrong, which is what you propose.
Irrelevant.
You are deceived. I want Calvinists to come to believe the gospel, but they won't/don't. You are no different in the eyes of God than a Mormon, JW's, RCC, or any other cult that denies the gospel.
You're the one acting like a child and won't face the facts, hiding behind an ignore button. Grow up.
:baby:
Cruciform
New member
That's strike two.
- First, Paul says nothing whatsoever about "apologetics" in the passage you cited.
- Second, your interpretation ignores the immediate context of Paul's own statements.
- Third, Paul elsewhere engages in the practice of apologetics (defending the Christian faith), and so your interpretation of the cited passage simply cannot be correct.
- Fourth, I simply disagree with the interpretation of these texts that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, and see no compelling reason whatsoever to accept them. They are, after all, merely the fallible traditions of men.
Defining Apologetics
Apologetics may be simply defined as the defense of the Christian faith. The simplicity of this definition, however, masks the complexity of the problem of defining apologetics. It turns out that a diversity of approaches has been taken to defining the meaning, scope, and purpose of apologetics.
From Apologia to Apologetics
The word “apologetics” derives from the Greek word apologia, which was originally used of a speech of defense or an answer given in reply. In ancient Athens it referred to a defense made in the courtroom as part of the normal judicial procedure. After the accusation, the defendant was allowed to refute the charges with a defense or reply (apologia). The accused would attempt to “speak away” (apo—away, logia—speech) the accusation. The classic example of such an apologia was Socrates’ defense against the charge of preaching strange gods, a defense retold by his most famous pupil, Plato, in a dialogue called The Apology (in Greek, hē apologia).
The word appears 17 times in noun or verb form in the New Testament, and both the noun (apologia) and verb form (apologeomai) can be translated “defense” or “vindication” in every case. Usually the word is used to refer to a speech made in one’s own defense. For example, in one passage Luke says that a Jew named Alexander tried to “make a defense” before an angry crowd in Ephesus that was incited by idol-makers whose business was threatened by Paul’s preaching (Acts 19:33). Elsewhere Luke always uses the word in reference to situations in which Christians, and in particular the apostle Paul, are put on trial for proclaiming their faith in Christ and have to defend their message against the charge of being unlawful (Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 22:1; 24:10; 25:8, 16; 26:2, 24).
Paul himself used the word in a variety of contexts in his epistles. To the Corinthians, he found it necessary to “defend” himself against criticisms of his claim to be an apostle (1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 12:19). At one point he describes the repentance exhibited by the Corinthians as a “vindication” (2 Cor. 7:11 nasb), that is, as an “eagerness to clear yourselves” (niv, nrsv). To the Romans, Paul described Gentiles who did not have the written Law as being aware enough of God’s Law that, depending on their behavior, their own thoughts will either prosecute or “defend” them on Judgment Day (Rom. 2:15). Toward the end of his life, Paul told Timothy, “At my first defense no one supported me” (2 Tim. 4:16), referring to the first time he stood trial. Paul’s usage here is similar to what we find in Luke’s writings. Earlier, he had expressed appreciation to the Philippians for supporting him “both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (Phil. 1:7). Here again the context is Paul’s conflict with the government and his imprisonment. However, the focus of the “defense” is not Paul but “the gospel”: Paul’s ministry includes defending the gospel against its detractors, especially those who claim that it is subversive or in any way unlawful. So Paul says later in the same chapter, “I am appointed for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:16).
Finally, in 1 Peter 3:15 believers are told always to be prepared “to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” The context here is similar to Paul’s later epistles and to Luke’s writings: non-Christians are slandering the behavior of Christians and threatening them with persecution (1 Pet. 3:13-17; 4:12-19). When challenged or even threatened, Christians are to behave lawfully, maintain a good conscience, and give a reasoned defense of what they believe to anyone who asks.
https://bible.org/seriespage/2-what-apologetics
Apologetics may be simply defined as the defense of the Christian faith. The simplicity of this definition, however, masks the complexity of the problem of defining apologetics. It turns out that a diversity of approaches has been taken to defining the meaning, scope, and purpose of apologetics.
