Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by patman View Post
    Lon,

    Read through the last few posts of this. I am not aiming this frustration at you because I do not know if you know a lot about Bob...

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...hlight=care#73

    Basically Bob has other things on his plate right now.
    That's kewl. That is what I was asking, nothing more. Thanks
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    ? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Clete View Post
      If so then make the argument Lon!

      I personally believe the distinction to be a fallacious one in the first place. The Bible does not contradict itself. If there is a principle taught in the narrative portions of Scripture then it will be either supported by or taught outright by the doctrinal portions of Scripture. The distinction you are making between the two is contrived, artificial and arbitrary. Who decides what is doctrinal and which is narrative and on what basis?

      So there it is Lon. I've directly challenged the varsity of your argument to the pathetic extent that you've made it. Now, either make the argument or admit that you cannot and stop making it.

      Resting in Him,
      Clete


      I linked the argument against God changing His mind very clearly. I'll do it again to ensure you didn't miss it.

      You can either hit the link which I provided or admit you really aren't interested in anything but making irrational unfounded comment. I don't believe this about you, you hate links. I remember, but it would be redundant to repost and drag bandwidth unnecessarily. Both previous links are mine and directly challenge your posit.
      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

      ? Yep

      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Lon View Post
        That's kewl. That is what I was asking, nothing more. Thanks
        - Changing wineskins, at last.

        - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

        Comment


        • Clete,

          I've been making this distinction for days and thought I'd help you out.

          How to tell what is doctrine or narrative

          Scripture doesn't
          contradict itself

          Bob Hill made the error of building doctrine with only narrative passages.

          The danger of building doctrine off of narrative

          An example of this danger played out

          It isn't either or, it is both (either or is what I've been complaining about-almost every text from OV is narrative alone for proof-texting).

          Historical problems with misunderstanding narrative for lack of doctrine.

          Here is a well written piece that may explain to you my position and stance.
          Last edited by Delmar; November 7, 2007, 03:52 AM. Reason: edit at Lon's request should have said does not contradict
          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

          ? Yep

          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lon View Post
            I linked the argument against God changing His mind very clearly. I'll do it again to ensure you didn't miss it.

            You can either hit the link which I provided or admit you really aren't interested in anything but making irrational unfounded comment. I don't believe this about you, you hate links. I remember, but it would be redundant to repost and drag bandwidth unnecessarily. Both previous links are mine and directly challenge your posit.
            I read the link and it does NOT make the argument Lon.

            Try again. Only this time actually make some attempt to actually address the points I've brought up.

            You like to pick on Bob Hill. First, show us how his teaching removes the passages he uses to substantiate his teaching from their intended context then show us how that removal nullifies the teaching.

            In order to do that you are going to have to prove that the passages he uses are "only narrative passages" and that those passages somehow contradict the so called doctrinal passages.

            It would seem, according to your arbitrary standard that the Moses basically wrote no doctrinal passages to speak of at all aside from "about half" of the book of Deuteronomy. That's a totally ridiculous position that you have no hope whatsoever of defending. It's down right laughable! Genesis is referred to as the "see plot" of the Bible for a very good reason. It is perhaps the most important book of doctrine in the entire Bible! It is the very foundation of the entire Christian faith and worldview! Job is the oldest book in existence and is entirely narrative from beginning to end and yet it too is practically bursting at the seems with doctrine.

            In you last post you claimed that "Scripture does contradict itself"and provided a link to a post where you said, "I cannot concur that we can kill narrative with doctrinal passages. The whole of scripture supports itself."

            It would seem that it is you who contradict yourself Lon. Care to clarify?

            It isn't either or, it is both (either or is what I've been complaining about-almost every text from OV is narrative alone for proof-texting).
            WHAT?

            One of our favorite places to start a debate on predestination vs. free-will is with Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18! You've lost your mind on this one Lon. Not only is your position arbitrary and self-contradictory but you've based it on the completely false basis that we use "only narrative" passages to support our position.

            And finally the last of your links only makes things harder for you Lon because that piece comes right out and says that one is not required to get doctrine exclusively from didactic passages of Scripture and so whether Bob Hill or some other Open Theist uses narrative/historical passages or not isn't really the issue at all. The issue is whether or not the passage actually does teach what we say it teaches, which of course has been the real issue all along. That article effectively states the very thing I've been stating (except that I don't think the distinction is necessary in the first place). You cannot simply cry "Narrative passage!" and thereby trump any teaching that disagrees with your doctrine. You have to make the argument Lon. That's the only way it works.

