PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: MacArthur Rant



billwald
February 25th, 2004, 12:43 PM
Been listening to a John MacArthur rant against evolution. He dishonestly fails to differentiate between Darwin's wish to eliminate the concept of "god" from the study of science and the credibility of Darwin's observations about evolution. He should know better but this is an acceptable technique when preaching to the choir.

Would the 6 Day Creationists be satisfied if every science text was prefaced by "God ordained that:?"

MacArthur makes the standard misrepresentation of statistics and probability. Would 6 Day Creationists be satisfied if all texts stated that "God apparently has apparently introduced a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"

No, because they would respond that God "couldn't" introduce a random factor because . . . .

Turbo
February 25th, 2004, 01:54 PM
billwald,
Your post is incoherent.


Would 6 Day Creationists be satisfied if all texts stated that "God apparently has apparently introduced a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"I wouldn't. It's redundant.

No, because they would respond that God "couldn't" introduce a random factor... I wouldn't respond that way.
...because . . . . Because...? What are you talking about?

billwald
February 25th, 2004, 07:58 PM
I have yet to meet a 6 Dayer who accepts that could introduce a random factor. Nothing is random. For example, MacArthur stated that an atom absorbing a photon and an electron jumping to a higher quantum state is an example of God's continuous creating. He can't accept that this function could have been designed to operate automatically in this universe.

Turbo
February 25th, 2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by billwald

I have yet to meet a 6 Dayer who accepts that could introduce a random factor. Well now you have. :) And I'm certainly not the only one.


Nothing is random. For example, MacArthur stated that an atom absorbing a photon and an electron jumping to a higher quantum state is an example of God's continuous creating. MacArthur is wrong. God rested from creation on the seventh day. He does not need to perform continuous miracles (intervene supernatually) for His creation to function.


He can't accept that this function could have been designed to operate automatically in this universe. That's too bad. That's not how the Bible describes things. It certainly isn't a conclusion that necessarily follows from Young-Earth/6-Day Creationism. (It actually runs contrary to the idea that God rested from creating.)

That seems like the kind of conclusion Calvinism might lead to. Do you know, is MacArthur a Calvinist? Or what about the 6-Dayers you know who reject that anything is random? Are they Calvinists?

Clete
February 25th, 2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Well now you have. :) And I'm certainly not the only one.
I too agree that things happen in a random fashion.
See watch....
2k3h -1=1k3rg
esdlkfap89 9u= 09231


And yes, MacArthur is a Calvinist. I'm not sure that he claims to be one although he brobably does. Either way, his theology is full of Clavinistic teaching.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
February 25th, 2004, 09:59 PM
:chuckle: :thumb:

Clete
February 25th, 2004, 10:08 PM
If your interested, there is a realy good open letter written to John MacArthur by Miles J Stanford. It does a good job of showing where MacAuthur stands theologically.

An Open Letter to John F. MacArthur Jr., FAITH WORKS - The Gospel According to the Apostles (http://withchrist.org/MJS/faithworks.htm)

Enjoy!

Let me know what you think.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
February 25th, 2004, 10:16 PM
Billwald,

The rantings of John MacArthur aside, does our admission of the existence of randomness help you accept us "6 dayers" as more intellectually consistant/honest?

brother Willi
February 25th, 2004, 10:23 PM
"a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"

I see it every day when I check the weather.

SNOW IN TEXAS
now thats a random factor !

wholearmor
February 25th, 2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by brother Willi

"a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"

I see it every day when I check the weather.

SNOW IN TEXAS
now thats a random factor !

No way...God wanted to punish someone for something. :chuckle:

billwald
February 26th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Stanford's letter was interesting. He is basically a Plymouth Brethern? I met with the PBs for 10 years and then rejected dispensational thinking after reading Calvin's Institutes.

Personally, I think St Paul's letters have preverted Jesus' intent for the Church. The problem with the Church IS Pauline theology. Sts John, Peter, and James provide sufficient theology.


"does our admission of the existence of randomness help you accept us "6 dayers" as more intellectually consistant/honest?"

Yes, some of you. Thankyou for correcting me.

Turbo
February 26th, 2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by billwald

Personally, I think St Paul's letters have preverted Jesus' intent for the Church. The problem with the Church IS Pauline theology. Sts John, Peter, and James provide sufficient theology.
Then why do you suppose Peter counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures?


and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16

Clete
February 26th, 2004, 02:38 PM
Also there is Gal. 2:9

Gal. 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

I know that Galatians was written by Paul, so this verse isn't as strong as the one presented by Turbo but assuming that you take Galatians to be scripture, could you answer the following questions for me?

Are you a Gentile or a member of the circumcised (Nation of Israel)?
How does your answer fit into what your last post said?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
February 26th, 2004, 03:14 PM
On that note:

billwald,
The event described in Gal 2:9 is recorded by Luke in Acts 15. Do you consider Acts to be inspired? Do you at least believe that Luke was a reliable and accurate historian?

billwald
February 26th, 2004, 08:00 PM
"Then why do you suppose Peter counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures?"

First, Peter refers to Paul's letters, not their inclusion as scripture. I dont't think either of them knew their writing would be so incorporated.

Second, I don't know why . . . but I suspect it had something to do with denominational politics at that time- Jerusalem Synod v. Paul's followers.

"The event described in Gal 2:9 is recorded by Luke in Acts 15. Do you consider Acts to be inspired? Do you at least believe that Luke was a reliable and accurate historian?"

Yes, I do. Considering that Acts was written by Paul's traveling companion, it is most unsympathetic to Paul. With friends like Luke I don't need any enemies.

First, it is apparent from reading Acts that the Church of Jerusalem didn't trust Paul, never trusted Paul, and would agree to almost anything to get him out of town. They never suspected that Paul's followers would gain control over the Church. They only wanted him to go away.

Second, consider Paul's final arrest in Jerusalem. The Jewish Christians had been routinely worshipping in the Temple and offering sacrifices. Any of them could have gone to Paul's first hearing and testified in his behalf. The person who accompanied Paul into the Temple could have pulled down his pants as evidence. I suspect they were pleased to see Paul arrested.

billwald
February 26th, 2004, 08:04 PM
"Are you a Gentile or a member of the circumcised (Nation of Israel)?"

Strange wording. I am a medically circumcised gentile member of the Christian Reformed Church but maybe not a 'good' member.

billwald
February 26th, 2004, 08:09 PM
Interesting how these threads jump around. From evolution to MIles Stanford to St Paul to circumcism.

Clete
February 26th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by billwald

"Are you a Gentile or a member of the circumcised (Nation of Israel)?"

Strange wording. I am a medically circumcised gentile member of the Christian Reformed Church but maybe not a 'good' member.
"I am a gentile." would have sufficed.

Do you base anything that you believe (in regards to this issue) on scripture or are you making all this up as you go?

You know, you do have an advantage over most reformation believers in that you acknowledge that Paul's theology is not the same as the rest of the New Testament authors. If we can succeed in getting you to see why it is different, then you'll be well on your way to understanding the key that unlocks nearly every doctrinal debate that exist in the church today.

Let me ask for clarities sake, do you or do you not except the Pauline epistles as a bona fide part of The Word of God?

If not, what parts of what we call the Bible do you accept as genuine scripture and why? And then could you also explain, based on what you accept as scripture, why Paul and his epistles should be rejected.


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Although it would have been impossible to predict the progression of this conversation, I think that it has progressed in a logical manner. It's funny how one never knows which threads will develop into interesting conversations and which ones won't. Personally, I think this is about the most original and interesting topic that has come up in quite a while! :up:

billwald
March 16th, 2004, 08:18 PM
"Let me ask for clarities sake, do you or do you not except the Pauline epistles as a bona fide part of The Word of God?"

(Not ignoring you, Been out of state for awhile)
No, I don't. Paul's writings are not logical and seem to misquote the Old Testamant. Galatians being the worst. His references to the Law don't compute.

Anyone else notice that when Paul wants to bad-mouth hs people he refers to them as "Jews" but when he says nice things they are "Israel?"


"If not, what parts of what we call the Bible do you accept as genuine scripture and why?"

The Gospels, The letters of the "real" Apostles, and Acts. Everything but Paul's stuff.



"And then could you also explain, based on what you accept as scripture, why Paul and his epistles should be rejected."

Because it seems to be that Paul had a different theology than the Jerusalem Church. Because the Jerusalem Church disliked and never trusted Paul. They were happy to commission Paul to stay away as far as possible from Jerusalem but they didn't mind taking his money.

It is critical to me that the Gospels were written after Paul's letters. Why didn't the Gospels support Paul's theology if Paul was such a grat theologian?

Turbo
March 16th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by billwald

"Then why do you suppose Peter counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures?"

First, Peter refers to Paul's letters, not their inclusion as scripture. I dont't think either of them knew their writing would be so incorporated.You're wrong. This passage shows that Peter considered Paul's letters to be Scriptures. Please read Peter's passage again.
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16
Peter is talking about "untaught and unstable people" twisting "Paul's letters" just like they do with "the rest of the Scriptures." The passage also makes reference to "the wisdom given to [Paul]" Given by whom? Paul claims in his letters (which Peter calls Scriptures) that it was given to him by Christ himself:

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)...
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:1, 11-12



Second, I don't know why . . . but I suspect it had something to do with denominational politics at that time- Jerusalem Synod v. Paul's followers. You say you believe that Peter's epistles are inspired Scriptures, but you believe he included untrue statements? If he were against Paul, why wouldn't he come out and say it? Why would God inspire him to lie, calling Paul "our beloved brother" and endorsing his letters?


Originally posted by Turbo

"The event described in Gal 2:9 is recorded by Luke in Acts 15. Do you consider Acts to be inspired? Do you at least believe that Luke was a reliable and accurate historian?"

Originally posted by billwald

Yes, I do. Considering that Acts was written by Paul's traveling companion, it is most unsympathetic to Paul. With friends like Luke I don't need any enemies.

First, it is apparent from reading Acts that the Church of Jerusalem didn't trust Paul, never trusted Paul, and would agree to almost anything to get him out of town. They never suspected that Paul's followers would gain control over the Church. They only wanted him to go away.

Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
They wrote this, letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" --to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell. Acts 15:22-29If the apostles didn't trust Paul, why did they write this glowing endorsement of him and his ministry? And why did Luke make a record of it, if he was so unsympathetic to Paul? (Where do you get that idea anyway?)

billwald
March 16th, 2004, 10:50 PM
Acts 21. The Jerusalem Church maintained their Temple worship and expected Paul to do the same. They were obviously known to the Temple priests. When Paul was arrested the Apostles could have witnessed for Paul but they did not. I think they were pleased to see Paul arrested.

Turbo
March 16th, 2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

And then could you also explain, based on what you accept as scripture, why Paul and his epistles should be rejected.

Originally posted by billwald

Because it seems to be that Paul had a different theology than the Jerusalem Church. Because the Jerusalem Church disliked and never trusted Paul. I refuted this in my previous post.


They were happy to commission Paul to stay away as far as possible from Jerusalem but they didn't mind taking his money.That's a distortion of what actually took place. Jesus told the twelve to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, yet they agreed to minister only to the circumcised (Israel) while Paul would minister to the rest of the world (the Gentiles).


It is critical to me that the Gospels were written after Paul's letters. Why didn't the Gospels support Paul's theology if Paul was such a great theologian? Because Paul's Gospel of uncircumcision didn't exist yet. Jesus' Earthly ministry was focused on Israel.
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" Matthew 10:5-7

But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24
Israel was to be his spokesnation to the world.(Matthew 24:14) But most in Israel, including the leadership, rejected their Messiah even after he was risen. So God turned to the Gentiles and chose Paul as his apostle to the Gentiles to deliver the Gospel of Grace. These events are recorded by Luke in Acts.

Turbo
March 16th, 2004, 11:22 PM
billwald,
So they [the twelve] departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Luke 9:6


He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Luke 9:20-22

Christians normally refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as "the gospel."

If Christ revealed to the twelve that He would be killed and be raised on the third day (and commanding them to tell no one) in Luke 9:20-22, then what was "the gospel" He had already sent them out to preach?



By the way, I'm glad your back. I had forgotten about this thread.

Turbo
March 17th, 2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by billwald

Acts 21. The Jerusalem Church maintained their Temple worship and expected Paul to do the same. They were obviously known to the Temple priests. When Paul was arrested the Apostles could have witnessed for Paul but they did not. I think they were pleased to see Paul arrested. That is baseless speculation that runs contrary to the writings of Peter, and the twelve (recorded by Luke), stating that they loved Paul and they endorsed his ministry. Luke also recorded in Acts that Paul performed miracles, which is a sign of authority from God throughout Scripture. (example: Luke 9:1)

One could similarly conclude that the twelve were against Jesus and that they were glad to see him arrested. There is no record of them defending Jesus at his trials, and there is even record of Peter utterly denying any association with Him.

Nevermind that the gospels record that they tried to defend Jesus when soldiers came to arrest Him. Nevermind that they wrote about Him being our Lord. That was just politically correctness of the day. The important thing is that they were silent at his trials, right?

Clete
March 17th, 2004, 07:57 AM
Turbo,

Like you, I had forgotten about this thread and am glad to see billwald back!
I, however, have nothing to add! Your arguments are brilliant. Post #20 should have been awarded POTD! I don't see how a more powerful argument could be made.

