Theology Club: Other than glorification, what is the need for the Holy Spirit in the open view?

musterion

Well-known member
I made no assertion, I stated facts.

Your view of salvation has God lying (a) about who He actually wants saved and (b) about who He allows the shed blood of Christ to atone for. That is the first point.

The second point is that you rely on Gnostic knowledge of God's alleged secret will in order to believe the first. A foundational point of your religion -- TULIP --is that God secretly wants fewer people saved than the Bible says He does. TULIP makes Him a liar.

These are facts.
 
Last edited:

BrianJOrr

New member
Then they should be easy for you to answer and refute.

You have not refuted anything yet. I gave answers. You have not address my points with Scripture. Just saying 'wrong' is not a refutation.

I am also still waiting for an OT to answer my post on John 6:64.
 

musterion

Well-known member
You have not refuted anything yet. I gave answers. You have not address my points with Scripture. Just saying 'wrong' is not a refutation.

I am also still waiting for an OT to answer my post on John 6:64.

Your dodgeball is not up to the usual TOL drive-by standards. So one more time.

How is God a just judge for condemning those who do exactly what He [allegedly] secretly predestined, while saying repeatedly that it's their fault?

Or to hark back to your original analogy: How does God condemn specifically for not breathing those He refused to give lungs, and remain just?
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
People do not go to hell because they reject the gospel. People go to hell because they are sinners and therefore God is just and righteous if every human being were to go into the lake of fire.
The fact that God chose to save some by election doesn't make Him unjust, all after Adam were dead in trespasses and sins no one had the ability to save himself the act of salvation by election is completely the outworking of the grace of God and the love of God. God did not predestine the non elect to condemnation because we all at one point shared in this very same condemnation.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I am also still waiting for an OT to answer my post on John 6:64.

Speaking for myself, I didn't see the point in engaging with you in any detail because you proved that you were either incapable or unwilling to deal with what I said at face value.
You called me a liar for no other reason than that you could not accept what I said.
I repeated what I said several times but still you refused to acknowledge it, all the time claiming that I said something else.
I said that the main problem at issue was the idea of letting scripture interpret scripture. You said repeatedly and incorrectly that my issue was that Calvinists added their own presuppositions. That wasn't what I said.
I said that my creed was deliberately non-doctrinaire because I wanted to focus on faith and relationship and then you asked me about my doctrine of the deity of Christ and how my creed differentiated between me and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. You asked this question several times even though I had stated clearly that my creed was not intended to be doctrinaire.
When I answered specifically about the deity of Christ, pointing out that the issue was one of relationship, i.e. my relationship with Jesus, how I worship him and so on, and not whether he was in substance God, you chose to completely misinterpret this as meaning that I held a doctrine of the deity of Christ and questioned me about that.
And I warned you of how different the theology of openness was and you did not heed it, all the time seeking to know what my doctrines were and how I used scripture to establish doctrine (which you lied about in saying that I claimed to be without presuppositions) when all the time I said that I wasn't trying to establish doctrine at all.
Is it a wonder, having treated me like this, that others are unwilling to deal with you?
But please don't by any means imagine that I or other open theists are unable to answer your question about John 6:64. Indeed, I was quite astonished that you would claim that no one could analyse every verse of the Bible to harmonise it with their adopted theology. As if you were trying to claim that I as an open theist would be uncomfortable with some passages or even perhaps many. Don't get your hopes up. I can tell you that I am fully comfortable with every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. This is a great deal more than many of the reformed persuasion, who, unwilling to accept what the Bible says at face value in proper context, resort to all sorts of tricks and subterfuge, including claiming that some other text in the Bible 'clarifies' the matter or takes precedence, that it is anthropomorphism, that it is mystery or resorting to spurious references to original texts as if to blind your hearers with science or many other such devices to avoid confronting what the text says. And you end up being so blinded by your own doctrines, that you can no longer see the obvious.
And that indeed is what has happened to you with John 6:64.
 