            Resting in Him,
            Clete
            sigpic
            "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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
              I read the link and it does NOT make the argument Lon.

              Try again. Only this time actually make some attempt to actually address the points I've brought up.


              The link is an example of didactic passages upholding a narrative doctrine.
              (hmm, seems to address your question to me).

              You like to pick on Bob Hill. First, show us how his teaching removes the passages he uses to substantiate his teaching from their intended context then show us how that removal nullifies the teaching.


              I don't pick on Bob Hill. I brought up one of his posts. I've been very careful to say I disagree with his doctrine. I do understand the defensive posture both for Enyart and Hill. There is no question in my mind that you should. So please don't see that as an attack on him personally, it is not. It was taking a post and explaining why narrative isn't the place to build doctrine. To be clear, there are very few narrative doctrines that Christiandom holds to. The OV is rive with them.

              In order to do that you are going to have to prove that the passages he uses are "only narrative passages" and that those passages somehow contradict the so called doctrinal passages.
              I gave the link for how to tell, both mine an the last one. Bob Hill's are all narrative passages. Simply, narrative is where there is a storyline. Doctrine is where we are told something universally and specifically as believers. Knight pointed to narrative in his quotes for mocking those in opposition. My point is that you cannot do likewise but I'll hit on this on the last comment you've made.
              It would seem, according to your arbitrary standard that the Moses basically wrote no doctrinal passages to speak of at all aside from "about half" of the book of Deuteronomy. That's a totally ridiculous position that you have no hope whatsoever of defending. It's down right laughable! Genesis is referred to as the "see plot" of the Bible for a very good reason. It is perhaps the most important book of doctrine in the entire Bible! It is the very foundation of the entire Christian faith and worldview! Job is the oldest book in existence and is entirely narrative from beginning to end and yet it too is practically bursting at the seems with doctrine.
              That's a totally 'ridiculous' ascertation. First, nope, Moses wrote lots of doctrine. Does it all apply to you directly? Nope. You don't follow Levitical (Leviticus) directives. How much applies to us? A lot, but the point is to note where story begins and ends, where doctrine begins and ends, who it applies to etc. Second, The last author I gave cleared this up extremely well. You should read the whole article as I said his position was mine as well. You are saying things as if you don't care to know my position or read that article indepth. I agree 100% with his position.

              In you last post you claimed that "Scripture does contradict itself"and provided a link to a post where you said, "I cannot concur that we can kill narrative with doctrinal passages. The whole of scripture supports itself."

              It would seem that it is you who contradict yourself Lon. Care to clarify?
              Incorrect, the 'last' post had the correction. I did miss a negative in that first statement which was why the double post, but oops, you missed that (or did you? Are you being disingenuine?).

              What?
              One of our favorite places to start a debate on predestination vs. free-will is with Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18! You've lost your mind on this one Lon. Not only is your position arbitrary and self-contradictory but you've based it on the completely false basis that we use "only narrative" passages to support our position.
              AHHHH! So you DO know the difference! Thanks for substantiating that AND showing that some of what you are asking for is pedantic.

              And finally the last of your links only makes things harder for you Lon because that piece comes right out and says that one is not required to get doctrine exclusively from didactic passages of Scripture and so whether Bob Hill or some other Open Theist uses narrative/historical passages or not isn't really the issue at all. The issue is whether or not the passage actually does teach what we say it teaches, which of course has been the real issue all along. That article effectively states the very thing I've been stating (except that I don't think the distinction is necessary in the first place). You cannot simply cry "Narrative passage!" and thereby trump any teaching that disagrees with your doctrine. You have to make the argument Lon. That's the only way it works.
              I think you didn't do a very good job of grasping his point and are actually saying the opposite. For one who accuses me of not reading well, this is a bit perplexing for me. I'll help by paraphrasing as and with Paragraph numbers 'P#' (disregarding single line entries):


              First of all, he says doctrine may be derived from narrative(P3) but he gives several caveats: 1) it must be repeatable(P4) 2) it must build cautiously (P9 ; P11-14) 3) it should be a rarity (P15) 4) it should most often be supported by didactic (doctrinal directive) and 5) there isn't a solid hermenuetical procedure for doing so (P25,26).

