John's Gospel & Epistles

Are you saying you believe in a "works" salvation?

In order to be saved you must work to understand the plan of salvation?

What about all the poor slobs who aren't as smart as you, Curtis?

Must just be goats, huh?

 

Ron, if anybody ever accuses you of being a good debator, refer them here.

I did not say salvation anywhere in my statement, so you added, misrepresented, and outright lied.

You are not worth talking to.

 

Curtis, do you not believe that salvation comes through hearing the Gospel?

Do you not believe that right doctrine is necessary for salvation?

You said, "Being free from doctrinal error isn't free. You pay for it with vigilance, and testing. See if it's born from above. It requires work."

Putting it all together: according to the above you must work to be free from doctrine error in hearing the Gospel.

If one has doctrine error, would one still be saved?

 

I have caught you lying so many times it's not even funny anymore! Glad to see your true self shining through in this post, though.

God bless,

Grant

 

I don't see the misrepresentation or lie.

I took what you wrote, drew a conclusion, and then asked if that is what you were saying.

 

Curtis

If you are refering to Ron's post #141 of this topic, I only see question marks (?) after each of Ron's statements asking you to clarify his understanding of what was said.

Based on these facts I see no lie only what appears to be a false accusation. Have I misinterpreted the facts? If so I apologize.

Maybe you should consider apologizing to Ron.

This entire board could be more charitable even the discussions between baptist brethren are often uncharitable. When I find myself acting uncharitably here I leave for a while and devote more time to prayer.

As a moderator your actions help set the tone of the board. You have accepted a resonsibility to lead by example and I believe you have failed in your duties. Maybe you should consider redoubling your efforts or resigning.

God Bless

Dennis

 

Well I have thought of resigning, due to time issues.

Nope. I have not recieved an answer to my query, just attempts to make me look bad, but the question goes unanswered.

Why did John omit the assumption, or whatever you wish to name it ?

 

Oh yeah...

The webmaster himself has been happy with my job moderating here, so I suggest you take up any issues suurounding how you feel we should run our board with him.

Somehow I don't think you will.

 

Because the Bible is not an all inclusive history book.

Because not all of revelation is contained in the Bible.

Because revelation comes through the Church.

Because revelation is both written and oral.

Now will you please stop pretending that no one has answered your question?

 

"You are not worth talking to."

This is rude, un-called for and a very poor witness!

 

Not all of revelation is contained in the Bible?

OK, that's a good one.

I can thus claim that God revealed to me that I am, in fact, a walrus, and that you should give me a million dollars. Right now.

Ridiculous? Why? Because once you remove the measuring stick, my friend, anything is possible.

 

How about chapter and verse to prove that all revelation is contained in Scripture?

Not too far removed from some of the things I have heard from sola scripturists claiming to be getting unique revelations from Scripture.

Very good point. Once the Reformers removed themselves from the teaching authority of the Church (which gave you the Bible by the way) all sorts of new beliefs sprang into being.

You say the Bible is a yardstick, but leave open that any person can interpret it, resulting in uncountable interpretations of the same Scripture. In which case your yardstick may as well be made of rubber since anyone can stretch it any way they wish. (Take the example of premarital sex is a marriage which so recently popped up on the board.)

And as I said repeatedly in another thread, you have no way of knowing if your interpretation of any particular Scripture is right or wrong. Someone else with an opposing interpretation can make the same arguements for being right that you can.

 

Tragic,

What can I say, other than "goo goo g'joob?"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

(Actually, this demonstrates the wonders of the internet -- until I actually had to go look it up, I always thought the lyric was "ku ku kachoo.")

Mark

 

There are many doctrines people fight about. OSAS, pre-trib rapture. One can honestly look at the other's viewpoint, and see how they came to that conclusion. That's why I usually just post what I believe, and leave it at that. It's OK that people disagree, they put their verses up to support their P.O.V.

But I don't see how anybody could see Mary leaving the earth at all, from the pages of the Bible. Tradition, yes I know, tradition. but still, you gotta be smokin' something to see Mary bodily rising from earth, in scripture. It ain't there. It's been added, with no support, other than, "tradition" tells us.

OK, I'll bite, somebody tell me when this tradition started ? Tragic Pizza put up a good post on this, anybody care to expound on this and tell us who started it, and when ?

[ February 12, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

I am curious as to why this attitude doesn't include looking at the Catholic viewpoint of "Tradition", and seeing how we come to the conclusion that is validly held, even if you disagree with the conclusion?

Why such contempt for Tradition?

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

Paul says " I delivered them to you".

Where does Paul give the tradition of the assumption ?

If he didn't give it, what are it's origins ?

Give me an hour, so I can look up those verses, maybe time will allow me to put up a response to those.

 

My question doesn't require research on your part.


"I am curious as to why this attitude doesn't include looking at the Catholic viewpoint of "Tradition", and seeing how we come to the conclusion that is validly held, even if you disagree with the conclusion?

Why such contempt for Tradition?"

 

How about chapter and verse to prove that all revelation is contained in Scripture?

Not too far removed from some of the things I have heard from sola scripturists claiming to be getting unique revelations from Scripture.</font>[/QUOTE]Such as?

Very good point. Once the Reformers removed themselves from the teaching authority of the Church (which gave you the Bible by the way) all sorts of new beliefs sprang into being.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes, it did, and then proceeded to ignore it where convenient.

It is, however, an interpretation of Scripture, and not something created from whole cloth. There is, at least, some measure of control over the fantasies of mankind.

 

I am curious as to why this attitude doesn't include looking at the Catholic viewpoint of "Tradition", and seeing how we come to the conclusion that is validly held, even if you disagree with the conclusion?

Why such contempt for Tradition?

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. </font>[/QUOTE]How about the fact that these words and epistles and traditions were delivered by Paul himself, not some latter individual claiming the office of Paul? How's that work for ya?