Last edited:

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
The only sin that can condemn man for eternity is rejecting the gospel. However, these people are condemned before they hear it, and furthermore some indeed have lived and died having never once heard the gospel, not even one time. How is it that these individuals can be condemned for what they never heard?
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Rejection of Yeshua will condemn for ever. Those who never heard the gospel are condemned anyway. And according to paul there was sufficient revelation of the nature of God in creation that had they responded to that revelation the gospel would have reached them. By default their failure to respond to the light they had will condemn them as the proof that had they heard the good news they would not have accepted it anyway.
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Thus if hearing the Gospel and rejecting it is grounds for eternal damnation then the last thing to do is send out missionaries because that would be giving them the chance to damn themselves.

No, mankind is condemned because of the sins of mankind. Salvation has come into the world and a minority of the masses of humanity shall be saved. The rest are not elected and were passed over. We don't need to question the word by trying to force right and wrong into God's work of election. We cannot know good and evil as fully as God does. That was the lie of the evil one.
 

BrianJOrr

New member
Speaking for myself, I didn't see the point in engaging with you in any detail because you proved that you were either incapable or unwilling to deal with what I said at face value.
You called me a liar for no other reason than that you could not accept what I said.
I repeated what I said several times but still you refused to acknowledge it, all the time claiming that I said something else.

Though you say I have misrepresented you in other posts, I just want to post something you said that shows you misunderstand the Reformed perspective and shows your tried-and-true surface-meaning of the text proves to be quite shallow.

Secondly, I don't exegete these passages to adhere to open theism. All I do is try to understand what the passages mean and be informed by them. Satan incited David does not mean that David was forced to do what he did. But it does mean that what David did was wrong and that David succumbed to the temptation. And inasmuch as God incited David to do it, again David didn't need to do it. God was angry with Israel for some unspecified reason and would have found some other way to bring judgement on them if David didn't want to command the census. It is tedious repeating all this. If David had not succumbed to this temptation the Bible would have just been written differently and you wouldn't be any the wiser. That's how history works.

If you recall this is from two passages:

“Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, ‘Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number’” (1 Chron. 21:1-3).

“Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’ So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, ‘Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people’” (2 Sam. 24:1-3).

First, you made a point to say that David was never forced to do this. That is one aspect of sovereignty that those who are non-Reformed misunderstand, and straw-man against Calvinists. God does not force anyone to do anything. When one chooses, they do so willingly (we can discuss that more later).

Second, you said,

"If David had not succumbed to this temptation the Bible would have just been written differently and you wouldn't be any the wiser."

Well, 2 Sam. 24:1-3 says that God incited David to do it, which you then used the word 'temptation.' [/quote]

But doesn't James 1:13 say, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."

You have a problem because you have two parallel texts here speaking of the same events with two different agents 'inciting' David to sin. Again, David was not forced, he gave into the temptation. So, how do you respond when you this issue? You don't You never resolved the tension in the texts. You merely gave me a list of synonyms for 'incite.'

The Hebrew word and usage in the OT is:

5496. סוּת suth (694c); a prim. root; to incite, allure, instigate:—diverted(1), entice(2), enticed(1), incited(3), inciting(1), induced(1), mislead(2), misleading(1), misleads(1), misled(1), moved(1), persuaded(2), stirred(1).

So, how can a plain reading of the Scriptures solve this problem? Or are you going to discredit my use of James 1:13? Did God 'incite' David to sin or did Satan do it? You referred to it as David giving into temptation, but God temps no one. Your interpretation is shallow because of your interpretive principles: face-value-reading. These texts require more than that to give a thorough answer. You left God to violate his own nature—He 'tempted' David?

You said repeatedly and incorrectly that my issue was that Calvinists added their own presuppositions. That wasn't what I said.

You said:

If you keep on developing this line of thought, as you read the Bible more, perhaps you will also realise that (Calvinistic) predestination is not in the Bible either and for the exact same reason that trinity also is not.

