Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by Crabtownboy, Mar 26, 2015.
Good question. Review the link and decide if you need to change your theology in any way.
…..All good, true, lasting theology can be boiled down to Jesus Christ and his cross (1 Corinthians 2:1–2). If the crucified Son of God is not at the very center of everything you believe about God, your theology has lost its balance, its anchor, and its meaning. No, we say with Paul, “Far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians 6:14)……
If you really believe this, why don't you focus more on it ? I never see you mention his death, or resurrection. I only see you post from sites denying it, questioning it, redefining it. And you only ever mention his "teachings" in attacks on conservatives.
I find this disingenuous coming from you. I read your link, and thought to myself, "if only".
Practice what you preach.
That was a great article CTB. People too often put reading about and arguing for Christ ahead of being like Christ...defending God instead of being godly. You can often tell by someone's willingness to insult or demean someone "for the name of Christ" that they have made ideology (theology, politics, etc.) an idol.
Some folks make an idol of themselves, and claim all theology to be static.
I agree with you.
Also many make Paul into an idol. Have you noticed how often Paul is quoted in threads and how seldom Christ is quoted on topics. We have to fit what Paul said within the teaching of Christ or we are very prone to make serious errors.
The examples of how Christ lived his life, the teaching of Christ all show that his primary emphasis was on how the faith of a person is played out in the way the love or do not love others, in the way they treat or mistreat others. Living a godly life is much harder than simple saying of "I believe ...." that require nothing in how that life is lived.
Paul is quoted so often simply because he dealt with the NT church directly. Christ did not. He was dealing with Israel. That is not making Paul an idol it is holding all scripture equally and recognizing the genre of the books and passages in order to deal with them correctly. Liberals care little for any of Paul's writings because he dealt directly with the NT churches and he left little room for grey areas. Scripture is scripture and it is all equal. Failure to recognize that stems from a low view of scripture and the idolatry of personal agenda's based on a liberal world view.
A lot of us who do that feel Paul's writings in the N.T. are inspired. Do you deny the inspiration of Paul's writings ? Which ones, in particular ?
And you have a perverted way of treating others. Calling people racists, and bigots because of a political difference definitely puts you outside any of Christ's teachings.
Do you mean all of his writings or only those where he says "This is God speaking?"
[quoteAnd you have a perverted way of treating others. Calling people racists, and bigots because of a political difference definitely puts you outside any of Christ's teachings.[/QUOTE]
No their words condemn them. The truth is the truth even when it is uncomfortable.
I see you are putting parameters on a question that does not need them.
Tell me, please, SPECIFICALLY which of Paul's writings you feel are not inspired.
The same goes for you. Answer my question, as asked, please.
Amen and well stated.
Let's put it simple for you. I believe that Paul was correct in what he wrote. When he said it was God, it was God. When he said, "This is me [Paul] speaking" it was he, Paul speaking.
Don't you believe Paul was right and knew what he was writing?
ROFL, says the man who ignores 98.98888% of all questions.
Please answer my question. I answered your.
Your appreciation of the Desiring God article would be limited by what they would say about your deficient and wrong view of God's inspiration and inerrancy of Paul's writing. They would say you are misreading the article and reading into it your own errant views. Check out John Piper's view sometime.
He would think your conclusions are against Scripture, which is correct.
He most definitely would.
You have not answered my question. And your question makes no sense.
No you didn't. Not even close. And I know you never will.
I gave you a chance.
Because they are.
And I think Piper's view of God is not correct. I heard him say that all rapes, all child molestations, all wife beatings were approved of by God. Piper makes God into a monster with his hyper-Calvinism.
Tom, in your opinion when Paul says this is me speaking what did he mean?
BroC never answers such questions, but I expect you will give my your opinion in a rational, polite way.
I asked you for specific verses you feel are not inspired. You have not given any. Not one. If you aren't going to answer, it's highly hypocritical to chastise others for it.
I think you want to speak in generalities, that way you can throw out ANY of Paul's writings you don't like. Like his ban on women preachers, for instance. You hate that command, so you'll simply claim it isn't inspired. It would be great if you would give an example, but since you won't, and I know how hateful you can be to people who disagree with you, I think I can safely assign motive.
Your lack of any concrete theology is most definitely your idol.
I'll say 3 things.
1. I think what Paul is saying is that "No, Jesus didn't say this, but this is what I am saying and it is every bit as inspired and inerrant as what Jesus said." I believe and, I will say, most if not all inerrantists would say that Paul's statement is an even stronger statement of authority.
2. You don't believe the Bible to be God's inerrant and inspired Word because you want to pick and choose what you believe and what you don't believe.
3. I'll take john Piper's theology over yours every day.
Paul's writings have more authority that the words of Jesus?
What do you mean when you use the word inerrant? I have heard a number of definitions of what different people say they mean when they say "The Bible is inerrant".
I need to know what you mean before I can answer in any meaningful way.
I would be higly surprised if you said otherwise.
1. I am saying that they are of equal authority.
2. By inerrant, I would say that it is incapable of error and fully accurate in the original autographs. You think the Scriptures are inerrant in the areas you agree with.
3. You will have no meaningful answer. I have been reading your words for years now and, in spite of what your tag says, the wrong views they express have not changed at all.