ECT Which understanding lends itself to your theology?

[Cross Reference]

In fact, I will even concede your point for the sake of the larger, far more important context. Now, in the safety of this concession, please go back to my last two posts and read them again with a mind to understanding.

I have and I do understand you and still don't agree. It isn't there to support sound doctrine and it might only compound the error of TULIP. 1. There is no reason for that kind of understanding you propose about Jesus to be made necessary for any further understanding of the Atonement and enablement for entering into the presence of God by the second/new birth; to the learning the ways/kingdom of God. What Jesus did by JTB was symbolically correct and I applaud you. For years I taught that I believed Jesus sanctified the water as He sanctified the bread and wine, by His partaking of it and with His own baptism by partaking of it and you added to that reasoning I believe augmented mine thus pointing up the severity of our partaking of either, unworthily.

 

[Cross Reference]

Something which always struck me about being "born of water" is that, if this were merely referring to physical birth, our Lord was stating something painfully obvious: if you don't exist, you can't be born again. But I believe He was saying more than this. While I can fully accept the fact of physical birth that fits the context, that is, flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, also fully agreeing with those that water baptism does not save,

But neither does it carry with it any idea it has a power for repentance but rather a strong symbolic death to self committment otherwise JTB would not have called for the evidence of repentance from the Pharisees BEFORE he would even consider baptizing them. I believe the order is "Believe [commit] and be baptized" OR 'Repent, commit and be baptized'.

OMT, Jesus was never baptized as a baby. He was 30 yrs old when He was.

 

[jsjohnnt]

Cross Reference wrote: Indeed, it is. And there is no reason for you to not believe it as well unless you need to protect a pet doctrine that this understanding won't fit __ otherwise, why not? Why stay with speculative reasoning?

Everyone has their "pet doctrine." All "theologies" are but the invention of man, and hence, "speculative," whether based on biblical consideration or some sort of existential/esoteric "revelation." It seems to me that the argument or discussion, here, is about how we approach scripture. I would argue this point: it is never "this is what the Bible says." Rather , it always "this is what I believe the Bible says." If that is not true, then any one of you should write out what we are to believe, and, BAM, that is the end of the discussion. So, who's it going to be. The Catholics have the Pope to do their thinking for them. Who should we non-Catholic types follow? I assume that we all stand in the declaration that Jesus Christ came in the flesh as the Son of God. If our discussion(s) is in that context, then, we share a commonality that might bring us together in such things as "life after death, before the resurrection of Christ." Anyway, good discussion, all.

Seems to me that Romans 14:4 allows for a variance as to a doctrinal belief that ends in or with our pledge of allegiance to Christ. I am a member of the fundalmentalist community, but I do not judge those who disagree with me, understanding that I have come to disagree with much that I held true, when I was a babe in Christ.

What I see 5280 saying is this: the actual resurrection of Christ, that event, is the very thing that gives rise to the "suffering servant" being Christ, or any OT hint of life after death, being the produce of Christ's resurrection. Speculation? Maybe, but that does not preclude this thinking from being biblical, as well. Turns out that Christ and his resurrection changes or adds new meaning to the OT scriptures. Without Him, the "suffering servant" would just be some Old Testament dude with no meaning for us today. Right or wrong, 5280 is making his point based on this same resurrection. How can that be anything other than a wonderful place to begin the discussion?

 

[heir]

Born of your mother when the water breaks, and then born from grave as Ezekiel told. You are master of Israel and you know not these things?

:up:

 

[TFTn5280]

I have and I do understand you and still don't agree. It isn't there ...

No, you have swallowed the camel. You may hold onto your belief. I will hold to the power of the resurrection. Without your understanding, we will all be fine. Without mine, you would be better off never having been born. Good day.

 

[Cross Reference]

No, you have swallowed the camel. You may hold onto your belief. I will hold to the power of the resurrection. Without your understanding, we will all be fine. Without mine, you would be better off never having been born. Good day.

:sigh:

 

[TFTn5280]

No, you have swallowed the camel. You may hold onto your belief. I will hold to the power of the resurrection. Without your understanding, we will all be fine. Without mine, you would be better off never having been born. Good day.

Actually this is too harsh and too judgmental. It is not true because it's mine. It's true or let's have a party! I'm simply trying to set a proper frame work whereby we can discuss tertiary topics. My apologies to Cross Reference.

 

[Cross Reference]

Cross Reference wrote: Indeed, it is. And there is no reason for you to not believe it as well unless you need to protect a pet doctrine that this understanding won't fit __ otherwise, why not? Why stay with speculative reasoning?

Everyone has their "pet doctrine." All "theologies" are but the invention of man, and hence, "speculative," whether based on biblical consideration or some sort of existential/esoteric "revelation." It seems to me that the argument or discussion, here, is about how we approach scripture. I would argue this point: it is never "this is what the Bible says." Rather , it always "this is what I believe the Bible says." If that is not true, then any one of you should write out what we are to believe, and, BAM, that is the end of the discussion. So, who's it going to be. The Catholics have the Pope to do their thinking for them. Who should we non-Catholic types follow? I assume that we all stand in the declaration that Jesus Christ came in the flesh as the Son of God. If our discussion(s) is in that context, then, we share a commonality that might bring us together in such things as "life after death, before the resurrection of Christ." Anyway, good discussion, all.

Seems to me that Romans 14:4 allows for a variance as to a doctrinal belief that ends in or with our pledge of allegiance to Christ. I am a member of the fundalmentalist community, but I do not judge those who disagree with me, understanding that I have come to disagree with much that I held true, when I was a babe in Christ.

What I see 5280 saying is this: the actual resurrection of Christ, that event, is the very thing that gives rise to the "suffering servant" being Christ, or any OT hint of life after death, being the produce of Christ's resurrection. Speculation? Maybe, but that does not preclude this thinking from being biblical, as well. Turns out that Christ and his resurrection changes or adds new meaning to the OT scriptures. Without Him, the "suffering servant" would just be some Old Testament dude with no meaning for us today. Right or wrong, 5280 is making his point based on this same resurrection. How can that be anything other than a wonderful place to begin the discussion?

I full well know the elementary teachings of Jesus Christ and by the OT do I know them as well. You, my friend, are majoring in minors. You have taken your speculative opinion too far for it say anything worth while considering, even remembering except that one has to screw up the scriptures to make it all work and that is where you fall short. You can't perform. I live where there are four seasons. Little does it take to realize, one Robin in January doesn't mean it's springtime..

 

[TFTn5280]

I have and I do understand you and still don't agree. It isn't there to support sound doctrine and it might only compound the error of TULIP. 1. There is no reason for that kind of understanding you propose about Jesus to be made necessary for any further understanding of the Atonement and enablement for entering into the presence of God by the second/new birth; to the learning the ways/kingdom of God. What Jesus did by JTB was symbolically correct and I applaud you. For years I taught that I believed Jesus sanctified the water as He sanctified the bread and wine, by His partaking of it and with His own baptism by partaking of it and you added to that reasoning I believe augmented mine thus pointing up the severity of our partaking of either, unworthily.

Good point overall and helpful. I would like to adjust it a bit if I may. As David's representation of all Israel in his confrontation with Goliath was not symbolic but quite literal, so was Jesus' representation of us more than symbolic when entering the waters of baptism. He quite literally took everyone of us into that water with him.

 

[Cross Reference]

Good point overall and helpful. I would like to adjust it a bit if I may. As David's representation of all Israel in his confrontation with Goliath was not symbolic but quite literal, so was Jesus' representation of us more than symbolic when entering the waters of baptism. He quite literally took everyone of us into that water with him.

He couldn't do that! Why? He, Himself, had not yet paid the price to do so. So anything, you offer up can only be symbolic as in being a "type" of the OT types. Everything about Jesus, up until He actually paid the price, was given to Him in promise form and with the utmost confidence that He would perform for those promises to be made a complete fulfillment in Him. Can you understand that? That is why He is coming again as, "Son of Man".