If (Calvinistic) predestination is not in the Bible, wouldn't you say then that Calvin, through his own presuppositions, came up with his own form of predestination, which I now add into my reading of the text?

I said that my creed was deliberately non-doctrinaire because I wanted to focus on faith and relationship and then you asked me about my doctrine of the deity of Christ and how my creed differentiated between me and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. You asked this question several times even though I had stated clearly that my creed was not intended to be doctrinaire.
When I answered specifically about the deity of Christ, pointing out that the issue was one of relationship, i.e. my relationship with Jesus, how I worship him and so on, and not whether he was in substance God, you chose to completely misinterpret this as meaning that I held a doctrine of the deity of Christ and questioned me about that.

Any time you make a claim of what you believe the Bible to teach, 'relational theology' or not, you are establishing a doctrine. Your term 'relational theology' is a doctrine!

And I warned you of how different the theology of openness was and you did not heed it, all the time seeking to know what my doctrines were and how I used scripture to establish doctrine (which you lied about in saying that I claimed to be without presuppositions) when all the time I said that I wasn't trying to establish doctrine at all.

You made this claim:

I guess I am going to be somewhat reticent about trusting any interpretation you might place on a text written 3000 years ago or more in another language by a people with completely different cultural norms to your own.

So, why should I trust your interpretation of a text written 3000 years ago or more in an other language by a people with completely different cultural norms to your own? Oh, because yours is the 'face-value plain reading,' whereas mine is . . . not? A plain reading of the text is clear enough for one to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ; however, there are many difficult areas to understand in the Bible; even Peter spoke of Paul's letters being that way (2 Pet. 3:16), which have been distorted because of that difficulty. So, there were people in that local context and culture, that misunderstood his letters, as with the other texts of the Bible. Do you think they failed to read them at face-value? Afterall, it should have been much easier for them being living on-top of context.

Is it a wonder, having treated me like this, that others are unwilling to deal with you?
But please don't by any means imagine that I or other open theists are unable to answer your question about John 6:64.

So, why have they not? If all is needed is a plain-reading of the face-value of that text, then why not respond? Why not simply point it out, within the text itself, what it means?

I can tell you that I am fully comfortable with every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

As am I

This is a great deal more than many of the reformed persuasion, who, unwilling to accept what the Bible says at face value in proper context, resort to all sorts of tricks and subterfuge, including claiming that some other text in the Bible 'clarifies' the matter or takes precedence,

So, was my use of James 1:13 to show that God doesn't tempt anyone to sin, which you referred to as a temptation, a trick or act of subterfuge?

that it is anthropomorphism, that it is mystery or resorting to spurious references to original texts as if to blind your hearers with science or many other such devices to avoid confronting what the text says. And you end up being so blinded by your own doctrines, that you can no longer see the obvious.
And that indeed is what has happened to you with John 6:64.

I appealed to being a finite creature who cannot fully know the mind of God, recognizing that, I hope I can use this Scripture, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever" (Deut. 29:29). Or is that an act of subterfuge to support my position that we cannot know all things God knows? I think a plain reading of that text says that there are things that God does and know that are a secret to us creatures. Or, how about this verse, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" (Prov. 25:2). Or, about Job 42:3, "Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." Job questioned God in 38:2 presuming he knew God's wisdom but obviously he concedes that he did not understand. So, do any of these verses plainly show that there is some mystery that we might have to appeal to? I would rather appeal to mystery then make the mistake that Job did, which God chided him for. However, God showed Job that allowing Satan to do what he did was ultimately for his benefit in the end.

Oh, yeah, as I was strolling through our previous discussion, you never did address my question about Gen. 3:15.

Bob Enyart
said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that? I would have to assume you also share the same model of interpretation since you are both open theists.

Now, I have learned, however, that that is not the case among OTs.

However,

You did say that your method of interpretation is
“how open theists interpret the Old Testament.”

So do you believe this? If so, how did you arrive to this conclusion based on what you said?:

“The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes. Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”[/quote]

How can you come up with that interpretation from a plain-face-value reading of that text?

I do want to say that in going through the posts on our first discussion, I did see on a post that I did mis-represent you when I asserted that you said that you are claiming to not have presuppositions. And you were right, you did not say that you didn't.

So, for what it's worth, I do apologize for that.
 

musterion

Well-known member
surface-meaning of the text proves to be quite shallow.

face-value-reading.
Oh, because yours is the [scare quotes!] 'face-value plain reading,'
A plain reading of the text is clear enough for one to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ; however, [uh oh]there are many difficult areas to understand in the Bible
If all is needed is a plain-reading of the face-value of that text...
Ta-da! The Augustinian speaks.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If you recall this is from two passages:

(1 Chron. 21:1-3).
(2 Sam. 24:1-3).

First, you made a point to say that David was never forced to do this. That is one aspect of sovereignty that those who are non-Reformed misunderstand, and straw-man against Calvinists. God does not force anyone to do anything. When one chooses, they do so willingly (we can discuss that more later).

As you say, that is a separate discussion. Whether we get around to discussing is unlikely at the moment.

Second, you said, ...

Well, 2 Sam. 24:1-3 says that God incited David to do it, which you then used the word 'temptation.'
And once again you misrepresent me. Or at very least exaggerate or twist.
Because I only used the word 'temptation' in reference to Satan tempting David.

But doesn't James 1:13 say, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."
This is irrelevant because I didn't say it anyway.

You have a problem because you have two parallel texts here speaking of the same events with two different agents 'inciting' David to sin.
No. The problem I have is getting you to accept what I say at face value and not distort it.

Again, David was not forced, he gave into the temptation. So, how do you respond when you this issue? You don't You never resolved the tension in the texts. You merely gave me a list of synonyms for 'incite.'
My purpose in showing the meaning of 'incite' was to show that there was nothing forcing about it. You say that I have misunderstood Calvinism here. That is another discussion.


So, how can a plain reading of the Scriptures solve this problem? Or are you going to discredit my use of James 1:13? Did God 'incite' David to sin or did Satan do it? You referred to it as David giving into temptation, but God temps no one.
As I said, there is no problem. You are making up the problem yourself.

Your interpretation is shallow because of your interpretive principles: face-value-reading. These texts require more than that to give a thorough answer. You left God to violate his own nature—He 'tempted' David?
Nope. Again. It is your hermeneutic that is faulty. When God tested Abraham (Heb 11, I believe) same Greek word as James 1:13. This absolutely refutes your point. Absolutely.

Your only possible defence here is that the word peiradzomenos (from peiradzo) is being used in a different sense. And if you choose to take that defence then you are left with 2 possibilities
1. Special pleading
2. Abandon your hermeneutic of letting scripture interpret scripture because if you want to justify two different meanings of peiradzo then you can only resort to using the immediate context of each as evidence.

If (Calvinistic) predestination is not in the Bible, wouldn't you say then that Calvin, through his own presuppositions, came up with his own form of predestination, which I now add into my reading of the text?
Sure. I might say that. In answer to your question. But that was not what I said before. And it doesn't get you off the hook for misrepresenting what I actually did say.

Any time you make a claim of what you believe the Bible to teach, 'relational theology' or not, you are establishing a doctrine. Your term 'relational theology' is a doctrine!
Go on then, where have I made a claim of saying what the Bible teaches?
Where?

So, why should I trust your interpretation of a text written 3000 years ago or more in an other language by a people with completely different cultural norms to your own?
I didn't ask you to.
And I don't ask others to either. Because I present all what I know in front of them. So they can see for themselves. I don't ask them to trust me. I consider that being manipulative.

