Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: quadrant
Others stand on the Word, just as you claim to. What makes your stand the correct one and theirs wrong? You have attempted to show me where they are wrong. Your arguments are unpersuasive, theirs convince.

Well, I think I have answered your questions. I have admitted my fallibility; the possibility that I may be wrong. I have said that I am willing to have my views examined in light of the Word of God.

You are not persuaded by my arguments. That is fine. You respond by appealing to "experts" who disagree with my view. This is not a matter of 51% vs. 49%. Recall the cry of the early church, Athanasius contra mundum. Just like Athanasius and Luther, I’m right until someone comes along and conclusively shows me to be wrong. The alternative is a kind of debilitating schizophrenia on theological matters. I have checked my views with the creeds and councils of the Church. They fit without any distortion of either.

In response I have asked a very simple question regarding your statement, I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old. I asked you in what way then is the old covenant still in effect? And your biblical basis for such a conclusion.

You seem reluctant to answer. But I see why:

As a layman I am not competent to debate Scripture.

Then, sadly, you are forced to reply on "experts" to do your thinking for you. You must have your own version of the Roman magisterium to tell you what to believe.

But I am also a "layman". Does that make me unqualified to debate these issues?

Why then did you jump into the fray in the first place?

I tell you this, when I read the Apostles of Nicene Creeds, I read nothing of Dispensationalism. Your arguments are simply unimportant to the Truth of Jesus as Messiah.

How can you be so sure when you are admittedly not competent to debate the issue? Why would you adopt and (to a degree) defend a system that you cannot support to those who might question you on it?

Earlier, in response to many passages of Scripture I gave to demonstrate how the new covenant displaced the old and how all those who believe in Christ are the true children of Abraham you said, None, not one, of the passages you cite revokes the Abrahamic covenant.

On what objective basis do you make such a claim?

And recall you were the one who jumped on this topic when you began, The argument - as I understand it - is not factual., and you proceeded to talk about the Garden of Eden and gifts, etc. No actual Scripture references were given.

I don’t mean for you to take this personally. I enjoy discussing these issues. Perhaps we can learn from one another.

32 posted on 11/11/2008 8:37:52 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: topcat54
I am not equipped to debate the fine points of Bible interpretation. I am as Lewis labels it: a mere Christian. But I know people who are great Bible scholars, and they disagree with you. They are intelligent men, and I'm certain they would not proclaim any doctrine that could not be supported by the Word of God.
Let me ask you, when you get to heaven, do you believe you will be questioned by God as to your view of this particular matter? Do you believe that your salvation rests on your interpretation of this matter?
If the answer to these questions is no, why is it such an issue for you. Admit as I have that this is a matter of interest for theologians but of little practical concern for mere Christians.
I chose to believe the Abrahamic covenant still exists. I believe that the New Covenant does not eliminate the Old, and that the area we call the Holy Land was set aside by God for the Jewish people - then, now, and until Jesus returns.
Also, I believe the Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah as promised in the Old Testament. I believe that Jesus is the Lamb of God who died for the sins of the world and whom God raised from the dead. I believe that Jesus is God. I believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and is the second person of the Trinity.
I used to argue with Catholic friends all the time about the Immaculate Conception, whether Mary had any children other than Jesus, and the Assumption of Mary. I respect them. I hope they respect me.
I agree its not a matter of 51%-49% or any ratio at all.
33 posted on 11/11/2008 9:05:50 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson