Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Chiefsinners Subduing Creation derail

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Read the account in Acts 5 where Peter makes clear the real problem.
    Seriously? You can't see his error?

    Comment



    • Originally posted by Chiefsinner View Post
      They said this about all Jesus's followers.


      I have to admit, you ARE entertaining!
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Chiefsinner View Post
        Seriously? You can't see his error?
        Peter made no error. At least, not in this case.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          Where did the misconception that the problem was that A & S didn't give all of the money come from? Peter even states that they lied to the Holy Spirit, and God does not like fraud.
          Read my post carefully. It doesn't say what you think it says.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Peter made no error. At least, not in this case.
            Seriously. You thought I was thinking about Peter?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
              Why do you keep thinking I am an ignoramus?
              Sorry, I just went back and checked.

              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
              Can y'all take this to a new thread please? It's getting too debatey for a light hearted thread about being homesick for heaven and feeling like one is an alien.

              I thought it read "light headed". My bad.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chiefsinner View Post
                Seriously. You thought I was thinking about Peter?
                Seriously, I don't take you seriously at all, and was just pulling your chain.

                Blog on!!!
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Seriously, I don't take you seriously at all, and was just pulling your chain.

                  Blog on!!!
                  Ok, so you really thought I was posting about Peter. A blog would be pointless for those who are reading comprehension challenged, no?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chiefsinner View Post
                    Hi CB, could you post elsewhere, please. Only heavyweights preferred here.
                    It's not proper to comment on a woman's weight.
                    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                      It's not proper to comment on a woman's weight.
                      She mentioned her preference for light chat. Not consistently though. Lightly. Go through the thread.
                      Last edited by footwasher; 09-01-2020, 02:32 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                        It's not proper to comment on a woman's weight.
                        He thought Ibwas an intellectual lightweight.
                        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                          Ok, so you really thought I was posting about Peter.
                          No.

                          A blog would be pointless for those who are reading comprehension challenged, no?
                          People generally follow a blog because they like and trust the blogger. You'd have to win an audience first.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                            My theory is that Paul was warning believers not to let their fear win over their loyalty to God, when God required them to prove that loyalty. This is a very common situation: Paul wants them to win, because the evidence given to them that God is reliable is overwhelming. However, some will allow fear that God will not always rescue them, to come to the fore, and they fail when they are tested, like Ananias and Sapphira, who instead of giving up all their possessions, kept a part of it, just in case. Their loyalty to the world was not surrendered. In addition, they lied to the Holy Spirit, that they had indeed repented, meta noia-ed, changed their mind, had had a different spirit, like Caleb. What’s concocted about this? The fact that there are several passages that support this view is proof that it is true.
                            So you think God will always rescue a believer? Then why didn't he rescue Paul from the Romans? Why didn't he take away Paul's thorn in his side? Why do good Christians end up dying of cancer?

                            The only thing God promises to rescue us from is our sin. The rest is his decision and his plan. Sometimes he will indeed rescue the believer, other times his "grace is enough" - and other times it is time to call the believer home.



                            You said I was practicising eisegesis. Wake up and smell the coffee. There are other hermeneutic methods other than grammatico-historical, which many scholars are saying is problematic, for various linguistic reasons. Read the article I gave showing that midrash was the predominant interpretational technique for the NT authors.

                            The New Perspective’s main teaching is that Luther was wrong, when he said Paul taught against works righteousness. Paul was teaching against works of the law, mainly circumcision, which identified children of Abraham, entitling them to covenantal blessings, confirmed by the Qumran scrolls. Luther was biased, because he was fighting against the teaching that the RCC was the repository of the grace earned by the good works of their saints, available for purchase. Of course, he also did not have QMMT4 available, to guide him.
                            ok I just looked up the New Perspective from the link Cow Poke gave. It sounds like works based salvation to me. But the whole "subdue creation" and "God will always rescue the believer" sounds like that is all you. Correct?


                            Creation was like the model plane kit your dad bought you, incomplete, which were projects he used to bond with you in completing together, just like Adam bonded with God in subduing creation. It is like that incomplete hot rod in the garage, just crying out to be finished:
                            Say what? Creation was perfect when God made it. It was good. It only became imperfect after the fall and when God cursed it.