BRILLIANT!!! :up:

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. billwald - I commend you for your intellectual honesty. I don't think I've ever come across anyone else who believed what you do about Paul and had the guts not only to say it but to actually make an argument that wasn't completely incoherent.
You're wrong, but brave!
The only thing you could do that is braver would be to accept Turbo's arguments and admit that your position is self-defeating.

billwald
March 17th, 2004, 10:49 AM
The side that wins the war writes the history books - and the Bibles.

My primary complaint against Paul is his misuse of the OT and his bad logic.

1. He uses "law" as if the Mosiac Covenant was the only communication from God to man. He totally ignores the Noahic Covenant, which provides the basic Law for the human race.

2. There isn't one verse in Exodus through Deut which references anyone's status in the next world. The Mosiac Covenant only provides a social contract for those who came out of Egypt and will live in Israel and to converts and aliens who live in the land. The blessings and punishments are all temporal.

3. The sin offerings are for misdemeanors and inadvertant felonies. There was no sacrifice that atoned for an intentional felony.

4. The Mosiac Covenant does NOT apply to gentiles living outside the Land. Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed believers have a marginal case for applying the Mosiac Covenant to themselves if the Church replaces Israel and recieves all the blessings and obligations that were contractually accepted by Israel. Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosiac Covenant to themselves.

5. There is no Biblical or logical justification for seperating the Ten Words from the rest of the 613 positive and negative statements found in the Torah (first 5 books). The Ten Words are like chapter headings in a book. For example, the 2nd greatest commandment is not part of the 10 words. The prohibitions against homosexuality and beastiality are not in the Ten Words. Reading the Ten Commandments is an incomplete exposition of the LAW.

6. It is an error - or at least a cheap bluff - to claim that Jesus "fulfilled the administrative and sacrificial portions of the Law" and we are only obligated to obey the moral parts. Who are we to determine which parts of God's Law do not have moral implications.
I repeat my challange to seperate the 613 statements into the 3 artificial catagories. I have been making this challange for 10 years and no one has done it.

Clete
March 17th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by billwald

The side that wins the war writes the history books - and the Bibles.
Huh? :confused:
Which side of the war were Luke and Peter on?
Isn't it their writings which give the most trouble to your position?


My primary complaint against Paul is his misuse of the OT and his bad logic.

1. He uses "law" as if the Mosiac Covenant was the only communication from God to man. He totally ignores the Noahic Covenant, which provides the basic Law for the human race.
What? No he doesn't! Ever read Roman 13?

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.


2. There isn't one verse in Exodus through Deut which references anyone's status in the next world. The Mosiac Covenant only provides a social contract for those who came out of Egypt and will live in Israel and to converts and aliens who live in the land. The blessings and punishments are all temporal.
So what's your point?


3. The sin offerings are for misdemeanors and inadvertent felonies. There was no sacrifice that atoned for an intentional felony.
What are you saying? That the Mosaic Law was not an important part of salvation? Is that it? I don't think I follow your logic here.
Please explain what your understanding is of the Gospel. What must one do to be saved? Is the Gospel the same now as it was prior to Christ? If not, in what way has it changed?


4. The Mosiac Covenant does NOT apply to gentiles living outside the Land. Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed believers have a marginal case for applying the Mosiac Covenant to themselves if the Church replaces Israel and receives all the blessings and obligations that were contractually accepted by Israel.
The Body of Christ is not Israel and vise versa. There is no logical reason for the Body to take over Israel's role.


Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.
Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!


5. There is no Biblical or logical justification for separating the Ten Words from the rest of the 613 positive and negative statements found in the Torah (first 5 books). The Ten Words are like chapter headings in a book. For example, the 2nd greatest commandment is not part of the 10 words. The prohibitions against homosexuality and bestiality are not in the Ten Words. Reading the Ten Commandments is an incomplete exposition of the LAW.
Again, I don't believe Paul himself could have said it any better! We are not under the law, period.
That is, the Mosaic Law. Dispensationalists believe that there is more than one dispensation currently active. In fact there are at least two; The Dispensation of the Grace of God, and the Dispensation of Human Government.
In short, the criminal justice system set up in the Bible should still be in effect and it is the criminal justice system that God himself will use to judge the nations and us. In other words, if our government legalizes homosexuality it does the homo not good. He will still answer to God for his perversion as will the nation which legalized it.


6. It is an error - or at least a cheap bluff - to claim that Jesus "fulfilled the administrative and sacrificial portions of the Law" and we are only obligated to obey the moral parts. Who are we to determine which parts of God's Law do not have moral implications.
I repeat my challenge to separate the 613 statements into the 3 artificial categories. I have been making this challenge for 10 years and no one has done it.
Do you not accept Jesus as your sufficient sacrifice? The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone. They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!
Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone. There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless. What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All of this is somewhat off the subject though isn't it? After all, if you accepted Paul as being in the office appointed him by Jesus Himself then all of this would be clear to you. As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct! All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct.
You must at this point acknowledge one of two things...

1. That based upon the testimony of the twelve apostles and of the book of Acts, Paul's ministry and therefore his epistles are a valid portion of scripture.

Orů

2. That, not only are Paul's letters invalid but so are Peter's and the book of Acts because they clearly endorsed Paul.

Which will it be?
Accept Paul, or reject all three, Paul, Luke and Peter (and perhaps more)?
Keep in mind that Luke also wrote one of the Gospels and that your rejection of his writings will by necessity require the rejection of a fourth of the Gospels as well, not to mention the implications of rejecting Peter who was one of, if not the primary leader of the twelve.

Resting in Him,
Clete

billwald
March 18th, 2004, 12:25 PM
'Christians normally refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as "the gospel." '

It is the gospel. The announcement that God is reconciled with humans because of the resurrection. The "and all you gots to do is raise your hand and repeat the prayer after me" is not a part of the gospel. Deciding who of us is reconciled with God is not part of the gospel.

billwald
March 18th, 2004, 12:49 PM
1. He uses "law" as if the Mosiac Covenant was the only communication from God to man. He totally ignores the Noahic Covenant, which provides the basic Law for the human race.


"What? No he doesn't! Ever read Roman 13?"

Begs the question

Romans 5: 13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


There never was a time that there was sin in the world but no law. The First commandment was

Gen. 1 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The second commandment was

Gen. 2:
17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The general Covenant/Commandment/Law that applies to all humans was the Noahic Covenant


Gen. 9:

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
7. And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
8. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9. And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10. And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13. I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15. And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Paul ignores all of this. Why?

billwald
March 18th, 2004, 01:12 PM
quote:
2. There isn't one verse in Exodus through Deut which references anyone's status in the next world. The Mosiac Covenant only provides a social contract for those who came out of Egypt and will live in Israel and to converts and aliens who live in the land. The blessings and punishments are all temporal.


"So what's your point?"