              Catch that? *******Warning flag*********

              He quoted another author to support this:

              "I have failed to find a hermeneutical articulation that took me by the hand and showed me how one goes about doing this—that is, establishing something normative on the basis of historical precedent alone."
              The author states that one 'may' derive doctrine from narrative, but points back to foundational caveates for deriving any doctrine from narrative alone and said that it must be 'clearly' a 'normative' example to follow (blatant).

              He closes this by saying that the narrative writer would make plain a normative doctrine in text if a doctrine is prescribed.

              He had a very good chart in that post as to how to tell apart narrative from didactic literature and how to interpret them.

              Paraphrased again, his chart was:

              Narrative------------------------------Doctrine
              story--------------------------------- instructions
              examples------------------------------directives
              applies to those-----------------------applies to all
              in the story

              He gave multiple examples of faulty extrapolation from narrative to press the points of his article, all of which I have redressed here. Few doctrines in the church are ever built off of narrative. To be clear, let me make plain that no substantial doctrine is built soley off of narrative whereas OV does so more often than not.

              Here you can see in Bob Hill's post easily that every point is made off of a storyline.

              Here is another by an OVer (I could keep doing this all day).
              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

              ? Yep

              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

              Comment


              • Lon,

                You aren't getting it are you.

                I've never denied or even suggested that I do not understand the difference generally speaking between didactic and narrative passages of Scripture. My point has been that you cannot reject a doctrinal teaching solely on the basis that is derived from narrative passages of Scripture! You don't get to simply blurt out "You used a narrative passage to make that point!" and then act as if you've somehow refuted the point. You haven't ! You have to MAKE THE ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                By "make the argument" I mean you have to show how the use of those narrative passages is invalid in that particular instance. You have to show how the conclusion drawn from those narrative passages somehow contradicts didactic passages which direct speak to the point being discussed. Didactic vs. narrative is not a magic trump card that you can pull out just because it suits your fancy.

                I don't care that Bob Hill's makes his points off of a storyline and I have no doubt whatsoever that you could quote instances of other OVer's doing so all day long. SO WHAT? Do you realize that most of the theology we have concerning God Himself comes from narrative passages? We find out what sort of person God is by looking at how He interacts with mankind through history. And nearly all of the passages Bob Hill quotes in the link you provided are Both doctrinal and narrative anyway! Let's look at them...

                1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

                What is that if not doctrine?

                Gen 22:12,15-17 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” 15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; 17 “blessing I will bless you,”

                Here we are being presented the very words of God as he spoke them to Abraham! How are you going to blow that off as "storyline"?

                Exo 13:17 Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for [b]God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds [The Hebrew word is: nacham] when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

                Once again, this passages quotes God! How are you going to blow off this passage as narrative and disregard the point that God HIMSELF makes in this passages?

                Jer 26:1-3: In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the LORD, saying, 2 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. 3 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’”

                Jer 36:1-3 Now it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Take a scroll of a book and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel, against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah even to this day. 3 “It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”

                Eze 12:1-3 Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house. 3 Therefore, son of man, prepare your belongings for captivity, and go into captivity by day in their sight. You shall go from your place into captivity to another place in their sight. It may be that they will consider, though they are a rebellious house.”

                Jer 3:6-15 The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. 7 “And I [the Lord] said, after she had done all these things, ‘She will return to Me’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. 9 “So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. 10 “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the LORD. 11 Then the LORD said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. 12 “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: ‘Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not remain angry forever. 13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the LORD your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the LORD. 14 “Return, O backsliding children,” says the LORD; “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 “And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.”

                Wow! A pattern is forming here Lon! How are you going to blow off these passages which directly quote God Himself saying something that contradicts your theological worldview purely on the basis that God happened to have been quoted in the context of a historical account?

                I'd do the same with your second link but the post it goes too cannot possibly be the one you intended and so I can't. It would be redundant anyway. The point is that you cannot simply pull out your "narrative passage" trump card and blow off teaching which is derived from such passages. That is not proper hermeneutics and the author of that article your so fond of would be ashamed to be associated with anyone who would use his material to suggest such a thing, especially when those narrative passages directly quote the Creator!

                Now, will you make the argument or will you mindlessly continue to blather on about narrative vs. didactic passages?

                Resting in Him,
                Clete
                sigpic
                "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

                Comment


                • The link made the way this is done, and the danger on founding doctrine off narrative only. It is there for anyone to read even if you do not choose to.