 

[jsjohnnt]

I full well know the elementary teachings of Jesus Christ and by the OT do I know them as well. You, my friend, are majoring in minors. You have taken your speculative opinion too far for it say anything worth while considering, even remembering except that one has to screw up the scriptures to make it all work and that is where you fall short. You can't perform. I live where there are four seasons. Little does it take to realize, one Robin in January doesn't mean it's springtime..

Wow. You have a certain poetry to your reply. I mean, it sounds good and all, but entirely too general to be of much use. Exactly with what did you disagree? Romans 14:4 and the fact that we are united (like me or not) in our allegiance to our Master, or that Paul clearly allows for difference of opinion as to doctrinal issage (in the context of our confession to Christ as God in the flesh)?

Or was it that the Resurrection gives explanation to any number of OT passages and, that, without the Resurrection, you have no reference to Christ in the Old Scriptures . . . . . or you just don't like the fact that I might disagree with you?

Which is it? Splain, please.

 

[jsjohnnt]

One more quick point: TFTn5280 is camping on the notion that without the Resurrection of Christ, there is no resurrection at all . . . . we are all dead dead dead . . . . . and if that is true, there is no judgment, no heaven, no hell. 5280 can correct me, if I have misunderstood.

Disagree? Then please tell me how you have a judgment day without a risen Christ as the judge? 5280 has only taken the critical import of the Resurrection to its [seeming] logical end. I mean, are we all raised from the dead except Christ? Or is it that he is the first fruit of resurrection from the truly dead and, without him, there is no afterlife at all?

As I see it, if we allow for our personal resurrection apart from The Resurrection, what is the benefit of winning that argument?

 

[Cross Reference]

Wow. You have a certain poetry to your reply. I mean, it sounds good and all, but entirely too general to be of much use. Exactly with what did you disagree? Romans 14:4 and the fact that we are united (like me or not) in our allegiance to our Master, or that Paul clearly allows for difference of opinion as to doctrinal issage (in the context of our confession to Christ as God in the flesh)?

. . and I do as well until it is mandatory I accept it as being the-e-e truth presented in the gospel.

Or was it that the Resurrection gives explanation to any number of OT passages and, that, without the Resurrection, you have no reference to Christ in the Old Scriptures . . . . . or you just don't like the fact that I might disagree with you?

Which is it? Splain, please.

Like I said but, will say it again using less words: So what? For an explanation of such shortness I refer you back the post for the longer version you are not grasping. . . . Btw, I have no reason to dislike you. You have given no reason. . . .

 

[Cross Reference]

One more quick point: TFTn5280 is camping on the notion that without the Resurrection of Christ, there is no resurrection at all . . . . we are all dead dead dead . . . . . and if that is true, there is no judgment, no heaven, no hell.

Disagree? Then please tell me how you have a judgment day without a risen Christ as the judge? 5280 has only taken the critical import of the Resurrection to its [seeming] logical end. I mean, are we all raised from the dead except Christ? Or is it that he is the first fruit of resurrection from the truly dead and, without him, there is no afterlife at all?

And?? That is all common knowledge. What Christian worth his salt would disagree? Therefore your second paragraph is unnecessary and confusing except to speculate over __ conjecture at best. Leave it alone.

 

[jsjohnnt]

. . and I do as well until it is mandatory I accept it as being the-e-e truth presented in the gospel.



Like I said but, will say it again using less words: So what? For an explanation of such shortness I refer you back the post for the longer version you are not grasping. . . . Btw, I have no reason to dislike you. You have given no reason. . . .

If it is biblical truth, it is all mandatory. You purport to oppose conjecture, yet, "what is necessary" is all about your opinion versus someone else's . . . . conjecture my friend, conjecture, no?

 

[Cross Reference]

If it is biblical truth, it is all mandatory. You pretend to oppose conjecture, yet, "what is necessary" is all about your opinion versus someone else's . . . . conjecture my friend, conjecture.