Romans 2:
12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

Obviously refers to the Mosiac Covenant, ignoring the Noahic Covenant. All gentiles are sons of Noah and by Christian logic are subject to the Noahic Covenant. There are no gentiles that do not have the Law.

Paul wants his readers to believe that non-christians do not have "eternal life" because they do not perfectly keep the Law. There is NOTHING in the Mosiac Covenant which makes ANY reference to going to hell for violation of same.


Romans 3:
19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

If Paul is referring to the Mosiac Covenant then he is assuming facts not in evidence because the MC does not apply to gentiles nor does it refer to "justifying" for the purposes of eternal life in Heaven.

Romans 4:
15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

I have Demonstrated there was no such time where there was no law since the Garden.

16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Begs the question, assumes facts not in evidence because the ONLY punishment for violation of the Law was temporal death, not Hell.

billwald
March 18th, 2004, 01:33 PM
quote:
3. The sin offerings are for misdemeanors and inadvertent felonies. There was no sacrifice that atoned for an intentional felony.


"What are you saying? That the Mosaic Law was not an important part of salvation?"

Yes, that is what I am saying. The Mosiac Law was a social contract which was enforced with temporal death, not Hell.


"Please explain what your understanding is of the Gospel."

The Gospel is the good news that God through Jesus has unilaterally resolved the sin problem between God and man.


"What must one do to be saved?"

NOTHING! A meaningless question. Should be rephrased, "What must I do to become reprobate-lost?"

"Is the Gospel the same now as it was prior to Christ? If not, in what way has it changed?"

God never changes (the rules). From the beginning God was going to unilaterally resolve the sin problem. We are constrained by the "arrow of time" so for us the resolution occurred at a specific portion of the space-time continuum. Kind of like the preacher says what he is going to say, says the sermon, and then tells us what he said.

From the beginning - At least it was specified (inferred?) since Abraham, maybe from Noah, that there are two seperate themes in the Bible. First, God give us a social contract with which to govern ourselves and violation of it results in physical (temporal) death.

The second is that from the beginning of human history that there has been a sub set of humanity that God has declared righteous and who will eternal life with God in the next world.

The problem is that the Bible only names very few people in this righteous sub set and gives us no method of determining who else is in it except the check list in 1 John. Anyone who perfectly meets this check list can know that they are saved. The resty of us must continue to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

billwald
March 18th, 2004, 01:43 PM
"The Body of Christ is not Israel and vise versa. There is no logical reason for the Body to take over Israel's role."

This is the Covenant theology/dispensational debate which cannot be resolved with the information available at this time. I lean toward the covenant side.

quote:
Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.


"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"

Then why did he write "Romans?" The entire theme of Romans is that gentiles were obligated under the Mosiac Covenant until ("believing in?") the resurrection relieved them of that obligation. That God judges and condemns gentiles by the Mosiac standard until they become Christians.

On what basis do you claim that God condems non-christians?

Clete
March 18th, 2004, 02:06 PM
On what basis do you claim that God condemns non-Christians?
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


The rest of your posts are almost entirely unintelligible!
Stop blowing smoke and answer the question....

You must at this point acknowledge one of two things...

1. That based upon the testimony of the twelve apostles and of the book of Acts, Paul's ministry and therefore his epistles are a valid portion of scripture.

Orů

2. That, not only are Paul's letters invalid but so are Peter's and the book of Acts because they clearly endorsed Paul.

Which will it be?
Accept Paul, or reject all three, Paul, Luke and Peter (and perhaps more)?
Keep in mind that Luke also wrote one of the Gospels and that your rejection of his writings will by necessity require the rejection of a fourth of the Gospels as well, not to mention the implications of rejecting Peter who was one of, if not the primary leader of the twelve.

Resting in Him,
Clete

billwald
March 18th, 2004, 02:08 PM
quote:
6. It is an error - or at least a cheap bluff - to claim that Jesus "fulfilled the administrative and sacrificial portions of the Law" and we are only obligated to obey the moral parts. Who are we to determine which parts of God's Law do not have moral implications.
I repeat my challenge to separate the 613 statements into the 3 artificial categories. I have been making this challenge for 10 years and no one has done it.


"Do you not accept Jesus as your sufficient sacrifice?"

Yes

"The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone."

Not exactly. They were a symbol of atonement for people living under the Mosiac Covenant who repented of involuntary violations and who made restitution where possible. They were never intended to get anyone into Heaven.

"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"

I'm not 100% convinced


"Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone."

That's my point!!!!!! This is cheap to say unless you (can) tell me which specific points of the Mosiac Covenant have no moral content.

Second, the entire covenant was only intended for Israel. If not, why did you write:

[quote:
Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.]


"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"

Then why do you demand that gentiles apply the moral content of the covenant to themselves?


" There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless."

You just agreed that all portions exclusively pertained to Israel.

"What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?"

There is no point. You are the one who wants to apply the moral content to gentiles, not me. God can "save" anyone "in Christ Jesus."



"After all, if you accepted Paul as being in the office appointed him by Jesus Himself then all of this would be clear to you."

Not sure I do.


" As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct!"

And I claim it is in error.



"All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct."

I did acknowledge all of that before I started reading the Bible for myself, before I took classes in Bible college and in Western Theological Sem.


"You must at this point acknowledge one of two things...

"1. That based upon the testimony of the twelve apostles and of the book of Acts, Paul's ministry and therefore his epistles are a valid portion of scripture.

"Orů

"2. That, not only are Paul's letters invalid but so are Peter's and the book of Acts because they clearly endorsed Paul.

"Which will it be?
"Accept Paul, or reject all three, Paul, Luke and Peter (and perhaps more)?
Keep in mind that Luke also wrote one of the Gospels and that your rejection of his writings will by necessity require the rejection of a fourth of the Gospels as well, not to mention the implications of rejecting Peter who was one of, if not the primary leader of the twelve."

I'm working on a synthesis. <G>

billwald
March 18th, 2004, 02:16 PM
quote:
On what basis do you claim that God condemns non-Christians?


Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This is true! (But) I don't need to know the name of a bridge to cross it.


Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

True, but it doesn't claim exclusivity.

You didn't answer the question. Are the unelect condemned for failing to perfectly keep the Mosiac Law or are they condemned for failing to "believe in" Jesus?

If the latter, please explain how one controls one's beliefs.

Clete
March 18th, 2004, 03:19 PM
I said...
"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"

billwald responded...

I'm not 100% convinced
What would it take to convince you?

I said...
"Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone."


That's my point!!!!!! This is cheap to say unless you (can) tell me which specific points of the Mosiac Covenant have no moral content.
Who said anything about morals? The things that God said should be punished by the governing authorities (crimes) should still be considered just that, crimes and the perpetrators punished accordingly.

billwald said...

Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.

I responded...
"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"

Then billwald asked...

