Inter is lost somewhere in "OBLIVION." However, I would like Danoh to explain/decipher his side of the argument?
ECT Only a D'ist would poo-poo Holford's victory
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
andyc
New member
:chuckle:
Yeah I used to take you guys seriously until I mentioned words like "works" and "repentance".
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Middelmann quote is from PRO-EXISTENCE on how the Bible is part of all we know as truth, because all truth is God's. The Schaeffer quote is from HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT.
They are at least two people who caught things before we slipped entirely into modern religious thought.
If you don't see what they are saying or why, your Christian faith is as private and subjective as the modern movers and shakers would like it to be. It is supposed to be subversive, but they want it tamed.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Good for you. the question here is why anyone would trash the victory Holford accomplished against the leading atheist of his day (Payne) simply because Holford correctly taught the predicted destruction of Jerusalem. That's what Danoh does. He makes Holford out to be an outcast or idiot.
Methinks because it destroys 2P2P.
It's not nice to pee on people, unless they got stung by a jellyfish.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Holford's focus, you incompetent; emphasized a walk, or belief in "thus saith the Lord" based on a "what saith the Scripture" by sight.
Just as when some former this or that emphasizes "how the Lord changed me, and now I don't ____ anymore..."
Such a "testimony" puts the focus on the outward, not on the actual, only issue - on the inward - that man, no matter how bad off or great his former life was, was and or is...lost.
Likewise with the need to dig up dead man's bones on the part of some, in same their fool attempt in their ignorance, to prove the Bible true out of their ignorance of the real issue.
This is sort of like the issue I have with those FEW fellow Mads who assert the Romans were not in the Body when Paul wrote to them; just because he asserts he is "ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also."
What does he do?
Does he merely preach the gospel to them?
No.
Instead he writes what amounts to one heck of a lengthy "Bible conference."
Instead, he does what he said he'd meant by that - he proceeds to go into this long, long treatise that ends up the very basis of all the issues the Believer is to be FULLY established in if he is to be a FULLY well rounded ambassador of Christ in the mission work in ALL its CORE issues as to the state of man - why this, why that, how this here, works in relation to that over there, and so on.
What he does is he establishes the heck out of any believer who invests serious time in Romans.
Almost as if he had believed " wow; from what I have heard from my fellow laborers WITHIN THEIR MIDST these guys are not the Corinthians! Their faith is spoken of throughout the Empire! Wow! These guys are ready for the whole of it all - all its aspects! Towards our mutual faith as ambassodrs in ALL its' aspects! And at Rome! The very heart of Rome's vast Empire! Man o man the outreach possible to all points from Rome through them! I am ready to preach to them all that my Apostlship among the Gentiles entails! Get them FULLY up to speed in ALL the areas I am sure their witness in the faith throughout the Roman Empire has prepared them for the FULL appreciation of!"
Thus, his "now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel..."
And man is He (God) not only of power to do so in all those MANY MANY areas Romans covers SO WELL, but man o man does He establish one in ALL those areas SO FULLY - snd then some - through The Epistle of Paul to the Romans.
In a manner similar to how some Mads completely misunderstand that; concluding instead, that Romans was written towards getting saved the Romans Paul wrote to, Holford concluded the Word of Truth needed some sort of an outside help towards convincing those who WILLFULLY walk by sight to begin with, in hopes of convincing them otherwise, through their same, willful, walk by sight...wisdom of words.
This, you incompetent, has nothing to do with some sort of a fear that Mad might be proven wrong.
For the true Madist is Cessationist.
He not only asserts Cessationist belief, but does so because he FULLY understands its basis.
To the extent that he does not simply parrot it; while every so often relying on a faith based on sight.
You, Interplanner, do NOT have a clue where ANY Madist is coming from - on ANY issue; you store bought parrot.
I am not the one who holds to a walk by sight 1948.
It is you, and your Preterist kind; you clown, who need to hold to a walk by sight 70AD as YOUR "proof" that the Bible is true.
The true Bible BELIEVER walks by faith NOT by sight.
Why?
2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.
:doh:
Right Divider
Body part
Attention TOL: this is the idiot that thinks the Hebrew word "restful/peaceful" should be translated TOXIC.
Right Divider
Body part
He thinks the NT is Matt 1:1 through the end of Revelation. He's a poser.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't use neither. How's your Vander Laan doing?
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
The point was that there is truth outside the Bible! You are a simpleton. it even says in the Bible that there is truth 'outside of it' in Ps 19: the heavens declare! Rom 1: the nations know the commands of God... You need to loosen up, have a beer, and learn about some history and gain some knowledge.
Why on earth you would oppose a pastor who defeated the leading destructive skeptic of the day is totally beyond my ability to understand you as a Christian. Not only did he oppose; HE WON! And you still have "problems." Your suspicion about church history is even worse!
Interplanner
Well-known member
You foolish literalist. That is not what Christ meant. That is the stupidity of narrow, crass literalism, which by the way, the Pharisees did 50X IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. How do we eat his flesh? etc. That's how ridiculous their comprehension was.
The place was decimated in the greatest horror of antiquity and best documented.
When Christ said 'he on whom this stone will fall will be crushed' did not mean that every Jewish leader that missed messiah was going to be found under a stone! It meant that they would perish with the old covenant though.
Come on Inter, admit it.
It bothers you to no end to be told the obvious - that you have wasted both a large part of your mind and finances on the wisdom of men...that the Bible is simply not..your go to Book "about."
Fess up...
Or are you just an...Interplanner...
Up to no good like that shining one who interplanted himself into that garden so long ago, Mr. Yea hath God said...
musterion
Well-known member
You sound upset.
Listen...it's really very simple.
When you refuse to take His statement literally, you do two things. (1) You're saying you don't believe the Bible as written, and (2) you automatically lose ALL authority to tell other people what His Words actually DO mean.
If you don't believe it as written -- and you clearly don't -- no one has any reason to give your opinions the slightest attention.
Also known as reading and believing what the Word actually says, not what some anonymous theologue SAYS it says.
I have no reason to believe your claim that I cannot take His Word about the destruction of Jerusalem literally, just because doing so destroys Josephus as the go-to source for preterism.
False analogy, and reeks of desperate reaching. Luke 19:44 says what it says, not what you say it says.
Except for the stone towers that Josephus said remained standing, in contradiction of Luke 19:44.
Christ SAID not one stone would be left standing atop another in all of Jerusalem. You don't believe Him? Fine. What He SAID still did not happen in 70.
Reminders:
1. If you won't believe what Christ SAID, you have no authority to tell anyone else what Christ actually meant.
2. You cannot cite Josephus as your go-to historical source while refusing to acknowledge the contradiction he himself (unwittingly) documented. Christ said NOTHING would remain intact. Josephus said things remained intact.
I'm sorry that this nukes your whole interpretive outlook, but it's simply the result of your low view of the Bible, which Tetelestai shared.
You don't actually believe it. You believe preterism.
Right Divider
Body part
Point is that YOU force the Bible to say something that IT DOES NOT because of your "outside truth".
Also, I've NEVER said that there is NOT truth outside of the Bible.
I have no idea what pastor that you are talking about.
P.S. You don't even know that "the heaven declare" means if you think that you can interpret the Bible with it.
musterion
Well-known member
Yep.
For all his accusations of pharisaicism, he's the pharisee here, putting his beloved human traditions above the plain Word of God.
Beautifully stated :thumb:
Pastor Idol, ur, I meant Holford...