                            Romans 8:1019For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

                            Adam was supposed to subdue creation, but first he had to subdue himself, because he represented creation in microcosm. By seeing the "out of the normal" works of God, Adam was supposed to be awed into submission, just like Rahab and Nicodemus were awed into submission.
                            That is NOT what the verse is saying. You are reading into it again.


                            My answer is in response to your statement that Wright does not teach subduing of creation. He does. Humanity must reflect the image of God into creation, so that it is changed, tamed, perfected, completed, praises God, like Rahab and Nicodemus.

                            Quote
                            It works because humans are made to reflect the wise, loving creator into his world. Our knowledge and speech are designed vocationally to do two things which reinforce one another: to worship him by telling the story of creation and covenant, of new creation and new covenant, and then to bring his wonderful purposes to fruition in the world. That is what it means to be made in God’s image; we are angled mirrors, designed to reflect creation’s praises to the creator and the creator’s wisdom into his creation.

                            https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/09/05/...ew-of-reality/
                            Well if NT Wright believes the "new perspective" as you and that wiki page claims, then he is wrong. very wrong.


                            Every baptism should have the stipulation that Christ expects the candidate to believe His teaching, that creation is subdued by picking up a cross and being rescued. No one can have eternal life unless he picks up his own cross and follows Jesus. This is confirmed by the Holy Spirit, which gives revelation about God’s willingness to rescue, like He did in the incidents that Abraham, Joshua, Caleb and Peter experienced. You then enter Rest, if you prove your belief is real, as shown in the tests they faced and passed. In the ministry of Christ, that test is giving up loyalty to possessions, Mammon, and changing it to loyalty to God.
                            This is why you are unorthodox. You are adding to the gospel. Adding your own conditions on salvation. Stuff you just made up.

                            Sure you have to change your loyalty from the world to Christ. You no longer belong to the world, but to God's Kingdom. There is no "test" you have to pass before you are saved.

                            You have to know you are a sinner and want forgiveness, then call upon God to save you through Jesus' sacrifice. You "change sides" from the world to God's side. He is your king. Your life is committed to him. That's it. You are saved. You could drop dead right after praying for salvation and you would be in heaven. You don't even HAVE to be baptized. Baptism is a ceremony where you basically show the world your loyalty to Christ. If you are a Christian you will obey and be baptized. But if you can't be baptized you are still saved.



                            You must understand that this teaching would empty a church in a jiffy. Have you wondered why there is not even a single honest commentary about Luke 14:33?

                            "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
                            So did you give up all of your possessions? How are you communicating on Tweb without a phone or a computer?





                            Why does TWeb have his view on its title? Why did The Arminian have an entire blog here, The Romans Clearinghouse, promoting his books? This man is reforming the Reformation.
                            What view on what title? "Heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world." -- N.T. Wright? That? We thought it was a clever quote. It doesn't mean we follow NT Wright as some guru.

                            Why did Jesus teach in parables? Why was the man born blind?
                            You seem to be wandering again.

                            John 9:1Now as Jesus was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth, 2and His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him.

                            So that the works of God would be displayed in him! That's why important parts are left out, so that the works of God can be displayed!


                            Wow, that was awesome. Oftentimes I paint myself into a corner making huge claims about an interpretation, and expecting to be roasted, found wanting, but God always saves. Always. I could point you to some amazing saves on many discussion forums I take part in, if you want, just to demonstrate this cross/resurrection method, modus operandi, what Scripture calls the Way. Booyah!
                            Wait you think that God left out how to be saved from the bible because of the parable of the blind man? So YOU could discover it 2000 years later? Meaning everyone else got it wrong all that time and are probably in hell? You seem to think very highly of yourself for using such a humble name

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Wait you think that God left out how to be saved from the bible because of the parable of the blind man? So YOU could discover it 2000 years later? Meaning everyone else got it wrong all that time and are probably in hell? You seem to think very highly of yourself for using such a humble name
                              Same could be said of JimL in his own version of Matt 16:28 ---- ALL the theologians and commentators got it wrong, but 2,000 years later, JimL has it figured out!
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • By the way, James Dunn is behind a lot of this "New Perspective" stuff.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Larry Serflaten, 02-02-2024, 04:25 AM
                                1 response
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by tabibito, 01-31-2024, 06:29 AM
                                18 responses
                                78 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Larry Serflaten, 01-28-2024, 09:31 AM
                                15 responses
                                79 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Larry Serflaten, 01-25-2024, 10:30 AM
                                358 responses
                                1,529 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X