From Apologia to Apologetics
The word “apologetics” derives from the Greek word apologia, which was originally used of a speech of defense or an answer given in reply. In ancient Athens it referred to a defense made in the courtroom as part of the normal judicial procedure. After the accusation, the defendant was allowed to refute the charges with a defense or reply (apologia). The accused would attempt to “speak away” (apo—away, logia—speech) the accusation. The classic example of such an apologia was Socrates’ defense against the charge of preaching strange gods, a defense retold by his most famous pupil, Plato, in a dialogue called The Apology (in Greek, hē apologia).
The word appears 17 times in noun or verb form in the New Testament, and both the noun (apologia) and verb form (apologeomai) can be translated “defense” or “vindication” in every case. Usually the word is used to refer to a speech made in one’s own defense. For example, in one passage Luke says that a Jew named Alexander tried to “make a defense” before an angry crowd in Ephesus that was incited by idol-makers whose business was threatened by Paul’s preaching (Acts 19:33). Elsewhere Luke always uses the word in reference to situations in which Christians, and in particular the apostle Paul, are put on trial for proclaiming their faith in Christ and have to defend their message against the charge of being unlawful (Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 22:1; 24:10; 25:8, 16; 26:2, 24).
Paul himself used the word in a variety of contexts in his epistles. To the Corinthians, he found it necessary to “defend” himself against criticisms of his claim to be an apostle (1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 12:19). At one point he describes the repentance exhibited by the Corinthians as a “vindication” (2 Cor. 7:11 nasb), that is, as an “eagerness to clear yourselves” (niv, nrsv). To the Romans, Paul described Gentiles who did not have the written Law as being aware enough of God’s Law that, depending on their behavior, their own thoughts will either prosecute or “defend” them on Judgment Day (Rom. 2:15). Toward the end of his life, Paul told Timothy, “At my first defense no one supported me” (2 Tim. 4:16), referring to the first time he stood trial. Paul’s usage here is similar to what we find in Luke’s writings. Earlier, he had expressed appreciation to the Philippians for supporting him “both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (Phil. 1:7). Here again the context is Paul’s conflict with the government and his imprisonment. However, the focus of the “defense” is not Paul but “the gospel”: Paul’s ministry includes defending the gospel against its detractors, especially those who claim that it is subversive or in any way unlawful. So Paul says later in the same chapter, “I am appointed for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:16).
Finally, in 1 Peter 3:15 believers are told always to be prepared “to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” The context here is similar to Paul’s later epistles and to Luke’s writings: non-Christians are slandering the behavior of Christians and threatening them with persecution (1 Pet. 3:13-17; 4:12-19). When challenged or even threatened, Christians are to behave lawfully, maintain a good conscience, and give a reasoned defense of what they believe to anyone who asks.
https://bible.org/seriespage/2-what-apologetics
Categorically refuted just above.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Doom
New member
Too bad, because based on your following post, your more of a dummy than before.
Apologetics does not equate to the word "defense" apolog or apologia. Apologetics is a defense, but the apostle Paul opposed using apologetics to defend the gospel. It is not the same word, as you are proposing :chuckle:
Peter attempted to defend Christ with a sword, but that is not how God wants us defending the gospel.
Paul compares his presentation of the gospel with those who would use human (worldly wisdom) to make a defense.
1 Cor 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Evidence, dummy.
He never does, so you are still mistaken.
I have the Bible to back me up, you have nothing.
Thank you for making my case. In every one of those instances there is not one single example of apologetics being used.
Perhaps you should read a few books from Christian apologists, so that you can understand what apologetics is. Defending yourself against a lawyer, court, king, church, etc., is not apologetics.
Here are a few examples of Christian apologists who mistakenly resort to using apologetics:
Walter R. Martin, Dinesh D'Souza, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer, Greg Bahnsen, James White, Hank Hanegraaff, Ravi Zacharias, Alister McGrath, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Hugh Ross, and Scott Hahn.
Perhaps you should read a few books from Christian apologists, so that you can understand what apologetics is. Defending yourself against a lawyer, court, king, church, etc., is not apologetics.
Here are a few examples of Christian apologists who mistakenly resort to using apologetics:
Walter R. Martin, Dinesh D'Souza, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer, Greg Bahnsen, James White, Hank Hanegraaff, Ravi Zacharias, Alister McGrath, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Hugh Ross, and Scott Hahn.
Cruciform
New member
Already categorically refuted in Post #57 above.
Strike three---"IGNORE." :wave2:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+