User Tag List

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 380

Thread: Works of Law and Works of Grace, Is That Biblical?

  1. #31
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,099
    Thanks
    14,760
    Thanked 22,121 Times in 12,558 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147716

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    It means to believe the biblical facts concerning my position in Christ, to believe that I am hidden in Him, that I am perfect and cannot be improved in Him; that it is no longer I who lives but Christ lives His life through me BY FAITH, not by my strength or my effort or my obedience. It isn't about my obedience but rather the obedience of Christ who was obedient in my stead even unto death on the cross.
    I'm always reminded of this when people talk about their obedience.

    Rom 5:19 KJV For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    Clete (June 28th, 2019),JudgeRightly (June 30th, 2019)

  3. #32
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,032
    Thanks
    202
    Thanked 340 Times in 302 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    134766
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
    Walk me through the context and explain Paul's thoughts on why he says this.
    Wretched man that I am.

  4. #33
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,772
    Thanks
    691
    Thanked 7,105 Times in 3,784 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147778
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Walk me through the context and explain Paul's thoughts on why he says this.
    No.

    Just read it. It means what it says. If you're somehow confused by what Paul says, find any random 3rd grader and read him the passage and ask him what it means. He'll get it right.

    You can dance through "context" and make it into whatever you like but as for me, I done with you ingnoring 90% of what I say while attempting to bait me into tacitly accepting your way of doing biblical "interpretation".

    When (if) you become more responsive, so will I.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 30th, 2019),Right Divider (June 30th, 2019)

  6. #34
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,032
    Thanks
    202
    Thanked 340 Times in 302 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    134766
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    bait me into tacitly accepting your way of doing biblical "interpretation".
    I fail to see how considering the context is unsound. I've read it time and time again and I cannot ignore the context. I find that pulling the example of Abraham out of context and using it to support OSAS is illogical and your refusal to explain the context speaks volumes.

    What you are suggesting is that someone earns salvation the moment they believe. So someone can continue in sin, let’s say sexual immorality, and God will owe them eternal life. No matter what they do after believing, good or bad, has any effect on their eternal security.

    Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
    Wretched man that I am.

  7. #35
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,099
    Thanks
    14,760
    Thanked 22,121 Times in 12,558 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147716

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
    You are nothing but a "proof texter". You show exactly what Clete described. You are have your idea and you will darn well find the scripture to prove it... even if you have to take it out of context.

    Read the WHOLE thing... Paul is making a CONTRAST between worldly living by the flesh and living by the Spirit.
    Gal 5:22-26 KJV But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (26) Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

    Paul is NOT talking about salvation there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 30th, 2019)

  9. #36
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,772
    Thanks
    691
    Thanked 7,105 Times in 3,784 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147778
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I fail to see how considering the context is unsound.
    Because the verse is the context. The verse is the point that Paul is making. You want to use "the context" to remove all meaning from the verse and turn it into it's opposite.

    I've read it time and time again and I cannot ignore the context.
    You do so every time you read it.

    I find that pulling the example of Abraham out of context and using it to support OSAS is illogical and your refusal to explain the context speaks volumes.
    I couldn't care less what you find to be illogical. You are incapable of reading the bible and taking for what it plainly states.

    In addition to that, you ignore most of what anyone says to you.

    What you are suggesting is that someone earns salvation the moment they believe.
    No one earns salvation under grace. It is a gift.

    So someone can continue in sin, let’s say sexual immorality, and God will owe them eternal life.
    Paul was accused of preaching the same.

    Romans 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their [c]condemnation is just.
    Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not!

    Have you ever, even one single time in your whole life been accused of preaching this?

    Further and once again, YOU IGNORE WHAT I HAVE ALREADY POSTED!!!

    You are inches away from my ignore list.

    No matter what they do after believing, good or bad, has any effect on their eternal security.
    Exactly right! My righteousness is filth and cannot be improved no matter what I do or how hard I try. I deserve death and have, in fact, been crucified in Christ.

    How many good works does a dead man do?

    How much credit does a dead man get for paying his tithe or feeding the poor or giving away his possessions?

    What does a dead man have to offer God?

    But just as I was crucified in Christ I was also raised from the dead in Him and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives His life through me by faith.