My point is that if you can't understand the words that I write then how are you going to understand ancient texts? You haven't given me an answer to this.

however, there are many difficult areas to understand in the Bible; even Peter spoke of Paul's letters being that way (2 Pet. 3:16), which have been distorted because of that difficulty. So, there were people in that local context and culture, that misunderstood his letters, as with the other texts of the Bible. Do you think they failed to read them at face-value? Afterall, it should have been much easier for them being living on-top of context.
You obviously didn't learn much from the 1-1 I had with Lon, which you say you read. I said

I also want to make it very clear that whether or not we are left "to every wind of many doctrines and interpretations.", is not at all the issue here. If a text is unclear in meaning, then that is what it is. Any rule that suggests we should add clarity to a text that is inherently unclear simply because we want it to be clear will constitute a distortion of the text itself.
So, was my use of James 1:13 to show that God doesn't tempt anyone to sin, which you referred to as a temptation, a trick or act of subterfuge?
See above. James 1:13 and Hebrews 11 absolutely refute your hermeneutic as regards David's taking of the census.

I appealed to being a finite creature who cannot fully know the mind of God, recognizing that, I hope I can use this Scripture, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever" (Deut. 29:29). Or is that an act of subterfuge to support my position that we cannot know all things God knows?
That's a typical Calvin text taken out of its context.
Also, you have not shown that you are a finite creature.


I think a plain reading of that text says that there are things that God does and know that are a secret to us creatures. Or, how about this verse, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" (Prov. 25:2).
Same. I've read Calvin too you know.

So, do any of these verses plainly show that there is some mystery that we might have to appeal to? I would rather appeal to mystery then make the mistake that Job did, which God chided him for. However, God showed Job that allowing Satan to do what he did was ultimately for his benefit in the end.
I'm not following your logic here. You seem to be saying that because some things in the Bible are mysterious, therefore your hermeneutic is correct???

I do want to say that in going through the posts on our first discussion, I did see on a post that I did mis-represent you when I asserted that you said that you are claiming to not have presuppositions. And you were right, you did not say that you didn't.

So, for what it's worth, I do apologize for that.
Now you are taking the Michael.

You are saying that after calling me a liar more than once after I had expressly denied it three times. It does not appear to have been a mistake on your part that you only now see you made on going over it again. I expressly denied it and pointed it out to you and you still called me a liar. That was deliberate or reckless on your part.

And that wasn't the only thing in which you misrepresented me or ignored me.

Again, I don't see how anyone can trust your interpretation of texts 3000 years old and in another language if you can't get this kind of thing right.
 

BrianJOrr

New member
As you say, that is a separate discussion. Whether we get around to discussing is unlikely at the moment.

And once again you misrepresent me. Or at very least exaggerate or twist.
Because I only used the word 'temptation' in reference to Satan tempting David.

So, what was God doing then? How do you know it is not the same as Satan? They are the same texts. If you can't go to other texts, then how are you to resolve this problem?

No. The problem I have is getting you to accept what I say at face value and not distort it.

But the face-value understanding of these verses creates an inconsistency in God's Word. One verse says God did it; the other says Satan did. You can't say Satan tempted David to sin here but God did not tempt David to sin—that is arbitrary.

By your interpretive method, we cannot look outside of these texts to get a fuller understanding of what is going on. So, if I just follow your way, in this example, All I can say is that God incited David to sin, and Satan incited David to sin.

My purpose in showing the meaning of 'incite' was to show that there was nothing forcing about it. You say that I have misunderstood Calvinism here. That is another discussion.

You still haven't resolved the tension. Who incited David? The face-value reading of each text tells us that Satan did and that God did? But you only want to ascribe the temptation to be from Satan; why not ascribe it to God?

As I said, there is no problem. You are making up the problem yourself.

Again, you still have not resolved the tension.


Nope. Again. It is your hermeneutic that is faulty. When God tested Abraham (Heb 11, I believe) same Greek word as James 1:13. This absolutely refutes your point. Absolutely.

You said:

The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. . . . Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.

So, now you are jumping around to random passages with the same word being used but clearly different contexts? One is about God's nature and the other is about God's testing Abraham. You are changing how you interpret now?

Your only possible defence here is that the word peiradzomenos (from peiradzo) is being used in a different sense. And if you choose to take that defence then you are left with 2 possibilities
1. Special pleading
2. Abandon your hermeneutic of letting scripture interpret scripture because if you want to justify two different meanings of peiradzo then you can only resort to using the immediate context of each as evidence.

