“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” – 2 Timothy 4:2

If you find that a biblical instruction, may I encourage you to do so.

If not, farewell – but know that you have left something important undone.

Before we can discuss the law and Paul’s use of it, you have to understand what grace is. Contrasting law with grace will not make any sense otherwise.

In Truth and Love,

Ernie

Sorry, I am not ranting and I am not raving…If I give you texts you will proceed to explain to me why I am wrong. If i tell you the truth, I am ranting and raving.

This pretty much removes me..But what I said is absolutely true–The Jews of the first century could not see it nor believe it about themselves–neither can you.

Since this is my last post–Royce–It is true that I on many issues would prefer to err on the side of caution than out and out error.

But I point out one more time both sides–you the progressives and the ultra conservatives are in the same exact boat–It is sinking.

Actually in these posts I spoke my mind quite clearly–but I did so knowing that I could go back and review previous conversations along this line and pretty much predict the outcome.

It was as expected..but I felt you folks at least needed an opportunity to think–you are not and what is sad you will never ever figure it out.
Jays response tells me that he is clueless as to what I am telling him and how to fix it.

Richard GF

If you could write in a coherent way so that the average person like me can understand what you are saying you might not be so difficult to read.

I think, you think, you have the same views as the conservatives who have written here you just can’t say it as well.

Royce

I asked for an argument from scripture. You respond with a rant and insults.

you stated
other words, the conservatives made absolutely no attempt to do what you say they should have (define the terms so they could be compared side by side), and instead had as their agenda (hmmm) making Jay and Todd see how wrong they were.

Excuse me–I have very little use for either side here
but how are they different in their approach to this situation than your side?

Ok–let’s try this–Who asked specifically for this type and kind of study? And if you want the other side to have the right attitude–shouldn’t it be suggested and tried????

And, I when what passes for bible study smells–well, it smells.

In the communication process with my kids–I am very clear as to what I would like and why–well, not always the why but more times than not–it is included.

Nor do I get in a hurry to get a kid to make progress nor do I demand that said progess be after my liking..

When I study the scriptures with folks–I attempt to begin not where I am but where they are..Somehow I do not think that happened here.

Lastly, rather than seeking immediate agreement–we should practise our communication processes first and not get angry when the other side cannot grasp your side.

After all, if they grasped your side–they would be on your side and not the other…isn’t that true.

And if you are in it to win–don’t bother to even start–that is something else but it is not discipleship and it does not describe mathes at all.

Again, look at the jews–the two major ruling parties fought and killed each other rather than resolve the idea that on some things they could be in error.
Richard GF

Could it be that the responses were not what you wanted?

Let me tell you a little something about Cain and Abel
It fits this situation far too well.

Rome was not built in one day or in a hundred.

There is an excellent reason forthe example of Cain and Abel. Did you ever ask why? Phil gave up on you?

You followed the same old pattern of response–that does get tiring after a bit.
Your determined attitude toward the destruction of the individual texts–is not going to get it.

Now, you are not following me at all–you have already shut down–cannot get the other side at all and you are not alone. So what do you expect??

you stated—I challenge any conservative to go back to the posts on 1 John, Hebrews, and Romans and show where Todd and I have misconstrued them.

Really?–Your wagonwheel rut theology is showing

Somewhere along the line folks need to remember that it not the fact that scriptures are used–it is how they are used–and, thinking about that–just how did you use yours? Better question–Did it work? And, if it didn’t–isn’t that the fault of the other side??
And you are clueless as to why it didn’t…

Richard GF

Greg, Phil, or Mac made assertions and cited scripture to support them.

We’d respond that the scriptures they cited do not say what they claim.

They’d then ignore our arguments about the Bible and make a new assertion (sometimes contradictory to the previous assertion) and assert new scriptures as support.

We’d then show how the scriptures don’t support the new assertion either (and sometimes how they are now contradicting what they said before).

And on and on. They routinely ignored all discussion about what the Bible actually says.

For example, we repeatedly challenged their misuse of the word “truth” as used in the New Testament and offered extensive support for our view. Not once did they challenge our arguments from scripture. Rather, they just kept on making the assertion.

Similarly, early on, when Phil wrote an essay arguing for his position, I responded by going through and showing that nearly every scripture he cited didn’t say what he claimed. He never responded.

http://graceconversation.com/2009/04/21/proposition-one-response-from-phil/
http://graceconversation.com/2009/04/26/exegesis-of-texts-cited-in-proposition-one-response-from-phil-part-1/
http://graceconversation.com/2009/04/26/exegesis-of-texts-cited-in-proposition-one-response-from-phil-part-2/
http://graceconversation.com/2009/04/26/exegesis-of-texts-cited-in-proposition-one-response-from-phil-part-3/

And I don’t see conservative commenters arguing our interpretation of the scripture. We argue our case and we get as a response something like: “What about Cain and Abel?” Well, rather than building a New Testament theology on Cain and Abel, I suggest we go back to Romans, 1 John, Hebrews, and Galatians. What about them?

I have yet to receive a single challenge to our interpretation of those key passages. I went so far as to ask Paden a while back just to read 1 John, and he wouldn’t even agree to that.

If dialogue is to have any chance of success, it will require both sides to talk about the same scriptures at the same time.

I challenge any conservative to go back to the posts on 1 John, Hebrews, and Romans and show where Todd and I have misconstrued them.

“What would of been the difference–if you had allowed your opposites to define apostasy and repentance–then place it along side of yours and iron it out so eveyone would be on the same page.

Further when you looked at any text…to place both understandings side by side and work it out prior to continuing on.”

I missed the part where Jay and Todd forbid Mac and Phil from doing just that. Why couldn’t the conservatives have done that with what Jay & Todd submitted? Why did the conservatives absolutely have to submit their definitions first for there to be a side-by-side comparison? The fact is that a definition of terms was laid out by Jay and Todd, and though they had every opportunity, Mac and Phil refused to lay down anything for comparison and simply chose to attack.

You yourself admit this when you say: “If you go back are re read all of tha stuff you will see the conservatives TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the conservatives made absolutely no attempt to do what you say they should have (define the terms so they could be compared side by side), and instead had as their agenda (hmmm) making Jay and Todd see how wrong they were.

This isn’t meant to be an attack on you by any stretch; I’m just pointing out what appear to me to be flaws in your argument against Jay and Todd.