    I WILL NOT, no matter what you say, ever set aside the grace by which I was saved and through which I have been hidden in Christ. Nothing you could ever say to me will ever convince me that its a good idea to resurrect my flesh and start following some list of rules where by I am to do this and not do that. I, in my flesh, am utterly and totally incapable of doing any righteous act and will make actly zero attempt to do so. My righteousness is Christ's and His only. I deserve no credit and I will make no effort to deserve any credit. To do so, cheapens Christ's sacrifice and is tantimount to blasphemy.

    Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
    Exactly!

    How can you not see that you preach against yourself! By what meathod do you propose to do right in you flesh? By what power do you expect your flesh to produce anything but evil, filth, injustice and unrighteousness?

    Romans 7: 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

    21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

    So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

    8 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
    Last edited by Clete; June 30th, 2019 at 10:36 AM.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Right Divider (June 30th, 2019)

  11. #37
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,032
    Thanks
    202
    Thanked 340 Times in 302 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    134766
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Because the verse is the context.
    This does not explain the context. Why can you not walk me through the context as you see it?

    I agree Paul's is making a point by using Abraham as an example but I suggest it's not the point you see. The context is by faith apart from works of the law He is laying the ground work for his Abraham example. The works he is talking about is works"of the law".

    He is not talking about just ANY works but works of the law of Moses. Abraham was not under them that's why he says 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works Again he laid the ground work before calling the law of Moses a law of works. in 3:27 By what kind of law? By a law of works? That is the context.

    The Jews were relying on being circumcised and having the law. 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

    Paul's point is Abraham was found righteous outside of circumcision and the law. 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
    Those are the works he is talking about.

    Up to chapter 11 Paul is explaining to the Jews they are not under law.
    7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
    That is the context.

    If you won't walk me through how you see the context, go ahead and put me on ignore.

    I'll probably just quit because you are the main one I valued talking to.
    Last edited by turbosixx; June 30th, 2019 at 02:41 PM.
    Wretched man that I am.

  12. #38
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,772
    Thanks
    691
    Thanked 7,105 Times in 3,784 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147778
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    This does not explain the context. Why can you not walk me through the context as you see it?
    Because to do so tacitly accepts your premise.

    The verse means what it says. All anyone has to do is read it. It isn't written in code. It isn't hard to understand or to follow Paul's point. Paul didn't use any big words that any normal 3rd grade child wouldn't be able to fully understand. It's just written in plain, easy to understand language that only requires that it be read to be understood.

    I agree Paul's is making a point by using Abraham as an example but I suggest it's not the point you see.
    I do not need your help to read and understand it. If you think it means something other than what it flatly states then you're the one with the reading comprehension problem, not me.

    More importantly, the passages is so clear that the only reason anyone might think it means something other than what it plainly states is if they bring their doctrine to it and allow their doctrine to dictate the meaning of scripture rather than allowing scripture to do the dictating.

    The context is by faith apart from works of the law He is laying the ground work for his Abraham example. The works he is talking about is works"of the law".
    Stupidity.

    How many centuries was circumcision instituted before the Law was given to Moses? It's something like 430 years I think. (Galatians 3:17)

    Further, the first covenant God made with Abraham was in Genesis 15 where it states bluntly, "And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." There was no action Abraham had taken at that point and in the next few verses where God literally "cut a deal" with him, Abraham wasn't even conscious!

    Abraham was declared rigteous, not because he obeyed but because he believed - period.

    He is not talking about just ANY works but works of the law of Moses.
    So says your doctrine. Not that it would matter anyway because there is no list of dos and don'ts that would be superior to the law. Guess where we learn that from - it might be the Apostle Paul! (Gal. 3:21)

    You want to pretend that the law of Moses was simply replaced with a superior law! It wasn't! The Law of Christ is not some set of rules that we must obey in order to be saved! That's so completely wrong that's it's nearly blasphemous! If that were the case then why didn't God just give the Law of Christ to Moses to begin with and save His Son from a gruesomely painful execution, not to mention separation from the Father?!

    Abraham was not under them that's why he says 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works Again he laid the ground work before calling the law of Moses a law of works. in 3:27 By what kind of law? By a law of works? That is the context.

    The Jews were relying on being circumcised and having the law. 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

    Paul's point is Abraham was found righteous outside of circumcision and the law. 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
    Those are the works he is talking about.
    Abraham was unconscious when God made His covenant with Abraham and prior to that Abraham had done nothing at all other than simply believe it when God said that he would have an heir from his own body.

    The law was centuries away and there were no works involved of any sort, other than the work of God Himself. No command to obey, no nothing other than "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness."