Neither; I am trying to properly represent God as biblically as possible by going to James 1:13; its not subterfuge, as you word it. The context of that passage has to do with God's nature and that he cannot tempt anyone to sin. Your use of Heb. 11 is irrelevant. We both agree that God did not 'tempt' David to sin. So, how else are you to support that assertion (that God did not tempt; Satan tempted) without using other Scriptures speaking of God's character to resolved that issue? If you don't, you must concede that both Satan and God tempted David to sin.

Sure. I might say that. In answer to your question. But that was not what I said before. And it doesn't get you off the hook for misrepresenting what I actually did say.

Go on then, where have I made a claim of saying what the Bible teaches?
Where?

I didn't ask you to.

Seriously? Anytime you present to someone what you believe the Bible teaches, reveals, demonstrates, shows us, or whatever synonym you want to use—regarding your relational theology—you are asserting that that is what the Bible teaches.

And I don't ask others to either. Because I present all what I know in front of them. So they can see for themselves. I don't ask them to trust me. I consider that being manipulative.

You present your views because you want people to trust what you say to be true. Why else would you even present your views to anyone on the Bible? Not too mention that you believe so many people have been led astray into the teachings of Calvinism and the divisive creeds throughout the years. Come on, guy; Seriously? We all present what we believe to be what the Bible teaches, looking to get people to see 'the truth' as we see it. Why else would you be so indignant about Reformed theology and any 'doctrinal' system? I never came off about open theism the way you and others have when sharing their thoughts about Calvinism. I don't have the disdain for open theology and those who follow it, like you and many others appear to have for Calvinists.

My point is that if you can't understand the words that I write then how are you going to understand ancient texts? You haven't given me an answer to this.

You obviously didn't learn much from the 1-1 I had with Lon, which you say you read. I said

It was quite long; I should cruise through it again. It just seems like you are talking over me and I am talking over you.

See above. James 1:13 and Hebrews 11 absolutely refute your hermeneutic as regards David's taking of the census.

I don't see how; you still have not resolved it and you jumped to a random, contextually irrelevant passage to support your absolute refutation.

Also, you have not shown that you are a finite creature.

That sounds a little gnostic, but I don't want to presume too much and misread what your are saying.

I'm not following your logic here. You seem to be saying that because some things in the Bible are mysterious, therefore your hermeneutic is correct???

Nope. I would just rather not go further than the Bible leads me. I would rather be safe than be a heretic, like those Peter spoke of.

Again, I don't see how anyone can trust your interpretation of texts 3000 years old and in another language if you can't get this kind of thing right.

Ditto.

Oh, you still have not addressed my question regarding Genesis 3:15.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So, what was God doing then? How do you know it is not the same as Satan? They are the same texts. If you can't go to other texts, then how are you to resolve this problem?

All your rhetorical questions are just shooting in the air. There isn't a problem. God wasn't tempting David to sin. Satan was, as he likes to do, but God wasn't.

I don't ask people to trust me, except possibly in extreme situations. I am intellectual. I believe in thought. I believe in people doing things because they want to. I believe in people being convinced in their own minds. I believe in personal growth.
Or are you going to call me a liar again?

You believe in what you call 'pastoring'. You think that because you are on the front lines you need to feed people, you need to cook for them, you need to fight their battles.
I don't believe that. I believe in strengthening people so that they can understand it for themselves, even if their understanding ends up different from mine.
I might even argue with them.
But I won't ask them to trust me.
That is condescending, patronising and ultimately soul-destroying.
What I think you are doing is not pastoring but posturing.

This is where you admit that your hermeneutic is faulty. This is where you admit that every passage must be read in its own proper context:

So, now you are jumping around to random passages with the same word being used but clearly different contexts? One is about God's nature and the other is about God's testing Abraham. You are changing how you interpret now?
 
Last edited:
Top