The fight against dogmatism

The explanation is that those things don't exist in the statement. The statement is self evident. There's nothing in it that suggests the person is a theological liberal, nor is there anything in the statement that suggest the person has abandoned biblical truth, nor is there anything in the statement that suggests that the person denies the Bible as the Word of God.

 

Ok, so I see you just like to reassert your take on it as your reason.

I see I wasted my time explaining myself.

 

Higher Criticism is a Darwinistic view of the Scriptures. Inspiration is relegated to the margins, and the sole criterion of truth is not "Thus saith the Lord," but "Thus saith the critic."

Its basic assumptions are arbitrary, and the discoveries of the last two centuries has for the most part revealed it to be fantastic.

 

You're asking for something that doesn't exist. It's like asking "show me biblical support for the claim that airplanes aren't mentioned in scripture". There is no such thing. In like manner, there's nothing in the statement that suggests the person is a theological liberal, has abandoned biblical truth, or denies the Bible as the Word of God. It's completely missing from the statement.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:That's the funniest work of fiction I've read in a while.

 

John,

You seem to be a fellow that wants to present himself as intelligent. Surely your then smart enough to know the difference between an denotative meaning and a connotation? Please re-read what I wrote. When I read that statement, that is what I read from it. It is what is implied/inferred/connotes to me.

So, playing the denotative/definition card doesn't work with me.

 

Did that. I went back, read the original statement, your view of it, and the original statment once more. There's nothing in the original statement that suggests the person quoted is a theological liberal, has abandoned biblical truth, or denies the Bible as the Word of God. Nothing.

 

Ok, let me illustrate this as it relates to words. Words have more than one meaning. They have denotative meanings, and connotative meanings.

Denotative is definitional. This is what your doing in regards to replying to me in this thread...dealing with definitional/denotative meaning.

Connotative is inference. It is how something means to me, or the meaning I ascribe to a word/phrase. This is what I did in my reply.

John, it is therefore incorrect to argue against a connotation with a denotation. That doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to learn why/how a person arrived at their connotation, and then explain your own.

If that is too difficult to understand then I am not sure we could get to point where we could actually have a conversation.

 

I understand how you came to your connotative conclusion, and I respect your POV. The original statement, however, doesn't support it.

 

Ok, I tried to explain. I guess we just can't have a connotative conversation on the subject.

 

You can't discuss what doesn't exist. The statement doesn't support your assertion, whether one applies the rules of annotation or connotation to it.

 

Ring aroudn the rosies and we all fall down.

Not annotation, but denotation. I am starting to believe you dont really want to discuss something with someone, just try to win an argument.

 

There's no argument. The statement doesn't support your claim. You're claiming something that doesn't exist.

 

Do you just like to hear yourself speak when you read your own words?

 

Are you a better judge than Jesus' disciples? They did not of whom Jesus was speaking about when he talked about Judas.

How do you know you are of the elect and not just someone who is lulled into thinking something he is not?

When I read of the church just a few years supporting slavery and segregation how can you say the church is more secularized? Segregation has been a practice among churches for many years. In America we have many churches for each ethnic group rather than a church that includes many ethnic groups.

 

This is one of the most untrue statements ever made.

 

Shouldn't we be dogmatic? Won't the Lord himself at times ensure we are......

Ezek 3:7-9 But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted.
8 Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads.
9 As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.
KJV

Oh, wait, this was spoken to the house of Israel (to whom spoken). And I'm sure context, higher criticism, and proper hermeneutics and exegesis can be used to show that it is not for modern man to be dogmatic (hardheaded as you will).

 

The problem is that too many have been dogmatic about ignorance and things they have not studied for themselves and know little or nothing about. However they have been rather timid about discipleship and evangelism.

 

Actually, higher criticism would say that Ezekiel didn't write these words, that they were penned much later in fragments over many years from many different contributors, receiving it's final form from a final redactor as a history viewed from a certain point of view. Higher Criticism allows the concept of inspiration as the eddy and tide of forces that resulted in the form of the Scriptures as they exist today, much like the Theistic Darwinist says that God used evolution.

It purposefully leaves the door open to consider that the point of view of the final redactor, and even that of the imaginary sources, may have been fallacious, and that the forces that gave us the Scriptures are still operating to revise and reinterpret them.

 

Then you're interpreting scripture incorrectly. While many passages were intended to be taken literally, there are numerous passages in scripture which were not intended to be taken literally.

The assertion that hermeneutics is unnecessary to interpret scripture is one of the most untrue statements ever made.

Actually dogmatism says Ezekiel didn't write these words, but that God wrote the words.