Pretend?? I oppose all conjecture and especially speculation as gospel truth. I have never placed my opinion up as gospel truth but that which DEFINITELY is more objective, given the scriptures that prove it to be, by contrast.


BTW and FWIW, "IF" is the operative word.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you, AMR. Now will you kindly address my scriptural replies. Please explain why you don't believe they must be mis-prints for your supralapisarian position to be believed? I think you have an obligation to do that as well as any other scripture that counters your theology.

Start with Gen. 4:26, ". . . then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." Genesis 4:26 (KJV)
Thank you and I await your honest and sincere reply.

I am not supra, but infralapsarian. If you want the supra view, speak with Nang. It is clear for me the "lump" was a fallen mass of humanity. Nothing in my replies would indicate the contrary, so you either misunderstand the distinctions or are not reading me carefully.

If you are want to impose obligation upon me then you will have to refrain from constructing straw men of the my views by claiming I operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore believe about my beliefs what you believe about my beliefs thus leaving no hope for honest discussion.

Here is a starting primer that some within the Reformed camp may or may not agree with that nevertheless may help you with the issue.

AMR

 

[jsjohnnt]

Pretend?? I oppose all conjecture and especially speculation as gospel truth. I have never placed my opinion up as gospel truth but that which DEFINITELY is more objective, given the scriptures that prove it to be, by contrast.


BTW and FWIW, "IF" is the operative word.

First I said "purport," not pretend. One allows for a serious application, the other, in this case is "ad hom."

Secondly, your whole theological system (mine included) is conjecture. We cannot prove the existence of God, we can only assume it to be so . . . and that is exactly how the biblical message begins, with a grand assumption, "In the beginning God . . ." You believe the creation record to be fact, but such is only an assumption. Nothing wrong with assumptions, when there is nothing to take their place. Oh, we have reasons for believing in God and the reliability of the Message, but in the end, we cannot prove these things to be true. You sound fairly knowledgeable. You must know that what I am saying is more than obvious. So why do you bother to defend your opinion (read "conjecture) as if they were fact? Do you think biblically based conjecture is somehow not legitimate inquiry?

 

[Cross Reference]

First I said "purport," not pretend. One allows for a serious application, the other, in this case is "ad hom."

Secondly, your whole theological system (mine included) is conjecture. We cannot prove the existence of God, we can only assume it to be so . . . and that is exactly how the biblical message begins, with a grand assumption, "In the beginning God . . ." You believe the creation record to be fact, but such is only an assumption. Nothing wrong with assumptions, when there is nothing to take their place. Oh, we have reasons for believing in God and the reliability of the Message, but in the end, we cannot prove these things to be true. You sound fairly knowledgeable. You must know that what I am saying is more than obvious. So why do you bother to defend your opinion (read "conjecture) as if they were fact? Do you think biblically based conjecture is somehow not legitimate inquiry?

Purport and not pretend? No wonder it didn't make sense. My bad. I have glycoma(sp?). I blame much of my mis-reading words on that. It is now quite frequent that I do..

However, if the Biblical account of creation and God can be doubted/is NOT fact as written for us to understand then we would have to say the accounts of Jesus Christ as written aren't trustworthy that His existence can be doubted as well, wouldn't you agree? Now where do you stand in the matter of Who He was? or maybe, if He was. Is it fact or conjecture or maybe pure speculation with you?

 

[TFTn5280]

He couldn't do that! Why? He, Himself, had not yet paid the price to do so. So anything, you offer up can only be symbolic as in being a "type" of the OT types. Everything about Jesus, up until He actually paid the price, was given to Him in promise form and with the utmost confidence that He would perform for those promises to be made a complete fulfillment in Him. Can you understand that? That is why He is coming again as, "Son of Man".

Yes, I think I do understand it. I also think there's an ontological theme to the atonement carried over from the OT that you are missing, one whereby Christ acts not as "type" but in a manner such that he actually procures atonement throughout the entire course of his life ministry, not just at the cross. But I digress. I'm glad you got a little something out of what I wrote.