    Up to chapter 11 Paul is explaining to the Jews they are not under law.
    7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
    That is the context.
    And it does nothing but prove MY DOCTRINE!!!!!!

    Which of course you will disagree with and think it proves yours!

    That's precisely the reason your way of doing doctrine is entirely useless and a total waste of time in any discussion of this sort.

    What you legalists think is context, is nothing at all but a rationalization of your preconceived doctrine. What you want is to think that you play some role in your salvation beyond merely accepting it as a free gift and you will turn anything upside down and backwards in order to prevent yourself from SOUNDING like your condoning sin so that grace may abound. - A point I made in my last post which you completely ignored.

    If you won't walk me through how you see the context, go ahead and put me on ignore.
    It has been my years long policy to instantly put anyone on my PERMANENT ignore list if they ever dare me to do so.
    You'll be my first and probably only exception because I don't think that you're trying to be a jerk.

    Don't push it again or will indeed find yourself discussing this and anything else with anyone else other than me.

    I'll probably just quit because you are the main one I valued talking to.
    Instead of quitting why don't you try to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying?

    Have you EVER encountered ANYONE - EVER - that was able to discuss this topic at this level with you who openly refused to discuss the context?

    I'm here to tell you that your way of doing doctrine is useless. Well, not useless but very nearly so. It's great for teaching someone else YOUR doctrine but it's entirely useless for giving someone the tools needed to read the bible and learn doctrine for themselves. All your way of doing things accomplishes is perpetuating your own doctrine. It does NOT prove your doctrine is right nor can it because the premises upon which it is built is your doctrine! The proof of this is that those who disagree with do exactly the same sort of thing you do but end up with conflicting conclusions and you can bang heads together until everyone is bloody and half conscious and neither side will have moved an inch toward being convinced away from what they believed before the head-butting started. If this website is anything, it is proof of that!

    There is a superior way that you haven't come within a mile of seeing yet.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 1st, 2019),Right Divider (July 1st, 2019)

  14. #39
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,772
    Thanks
    691
    Thanked 7,105 Times in 3,784 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147778
    I have a little time this morning and no posts to respond to directly and so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify something that I think might be prone to misunderstanding.

    I do not object to exploring and understanding the context of any passage of scripture. On the contrary, whether your reading the bible or your car's owner's manual, understanding the context of anything you're reading is necessary for a proper understanding of it. I have, however, refused to go down that path with Turbosixx because, as I've tried to communicate in my previous posts, he isn't really wanting to explore the context, although that is what he thinks he's doing.

    The accusation, "You're taking the passage out of context." is the nearly universal trump card that all Christians use when confronted with a verse that conflicts with their doctrine. I've even seen Christians claim that John 3:16 is taken out of context when quoted to the random unbeliever. If John 3:16 doesn't mean what it appears to mean by having simply read that one verse then there isn't any passage anywhere that does and yet there have been prolonged threads on this website where the meaning of John 3:16 is debated for weeks on end. This happens because it isn't the context that most Christians are arguing but rather the context argument is usually just a presentation of their doctrine and how that doctrine interprets the passage in question.

    And it is this doctrinal interpretation that Trubosixx was/is interested in doing. I know this because this is not the first time he and I have had this discussion and so I know where he was wanting to take the discussion (and did so in his last post). In fact, Turbosixx isn't really interested in debating at all but rather is simply looking for opportunities to present his doctrine pet doctrines. I also know because I've been were he is. I strongly believed what he's defending for years and years. The church I attended as a teenager and young adult had many sermons preached on the dangers of "greasy grace" and I was literally indoctrinated with the "lordship salvation" doctrine as taught by John McArthur and other famous theologians. I know what Turbosixx is going to say before he says it because I've heard it all literally thousands of times before.

    I not only know and fully understand his position but I know that he is wrong and why. I've been trying my level best to get him to see and accept the possibility that there is a better way of doing doctrine but so far have failed to break through. The most salient points I make in hopes of making it click get ignored. How, for example, can anything be required of Abraham when he wasn't even conscious when God made a covenant with him? There was no affirmation to give, never mind any obligations to agree to take on because he was asleep! That's a pretty amazingly strong argument if you ask me but it'll likely be just so many spit balls against a battle ship. It will almost certainly have exactly zero effect and Turbosixx is as likely as not to just move right on past it like I never said it. Indeed, he may not even understand the point. Not that he's stupid but simply that his doctrinal paradigm won't let him see the point. Indeed, he may actually think that it's somehow a point in his own favor.