Then why do you demand that gentiles apply the moral content of the covenant to themselves?
I don't! I don't believe that we can be moral and more than we can be righteous. In fact, I think that the two are basically the same thing. We are righteous because God has imputed righteousness to us. We are moral because Christ is forming us into His image.

I said...
" There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless."

billwald responded...

You just agreed that all portions exclusively pertained to Israel.
No I didn't. You're not paying attention.
Parts of the law were clearly not moral in nature.
Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another. This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other. You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them.
Get it?
These symbolic laws had more than one purpose but one of the most important was that it separated Israel from the rest of the world which was important for a lot of reasons that we don't need to go into right now. The point is that once Israel was cut off, these symbolic laws no longer had any purpose.

I said...
"What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?"

Billwald responded...

There is no point. You are the one who wants to apply the moral content to gentiles, not me. God can "save" anyone "in Christ Jesus."
I do not apply any portion of the law to anyone except the criminal justice portion which applies only to criminals.
Paul himself could have written this portion of your post! Why do you reject Paul and preach his Gospel?

I said...
" As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct!"

billwald replied...

And I claim it is in error.

Yes, I know. And in doing so you are in direct conflict with the teachings of Peter and of Luke.

I said...
"All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct."
billwald responded...

I did acknowledge all of that before I started reading the Bible for myself, before I took classes in Bible college and in Western Theological Sem.
Well don't keep us in suspense! Which did you choose?
Did you accept Paul or did you throw away the writings of Peter and Luke?
Those truly are your only two alternatives.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
March 18th, 2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Christians normally refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as "the gospel."


Originally posted by billwald

It is the gospel. The announcement that God is reconciled with humans because of the resurrection. billwald,

I went on to say,

If Christ revealed to the twelve that He would be killed and be raised on the third day (and commanding them to tell no one) in Luke 9:20-22, then what was "the gospel" He had already sent them out to preach?



Let's look at these verses again:
So they [the twelve] departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Luke 9:6
Later in that same chapter:
[Jesus] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Luke 9:20-22

When Jesus told the twelve that He would be killed and raised from the dead, He commanded them to tell no one.

But before He had ever even told them about this they were "preaching the gospel" at His command.



My question is this: What was "the gospel" that the twelve were preaching according to Luke 9:6?

Obviously the twelve were not preaching about Christ's death and resurrection. They didn't know about it yet, and when Jesus later taught them about it he told them to tell no one about it. Peter didn't even believe it when he first heard it! (Matt 16:22; Mark 8:32)

So what gospel had the twelve been preaching?

billwald
March 19th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Let me try again.

"The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone."

Not exactly. They were a symbol of atonement for people living under the Mosiac Covenant who repented of involuntary violations and who made restitution where possible. They were never intended to get anyone into Heaven.

"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"

The origional purpose of the repentance and sacrifice after committing an inadvertant sin was to obtain the community's forgiveness under the civil code that they accepted from God as their civil law. The sacrifices were a symbol of the person's repentance that was visable to the community. They had nothing to do with earning acceptance before God. Acceptance before God can't be earned.

Christ's sacrifice provided acceptance before God, not before the community. The community still imposes civil penalties for violation of the social contract.

The Jewish community had to resolve the nature of the sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed. The rabbis concluded that the sacrifices had always been (only) symbolic of an inward repentance.

The Jewish Christians continued to offer Temple sacrifices. They also had to resolve the nature of the sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed. The resolution was the transferrence of power from the Jerusalem elders to Paul's followers who then imposed Paul's interpretation upon the church.

I have concluded that Jesus intended that the Christian Jews were to reform Judiasm from the inside. They failed and the destruction of the Temple and the church age was God's "Plan B."

billwald
March 19th, 2004, 12:26 PM
"I don't! I don't believe that we can be moral and more than we can be righteous. In fact, I think that the two are basically the same thing. We are righteous because God has imputed righteousness to us. We are moral because Christ is forming us into His image."

OK, who is "Us," Kemosabe?

1. The elect?

2. The people who have invited Jesus into their hearts?

3. Everyone who has not committed the unpardonable sin - attributing Jesus' miracles to Satan?

4. ??????

billwald
March 19th, 2004, 12:44 PM
"Parts of the law were clearly not moral in nature."

Not to me. You know the mind of God?


"Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another."

Take a look at

http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/PRESBY.pdf

Essay is "Must a Presbyterian be a Presuppisationalist?"


"This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other."

Deductive logic is a mathematical process that doesn't necessarially relate to the real world. Our world is inductive, Hegelian.

"You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them."

How about aborting "murdering" an unborn infant to save the life of the mother? Yes, it occasionally happens.

billwald
March 19th, 2004, 12:54 PM
"My question is this: What was "the gospel" that the twelve were preaching according to Luke 9:6?

"Obviously the twelve were not preaching about Christ's death and resurrection. They didn't know about it yet, and when Jesus later taught them about it he told them to tell no one about it. Peter didn't even believe it when he first heard it! (Matt 16:22; Mark 8:32)

"So what gospel had the twelve been preaching?"

----------------

Must refer back to Luke 9:2 " . . .preach the kingdom of God. . . ."

The meaning of "KoG" must be determined from the first 8 chapters for the statement to make any sense.

Turbo
March 19th, 2004, 01:38 PM
billwald, you're on the right track, but can you elaborate a bit? What did it mean exactly to "preach the kingdom of God?"

billwald
March 20th, 2004, 10:49 AM
KOG probably referred to the information in the Sermon on the Mount.

Clete
March 20th, 2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by billwald

"Parts of the law were clearly not moral in nature."

Not to me. You know the mind of God?
Unresponsive!
I explained why they were symbolic and not moral.


"Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another."

Take a look at

http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/PRESBY.pdf

Essay is "Must a Presbyterian be a Presuppisationalist?"


"This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other."

Deductive logic is a mathematical process that doesn't necessarially relate to the real world. Our world is inductive, Hegelian.
Convenient response isn't it?
Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how, otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything and that what I've said makes a lot of sense.


"You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them."

How about aborting "murdering" an unborn infant to save the life of the mother? Yes, it occasionally happens.
Do you really believe this foolishness?
IF you end a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother after having exhausted all other options then you have not murdered the baby. If you do all that you can to save both the baby and the mother and you are only able to save one, then a tragedy has accured, but not murder.
You will never be forced to do anything immoral in order to keep from doing something else that is immoral.

1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

You may reject the author of this verse but you cannot refute its teaching.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
March 20th, 2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by billwald

KOG probably referred to the information in the Sermon on the Mount.


billwald,

You don't realize it but you are only about 3 feet away from being a dispensationalist.

So close, and yet so far away!

You are also the same distance away from being saved.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
March 20th, 2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Did you accept Paul or did you throw away the writings of Peter and Luke?
Those truly are your only two alternatives.