                  Next, it is a problematic hermenuetic that any and all of the rest of Christiandom will continue to nail you on regardless of your objection and it will stick.

                  Looking over your quotes, you should remember that I told you two things that you didn't quite manage to grasp about narrative.

                  1) you do have doctrinal teachings in narrative as with Moses and Jesus' teachings.

                  2) You do have to read narrative as story and doctrine as instruction (and you do seem to grasp it at least to some degree or you'd not have proven that point).
                  My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                  Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                  Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                  Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                  No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                  Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                  ? Yep

                  Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                  ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                  Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                    The link made the way this is done, and the danger on founding doctrine off narrative only. It is there for anyone to read even if you do not choose to.

                    Next, it is a problematic hermenuetic that any and all of the rest of Christiandom will continue to nail you on regardless of your objection and it will stick.

                    Looking over your quotes, you should remember that I told you two things that you didn't quite manage to grasp about narrative.

                    1) you do have doctrinal teachings in narrative as with Moses and Jesus' teachings.

                    2) You do have to read narrative as story and doctrine as instruction (and you do seem to grasp it at least to some degree or you'd not have proven that point).
                    Now you're changing your tune a little here, Lon!

                    Your entire post in refutation of Knight's Scripture quotation (and then later the same principle is applied to Bob Hill's post as well) simply pointed out that the passages quoted were narrative.

                    That was it! No argument, nothing to clarify the point, nothing. Your point was clearly that Pastor Hill's points (let's stick with his since he actually made a real doctrinal argument) were invalid based solely on the fact that he used nothing but narrative passages to prove his position (which he did rather well, by the way).

                    THAT WAS YOUR ENTIRE POINT!!!

                    If you will recall it was I who first brought up how that article you're so fond of only makes things worse for you because it directly states that doctrine can be derived from narrative passages, a point you are now trying to turn around and use against me. It isn't going to work, Lon.

                    The passages quoted by Pastor Hill were all narrative and they all directly quoted God Himself and Hill drew his conclusions directly from God's own words in their immediate Scriptural context.

                    IT MAKES EXACTLY ZERO DIFFERENCE THAT THE PASSAGES HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN NARRATIVE!!!!

                    But you blow off Hill's argument solely on that basis alone, which your own cited expert would agree is an incorrect thing to do! By your own admission doctrine can and should be derived from narrative passages and so your rejection of Hill's argument on that basis is rendered moot.

                    So, if, as you have repeatedly stated, doctrinal teachings are contained within narrative passages of Scripture, then on what basis do you reject the argument of Bob Hill's which you have linked too as an example of poor OV narrative based hermeneutics?

                    Resting in Him,
                    Clete
                    sigpic
                    "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

                    Comment


                    • This is ignoring his very clear caveates (ones I've already stated, repeatedly)
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        Nang I can post Bible verses also....

                        Judges 4:21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went down into the ground; for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

                        1Kings 18:27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.

                        2Peter 2:22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

                        Psalms 52:6 The righteous also shall see and fear, And shall laugh at him, saying,
                        7 “Here is the man who did not make God his strength, But trusted in the abundance of his riches, And strengthened himself in his wickedness.”
                        The high point in a brilliant thread.

                        Illustrated for the narrative challenged:





                        "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                          In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond to the usual crowd now:

                          godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

                          Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

                          Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

                          PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

                          Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

                          stipe: "Huh?"


                          Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."

                          Yorshik: "Now exactly who is sitting at the table across from me?"




                          Get on with it now.
                          I guess that means I'm still on AMR's ignore list.

                          Philetus

                          "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Philetus View Post
                            I guess that means I'm still on AMR's ignore list.

                            Philetus
                            Me too. Seems childish to me. Real men work through things.
                            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                            Comment


                            • AMR
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • Anyone who defends Bob Enyart in his tactics, or who is impressed by his conduct on this "One on One" effort, is worse than a fool.

                                This exercise was performed before the eyes of the Lord, and God is not mocked. All things will come to light; including the emptiness of souls who proclaim to serve what is right in this world, but through their failure to comprehend the truths of God, prove to be merely self-serving.

                                I am so disgusted with the lack of substantial, intellectual, and Christian response to AMR's sacrificial efforts, that I fear I may say too much and express nothing but excessive indignation and anger.

                                Nang
                                "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                                " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                                Gordon H. Clark

                                "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                                Charles Spurgeon

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X