    Oh how I wish there were words that I could say that just made people see it! Words that just cut through the curtain of their current paradigm and allowed them to see that there is no need to jump through all sort of theological hoops and go through so much effort to understand the bible. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the bible is very simple and easy to understand and all you need do is have the courage to read it and to take it to mean what is seems to mean.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 2nd, 2019),Right Divider (July 2nd, 2019),steko (July 2nd, 2019)

  16. #40
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,277
    Thanks
    34,665
    Thanked 8,751 Times in 5,619 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I have a little time this morning and no posts to respond to directly and so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify something that I think might be prone to misunderstanding.

    I do not object to exploring and understanding the context of any passage of scripture. On the contrary, whether your reading the bible or your car's owner's manual, understanding the context of anything you're reading is necessary for a proper understanding of it. I have, however, refused to go down that path with Turbosixx because, as I've tried to communicate in my previous posts, he isn't really wanting to explore the context, although that is what he thinks he's doing.

    The accusation, "You're taking the passage out of context." is the nearly universal trump card that all Christians use when confronted with a verse that conflicts with their doctrine. I've even seen Christians claim that John 3:16 is taken out of context when quoted to the random unbeliever. If John 3:16 doesn't mean what it appears to mean by having simply read that one verse then there isn't any passage anywhere that does and yet there have been prolonged threads on this website where the meaning of John 3:16 is debated for weeks on end. This happens because it isn't the context that most Christians are arguing but rather the context argument is usually just a presentation of their doctrine and how that doctrine interprets the passage in question.

    And it is this doctrinal interpretation that Trubosixx was/is interested in doing. I know this because this is not the first time he and I have had this discussion and so I know where he was wanting to take the discussion (and did so in his last post). In fact, Turbosixx isn't really interested in debating at all but rather is simply looking for opportunities to present his doctrine pet doctrines. I also know because I've been were he is. I strongly believed what he's defending for years and years. The church I attended as a teenager and young adult had many sermons preached on the dangers of "greasy grace" and I was literally indoctrinated with the "lordship salvation" doctrine as taught by John McArthur and other famous theologians. I know what Turbosixx is going to say before he says it because I've heard it all literally thousands of times before.

    I not only know and fully understand his position but I know that he is wrong and why. I've been trying my level best to get him to see and accept the possibility that there is a better way of doing doctrine but so far have failed to break through. The most salient points I make in hopes of making it click get ignored. How, for example, can anything be required of Abraham when he wasn't even conscious when God made a covenant with him? There was no affirmation to give, never mind any obligations to agree to take on because he was asleep! That's a pretty amazingly strong argument if you ask me but it'll likely be just so many spit balls against a battle ship. It will almost certainly have exactly zero effect and Turbosixx is as likely as not to just move right on past it like I never said it. Indeed, he may not even understand the point. Not that he's stupid but simply that his doctrinal paradigm won't let him see the point. Indeed, he may actually think that it's somehow a point in his own favor.

    Oh how I wish there were words that I could say that just made people see it! Words that just cut through the curtain of their current paradigm and allowed them to see that there is no need to jump through all sort of theological hoops and go through so much effort to understand the bible. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the bible is very simple and easy to understand and all you need do is have the courage to read it and to take it to mean what is seems to mean.

    Clete
    It took Bob an entire book to condense, what, 25-30 years of study into something that is easily readable, but it just takes time and and effort to go through all that information. I mean, it even took him five whole seminars of varying lengths spanning multiple days each just to go through the book.

    It's not going to be done on a text based forum in a couple of posts.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Right Divider (July 2nd, 2019),steko (July 2nd, 2019)

  18. #41
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,772
    Thanks
    691
    Thanked 7,105 Times in 3,784 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147778
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    It took Bob an entire book to condense, what, 25-30 years of study into something that is easily readable, but it just takes time and and effort to go through all that information. I mean, it even took him five whole seminars of varying lengths spanning multiple days each just to go through the book.

    It's not going to be done on a text based forum in a couple of posts.
    That's absolutely correct. I've often said that this topic is not one which is well suited to discussion on a web forum. It's just too big.