Originally posted (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=487427#post487427) by billwald on another thread

Paul's doctrine is a dead end because Paul fails to differentiate between the various covenants and fails to see that the Mosiac Covenant is (only) a social contract for the people who entered the land of Israel. It has no eternal implications and no application to gentiles living outside the Land.

Well, this is a little disappointing, though I can't say I'm surprised.

And I suppose you still accept the writings of Peter and Luke as inspired. Why? You've been shown that you can't have it both ways. If Paul was a liar and his Gospel did not come from Christ, then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures.

You keep avoiding this point. If you needed some time to think through it and reconsider your postion, that's fine. But I see you're still going around blasting Paul on other threads, so it doesn't seem like you're reconsidering at all.

That is, unless you're leaning toward disregarding the writings of Luke and Peter. If that's the case, please let us know.

billwald
March 20th, 2004, 10:03 PM
"Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how,"

www.cityreformed.org/snoke/presby/pdf

says it better than I can.

"otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything"

I don't know everything.

"and that what I've said makes a lot of sense."

It is internally consistant but I disagree that it describes the real situation.


"IF you end a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother after having exhausted all other options then you have not murdered the baby."

But if you havn't then is it murder? Situational ethics!


"1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]."


You are hiding Jews. NAZI trooper asks you if you are hiding Jews. You tell the truth, right?



"You don't realize it but you are only about 3 feet away from being a dispensationalist."

I was a dispensationalist for 30 years but got "reformed."


"You are also the same distance away from being saved."

I have been elect (saved) from before the foundation of the world.

billwald
March 20th, 2004, 10:18 PM
"You've been shown that you can't have it both ways. If Paul was a liar"

Paul was not a liar!

"and his Gospel did not come from Christ"

It is a Logical error to connect the two statements. Paul could have misinterpreted what he "received."

He was a missionary, not a theologian. His letters are polemical, not rigorous thesis. I don't think he was as smart as is claimed for him.
(Am I claiming to be smarter than St Paul? Yes, it is at least statistically probable)



, then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures.

billwald
March 20th, 2004, 10:19 PM
"then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures."

I have no explanation. Irony? Politics?

Turbo
March 20th, 2004, 10:30 PM
Clete, pardon me for jumping in on this one.


Originally posted by billwald

You are hiding Jews. NAZI trooper asks you if you are hiding Jews. You tell the truth, right? Absolutely not!! Lying to the wicked to protect the innocent is not sinful.

Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, "When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live." But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?"
And the midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them."
Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them. Exodus 1:15-20

If these midwives were sinning by lying to Pharaoh, then why did God reward them? The text says that they lied to Pharaoh because they feared God.

They also disobeyed a governing authority. Generally, we are supposed to obey governing authorities, but not when doing so would be sinful! Disobeying Pharaoh was not "the lesser of two evils," nor was lying to him. Neither was sinful whatsoever. In fact both were righteous and courageous.

Turbo
March 20th, 2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by billwald

"then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures."

I have no explanation.Thank you for your honesty.


Irony? I don't understand.


Politics? Isn't that a euphamistic way of saying that maybe Peter and the twelve (and Luke) were being insincere and untruthful? Why would the twelve help Paul deceive people by writing him an endorsement? Why would Paul deceive his circumcision followers by affirming Paul's authority in his letter to them? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke and Peter to record these endorsements of Paul's ministry and writings if Paul were a false teacher?

Earlier in this thread you said that you discount Paul's ministry and writings because Luke and the twelve wrote unfavorably of him. But we've shown you concrete evidence to the contrary. So now what reason do you have to discount Paul?

If you now see that writings which you believe are inspired by God endorse Paul, and you still reject him, what could possibly make you reconsider?

Clete
March 21st, 2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by billwald
Deductive logic is a mathematical process that doesn't necessarially relate to the real world. Our world is inductive, Hegelian.

"Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how, otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything and that what I've said makes a lot of sense."


Originally posted by billwald
It is internally consistant but I disagree that it describes the real situation.


Originally posted by billwald
"then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures."

I have no explanation. Irony? Politics?



Theology (Christian theology) must be based on Scripture and sound reason (logic). But in the above statements you have openly rejected both! And so I ask you, on what basis do you make the following statement?


Originally posted by billwald
I have been elect (saved) from before the foundation of the world.

I submit that the foundation which you throw away in order to avoid the apostle Paul is the very same upon which you base your own soteriology (doctrine of salvation).

Resting in Him,
Clete

billwald
March 21st, 2004, 09:40 PM
"Isn't that a euphamistic way of saying that maybe Peter and the twelve (and Luke) were being insincere and untruthful? Why would the twelve help Paul deceive people by writing him an endorsement?"

For the sake of peace in the church? For the same reason various denominations put aside their differences for the sake of fellowship? Because they thought Paul would eventually calm down? Because they expected Paul's followers to eventually join the Jerusalem Synod? They were hoping Paul would get himself arrested and disappear?

"Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke and Peter to record these endorsements of Paul's ministry and writings if Paul were a false teacher?"

Maybe the Holy Spirit didn't.

"Earlier in this thread you said that you discount Paul's ministry and writings because Luke and the twelve wrote unfavorably of him. But we've shown you concrete evidence to the contrary. So now what reason do you have to discount Paul?"

The Holy Spirit is testifying to my spirit.

"If you now see that writings which you believe are inspired by God endorse Paul, and you still reject him, what could possibly make you reconsider?"

I believe that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. I do not believe that it is inerrant in the way that fundimentalists do.

billwald
March 21st, 2004, 09:49 PM
""Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how, otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything and that what I've said makes a lot of sense.""


Redce your thesis to the standard format and will be happy to reply.

syllogism

\Syl"lo*gism\, n. [OE. silogisme, OF. silogime, sillogisme, F. syllogisme, L. syllogismus, Gr. syllogismo`s a reckoning all together, a reasoning, syllogism, fr. syllogi`zesqai to reckon all together, to bring at once before the mind, to infer, conclude; sy`n with, together + logi`zesqai to reckon, to conclude by reasoning. See Syn-, and Logistic, Logic.] (Logic) The regular logical form of every argument, consisting of three propositions, of which the first two are called the premises, and the last, the conclusion. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so that, if these are true, the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts to demonstration;

Note: as in the following example: Every virtue is laudable; Kindness is a virtue; Therefore kindness is laudable. These propositions are denominated respectively the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion.

Note: If the premises are not true and the syllogism is regular, the reasoning is valid, and the conclusion, whether true or false, is correctly derived.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ę 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Clete
March 21st, 2004, 10:05 PM
Theology (Christian theology) must be based on Scripture and sound reason (logic). But in the above statements you have openly rejected both! And so I ask you, on what basis do you make the following statement?

Originally posted by billwald
I have been elect (saved) from before the foundation of the world.


I submit that the foundation which you throw away in order to avoid the apostle Paul is the very same upon which you base your own soteriology (doctrine of salvation).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
March 21st, 2004, 10:05 PM
Peter's epistles are "genuine scripture (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=484890#post484890)"

In one of his epistles, Peter identifies Paul's letters as Scripture. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Therefore Paul's letters are "genuine scripture."

Turbo
March 21st, 2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Why would the twelve help Paul deceive people by writing him an endorsement?

Originally posted by billwald

For the sake of peace in the church? For the same reason various denominations put aside their differences for the sake of fellowship? Because they thought Paul would eventually calm down? Because they expected Paul's followers to eventually join the Jerusalem Synod? They were hoping Paul would get himself arrested and disappear?None of these are good reasons to write a deceiver a letter of endorsement. There is no evidence whatsoever that the twelve did not truly endorse Paul's ministry.


Originally posted by Turbo

Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke and Peter to record these endorsements of Paul's ministry and writings if Paul were a false teacher?


Originally posted by billwald

Maybe the Holy Spirit didn't. You had stated earlier that you believe Acts and 2 Peter were among the "genuine scriptures." Do you still believe that they are "genuine scriptures," but perhaps were not inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or are you now reconsidering whether Acts and 2 Peter are "genuine scriptures?"



Originally posted by Turbo

Earlier in this thread you said that you discount Paul's ministry and writings because Luke and the twelve wrote unfavorably of him. But we've shown you concrete evidence to the contrary. So now what reason do you have to discount Paul?


Originally posted by billwald

The Holy Spirit is testifying to my spirit. But He didn't testify to Luke or Peter?

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1 We are supposed to test the spirits. There is strong evidence that the writings of Luke and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not testify against Himself. Therefore I must conclude that whether you realize it or not, you are a false prophet.

Earlier in this thread, you stated (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=486206#post486206):

I did acknowledge [that the twelve, Peter, and Luke endorsed Paul] before I started reading the Bible for myself, before I took classes in Bible college and in Western Theological Sem.Here you credit your Seminary classes and Bible studies with persuading you that Paul was a false teacher. But now you say it was direct revelation of the Holy Spirit. I think your first answer was a lot closer to the truth.




Originally posted by Turbo

If you now see that writings which you believe are inspired by God endorse Paul, and you still reject him, what could possibly make you reconsider?

Originally posted by billwald

I believe that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. I do not believe that it is inerrant in the way that fundimentalists do. That does not answer my question. I suspect that your belief that Paul was a false teacher is not falsifiable. Please tell me what could conceivably prove to you that Paul was not a false teacher.

billwald
March 21st, 2004, 11:10 PM
"I suspect that your belief that Paul was a false teacher is not falsifiable.

Which is why this is not a "scientific" topic. It is metaphysical or historical.

"Please tell me what could conceivably prove to you that Paul was not a false teacher."

(Possibly) New documentation, a NT equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is not a critical worry to me. I am not saved by St Paul.

Turbo
March 21st, 2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I suspect that your belief that Paul was a false teacher is not falsifiable.

Originally posted by billwald

Which is why this is not a "scientific" topic. It is metaphysical or historical. That doesn't matter. Paul rightly stated that if Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain. Therefore Christianity, though historical and metaphysical, is falsifiable.


(Possibly) New documentation, a NT equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.


I doubt new documentation would help. The passages from Acts and 2 Peter were new to you, and they didn't persuade you at all.


I am not saved by St Paul.Paul's gospel came from Jesus Christ Himself. If you reject Paul, you reject Christ.


Upon what do you base your belief that you are saved?

billwald
March 22nd, 2004, 11:30 AM
"That doesn't matter. Paul rightly stated that if Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain."

1. This is also stated by the "real" apostles so it doesn't matter if Paul wrote it or not.

2. If Christ is not risen then Jesus was not the Messiah and God will STILL send the Messiah so then the the question becomes, "Will God forgive us for accepting Jesus as Messiah?" In other words, we are no worse off than the people who lived before Jesus was born.

"Therefore Christianity, though historical and metaphysical, is falsifiable."

Nothing is falsifiable through metaphysics. That is why metaphysics is different than physics.

Christianity could be falsified through the finding of new historical documents. At this time there is insufficient historical information to falsify it.

"I doubt new documentation would help. The passages from Acts and 2 Peter were new to you, and they didn't persuade you at all."

You gots to be kidding. I have read the entire Bible cover to cover at least a dozen times. I have read the NT many times more.

"Paul's gospel came from Jesus Christ Himself. If you reject Paul, you reject Christ."

A goofy statement. An anology would be "Bill thinks Lincoln was a terrible president therefore bill think that negros should be slaves."

or "Bill thinks that life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness are not God given rights therefore Bill doesn't accept a representative democracy as a superior form of government."

So he said and convinced some others. Jos. Smith said basically the same thing about Mormonism.

"Upon what do you base your belief that you are saved?"

I have "invited Jesus into my heart" and "said the prayer" several times" and have been baptized. <G>

I have publically confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and repented of my sins. I confess the ecumenical creeds as truth. I trust the Creator of the universe to do what is right.

Gen 18: 25. That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Clete
March 22nd, 2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by billwald
"Upon what do you base your belief that you are saved?"

I have "invited Jesus into my heart" and "said the prayer" several times" and have been baptized. <G>

I have publicly confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and repented of my sins. I confess the ecumenical creeds as truth. I trust the Creator of the universe to do what is right.

I understand why you answer this way but this doesn't answer the question. What you've done here is little more than a simple restating of "I am saved."
What I'm trying to get too is what your belief is based on.
You say you are saved because you have confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and repented of your sins. What I want to know is what is it that makes you believe that "confessing and repenting" has anything to do with being saved?

Resting in Him,
Clete

billwald
March 22nd, 2004, 03:56 PM
Different tack. I know that I am saved because the Holy Spirit testifies to my spirit, I sleep with a clear conscience, and I don't worry about being saved.

You say the same?

Clete
March 22nd, 2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by billwald

Different tack. I know that I am saved because the Holy Spirit testifies to my spirit, I sleep with a clear conscience, and I don't worry about being saved.

You say the same?

Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so.

billwald
March 22nd, 2004, 10:37 PM
Your leap of faith. Good enough.

Clete
March 23rd, 2004, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by billwald

Your leap of faith. Good enough.
I think you miss my point. My "leap" of faith, as you call it, is based on objective Biblical facts!
You say that you trust the witness of the Spirit within you. I say that I trust the witness of the Bible, which agrees with the witness of the Spirit within me and which was written (inspired) by that same Spirit. You however reject the objective witness of The Word of God in favor of some subjective thing that is going on "inside" yourself.
My question to you is this; if you cannot trust the Spirit to write a trust worthy Bible, which is objective, then by what means do you trust the "witness" within your own spirit, which is subjective?