    The best I can really hope for is to pique someone's interest enough to motivate them to read the book.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 3rd, 2019),Right Divider (July 3rd, 2019),steko (July 3rd, 2019)

  20. #42
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,099
    Thanks
    14,760
    Thanked 22,121 Times in 12,558 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147716

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    That's absolutely correct. I've often said that this topic is not one which is well suited to discussion on a web forum. It's just too big.

    The best I can really hope for is to pique someone's interest enough to motivate them to read the book.
    I've not yet read Bob's book, but I would point out that there are lots of great right dividing resources on the Internet. The biggest problem is the one that we have both been trying to get T6 past.... he and many like him are stuck in the myths of Churchianity and cannot break free from that bogus paradigm. They are Bible blenders and simply will not see the truth that is right in front of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    steko (July 3rd, 2019)

  22. #43
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,277
    Thanks
    34,665
    Thanked 8,751 Times in 5,619 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    I've not yet read Bob's book, but I would point out that there are lots of great right dividing resources on the Internet. The biggest problem is the one that we have both been trying to get T6 past.... he and many like him are stuck in the myths of Churchianity and cannot break free from that bogus paradigm. They are Bible blenders and simply will not see the truth that is right in front of them.
    I recommend getting the audio series, that way you can listen to it without having to dedicate X amount of hours to just reading, you can do other things while listening.

    I got the audio series because I literally do nothing but drive for work (95% of my job), so I was able to listen through the whole Plot seminar while rolling down the road.
    @turbosixx, I recommend you read or listen to "The Plot: An Overview of the Bible is the Key to its Details" by Bob Enyart.

    You can find the first chapter and links to the store links for both the book and seminar on audio versions here:

    https://kgov.com/plot

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Cntrysner (July 25th, 2019),way 2 go (July 4th, 2019)

  24. #44
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,772
    Thanks
    691
    Thanked 7,105 Times in 3,784 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147778
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    I've not yet read Bob's book, but I would point out that there are lots of great right dividing resources on the Internet. The biggest problem is the one that we have both been trying to get T6 past.... he and many like him are stuck in the myths of Churchianity and cannot break free from that bogus paradigm. They are Bible blenders and simply will not see the truth that is right in front of them.
    I've read several books on the subject of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Bob is by far the best. It is extremely thorough and makes several connections that I've not seen in other works. Things That Differ by C.R. Stam is very good and you can actually find it for free in PDF form on the internet but I think it works better as a supplement to The Plot. It's just not as persuasive and is a much dryer kind of read as are most of the other books on the subject. You should do whatever is necessary to get a copy of The Plot, which I know isn't exactly an inexpensive book.

    If you're not a big reader, Bob has done seminars are practically everything under the Sun and has them available for purchase as well. The series they made on The Plot is just excellent and worth every dime they charge for it.

    As for those who can't be made to see it, I think the first hurdle to overcome is getting them to see the need. The problem with that is that I don't think that most people approach doctrine from the perspective of trying to resolve doctrinal conflicts in a systematic way. They often do theology in a systematic way but whether or not that system resolves conflicts between seemingly unrelated issues while preserving the plain meaning of the text doesn't register as a attribute that their system needs to have nor that one which does have it would necessarily be superior.

    For example, no Calvinist would likely ever be persuaded about anything by Bob's book because allegiance to the plain reading of scripture plays no role at all in their theological paradigm. They'll turn anything into a figure of speech if that's what it takes to preserve their doctrine. It is very nearly the opposite kind of attitude toward the reading of scripture and for any of them to accept a Mid-Acts paradigm would be just an enormously gigantic, almost miraculous paradigm shift.

    T6, on the other hand, is already a dispensationalist and while it would still be a significant paradigm shift, it wouldn't be the deep Earth seismic variety. He, for example, already understands that the Church and Israel are not the same thing. That alone brings him more than half way to the goal line. I think that all that would be required to bring him the rest of the way is two things. First, he has to be willing to entertain the truth of it as at least a possibility and second, the case for it has to be presented to him in a manner that is very much more thorough and detailed than is reasonable to present on a web forum.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Cntrysner (July 25th, 2019),JudgeRightly (July 3rd, 2019),Right Divider (July 3rd, 2019),way 2 go (July 4th, 2019)

  26. #45
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2182
    Clete, after reading what you presented I know I'm in the right place. You were very patient and I know your heart is in the fight place as a member of His body and the respect of His words you displayed. Thanks to ya...brother.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Cntrysner For Your Post:

    Clete (July 25th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us