Resting in Him,
Clete

billwald
March 23rd, 2004, 03:41 PM
"My question to you is this; if you cannot trust the Spirit to write a trust worthy Bible, which is objective, then by what means do you trust the "witness" within your own spirit, which is subjective?"

I don't know what the Spirit intended to be included in the NT that that the Orthodox/Catholic Church provided for us. For example, my Bible probably has more books than yours does.

Second, no book is 100% objective because every book is edited, as Saint John noted in his Gospel. The stuff omitted is as important as the stuff included.



By the way, if it is true that OT appearences of God are Christophanies then it was Jesus who said, "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated." Maybe that's why "Jesus love me . . . " isn't in the Bible.

Knight
June 7th, 2004, 10:25 AM
This thread.... "MacArthur Rant" has been inducted into the TOL Hall of Fame on this day June 7th 2004.

Hall of Fame. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=54)

jeremysdemo
January 8th, 2007, 09:44 AM
You're wrong. This passage shows that Peter considered Paul's letters to be Scriptures. Please read Peter's passage again.
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16
Peter is talking about "untaught and unstable people" twisting "Paul's letters" just like they do with "the rest of the Scriptures." The passage also makes reference to "the wisdom given to [Paul]" Given by whom? Paul claims in his letters (which Peter calls Scriptures) that it was given to him by Christ himself:
Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)...
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:1, 11-12[/list][/


You say you believe that Peter's epistles are inspired Scriptures, but you believe he included untrue statements? If he were against Paul, why wouldn't he come out and say it? Why would God inspire him to lie, calling Paul "our beloved brother" and endorsing his letters?

It is recognized that I Peter is likely to be pseudepigraph, then II Peter must also be one because it refers back to the first one (3:1)
If anyone is interested in actually learning about the origins of the the text they build their beliefs off of I offer this site:
History of II Peter (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html)
This site is run by Peter Kirby a well respected author in the feild of Biblical Literary studies. He uses references to all the top liguistic analyst in that feild as well.

HERE is one exerpt from that site:

Polycarp and Irenaeus show that II Peter wasn't known in the second century church although I Peter was. The self-identification of the author as "Symeon Peter" provides no evidence one way or the other. II Peter does indeed show signs of hellenization as mentioned by Kummel above, and in any case Jewish Christians were not obliterated c. 70 CE. The construal of "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" as presenting a significantly lower christology than "our Savior and God Jesus Christ" borders on the absurd. Both expressions refer to Christ with the terms Savior and God, and thus the christological expressions are equivalent. Indeed, critical scholarship recognizes the appelation of Jesus as Savior or as God to be a second century phenomenon, and thus this lends further weight to the case that II Peter is to be dated firmly in the second century. Wallace sees "a humility, a pathos" in the statement that there are things in the collection of Paul's letters that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction. If there really is such, it is the affectation of the pseudipigraphist. Wallace relies on the supposition that the apostle Peter was actually informed of his martyrdom by the risen Christ as described by the redactor of John 21 in order to explain the comment in II Pet 1:14. Wallace even proposes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in selecting the books of the canon lends support to the authenticity of II Peter. It is clear, then, that any scientific approach to the NT demands that II Peter be regarded as spurious.

As to dating, Perrin suggests (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 262): "He is probably the latest of all the New Testament writers, and a date about A.D. 140 would be appropriate." Nearly all scholars would agree with a date sometime in the second century, probably in the second quarter.

It is more commonly believed by scholars that II Peter was written in or around 140 AD which was well after Peters death. And was most likely written by a patriarch of the day who was fond of Pauls letters, therfore gave him the nod in his addition, which later became cannocal in 325 AD.


Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
They wrote this, letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" --to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

You will notice they sent Paul out to reprotr the same things by word of mouth.
One of those things was:
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us[/b], to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Which Paul clearly did not do.
.Colossians 2:16-17
1 Corinthians 8:3-13 1 Corinthians 10:19-29 Romans 14:21


Farewell. Acts 15:22-29If the apostles didn't trust Paul, why did they write this glowing endorsement of him and his ministry? And why did Luke make a record of it, if he was so unsympathetic to Paul? (Where do you get that idea anyway?)

Actually by all accounts Luke was quit fond of Paul, him also being a Gentile and all, they had common ground.
As a matter of point Luke is the ONLY one in the entire Bible going on record calling Paul an apostle.
Acts 14:4 Acts 14:14

All of these datas and more are already layed out for discussion in TWO differnt threads.
One titled, "Paul the false Apostle" another "Some serious things to consider in the NT"
I have my hands full with other forums and the two simular topics already in this one, otherwise I would entertain you all for a third.

keep shinin'

jerm :p

billwald
January 8th, 2007, 11:25 AM
The Apostle would agree to almost anything to get Paul out of Jerusalem. They were hoping he would self-destruct. (hint- why didn't they go to his defense when he was arrested in the Temple?)

If Luke liked Paul then I would hate to have Luke writing my obit if he disliked me.

Jackson
January 8th, 2007, 11:56 AM
And yes, MacArthur is a Calvinist. I'm not sure that he claims to be one although he brobably does. Either way, his theology is full of Clavinistic teaching.


Resting in Him,
Clete
That would explain why he can't stand the Vineyard... :idea:

jeremysdemo
January 8th, 2007, 12:42 PM
The Apostle would agree to almost anything to get Paul out of Jerusalem. They were hoping he would self-destruct. (hint- why didn't they go to his defense when he was arrested in the Temple?)

If Luke liked Paul then I would hate to have Luke writing my obit if he disliked me.
HEy bill,

You seem to have things to contribute to this topic.

I would be curious as to the references either scriptural or historical that you are using to support the idea that Luke and Paul were not pals.

Furthermore, as stated before there are two threads already started on a very simular topic to the one this threads has gone off on.
And for the sake of finding others interested in dicussing it would be wise to use one of those threads.
Since "ARCHIVE: MacArthur Rant" really doesn't DRAW anyone by it's title who would be interested in discussing these things.
As a matter of fact, I would never had known where this discussion was if not for Clete leaving a link in one of the other threads that ARE about simular topics.
I have already comprised a lenthly Outline with data on this topic, and posted it in the TWO formentioned threads and am not inclined to SPAM yet another which by all accounts would be off topic to begin with.

Here both of those threads are should yo ube interested in contributing to that research and discussion.


Was Paul a false apostle? Scripture reveals he preached "another" gospel: (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1294985#post1294985)

Some serious things to consider about the NT (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34381&page=3&pp=15)

Although no one has yet discussed the data in the outline, with the right people you never know it could happen.

Be blessed and bless those whom He sends you, In Jesus name.

keep shinin'

jerm :)