ARCHIVE: MacArthur Rant

[billwald]

"My question is this: What was "the gospel" that the twelve were preaching according to Luke 9:6?

"Obviously the twelve were not preaching about Christ's death and resurrection. They didn't know about it yet, and when Jesus later taught them about it he told them to tell no one about it. Peter didn't even believe it when he first heard it! (Matt 16:22; Mark 8:32)

"So what gospel had the twelve been preaching?"

----------------

Must refer back to Luke 9:2 " . . .preach the kingdom of God. . . ."

The meaning of "KoG" must be determined from the first 8 chapters for the statement to make any sense.

 

[Turbo]

billwald, you're on the right track, but can you elaborate a bit? What did it mean exactly to "preach the kingdom of God?"

 

[billwald]

KOG probably referred to the information in the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald

"Parts of the law were clearly not moral in nature."

Not to me. You know the mind of God?

Unresponsive!
I explained why they were symbolic and not moral.

"Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another."

Take a look at

http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/PRESBY.pdf

Essay is "Must a Presbyterian be a Presuppisationalist?"


"This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other."

Deductive logic is a mathematical process that doesn't necessarially relate to the real world. Our world is inductive, Hegelian.

Convenient response isn't it?
Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how, otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything and that what I've said makes a lot of sense.

"You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them."

How about aborting "murdering" an unborn infant to save the life of the mother? Yes, it occasionally happens.

Do you really believe this foolishness?
IF you end a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother after having exhausted all other options then you have not murdered the baby. If you do all that you can to save both the baby and the mother and you are only able to save one, then a tragedy has accured, but not murder.
You will never be forced to do anything immoral in order to keep from doing something else that is immoral.

1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

You may reject the author of this verse but you cannot refute its teaching.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald

KOG probably referred to the information in the Sermon on the Mount.

billwald,

You don't realize it but you are only about 3 feet away from being a dispensationalist.

So close, and yet so far away!

You are also the same distance away from being saved.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Did you accept Paul or did you throw away the writings of Peter and Luke?
Those truly are your only two alternatives.

Originally posted by billwald on another thread

Paul's doctrine is a dead end because Paul fails to differentiate between the various covenants and fails to see that the Mosiac Covenant is (only) a social contract for the people who entered the land of Israel. It has no eternal implications and no application to gentiles living outside the Land.

Well, this is a little disappointing, though I can't say I'm surprised.

And I suppose you still accept the writings of Peter and Luke as inspired. Why? You've been shown that you can't have it both ways. If Paul was a liar and his Gospel did not come from Christ, then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures.

You keep avoiding this point. If you needed some time to think through it and reconsider your postion, that's fine. But I see you're still going around blasting Paul on other threads, so it doesn't seem like you're reconsidering at all.

That is, unless you're leaning toward disregarding the writings of Luke and Peter. If that's the case, please let us know.

 

[billwald]

"Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how,"

www.cityreformed.org/snoke/presby/pdf

says it better than I can.

"otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything"

I don't know everything.

"and that what I've said makes a lot of sense."

It is internally consistant but I disagree that it describes the real situation.


"IF you end a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother after having exhausted all other options then you have not murdered the baby."

But if you havn't then is it murder? Situational ethics!


"1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]."


You are hiding Jews. NAZI trooper asks you if you are hiding Jews. You tell the truth, right?



"You don't realize it but you are only about 3 feet away from being a dispensationalist."

I was a dispensationalist for 30 years but got "reformed."


"You are also the same distance away from being saved."

I have been elect (saved) from before the foundation of the world.

 

[billwald]

"You've been shown that you can't have it both ways. If Paul was a liar"

Paul was not a liar!

"and his Gospel did not come from Christ"

It is a Logical error to connect the two statements. Paul could have misinterpreted what he "received."

He was a missionary, not a theologian. His letters are polemical, not rigorous thesis. I don't think he was as smart as is claimed for him.
(Am I claiming to be smarter than St Paul? Yes, it is at least statistically probable)



, then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures.

 

[billwald]

"then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures."

I have no explanation. Irony? Politics?

 

[Turbo]

Clete, pardon me for jumping in on this one.

Originally posted by billwald

You are hiding Jews. NAZI trooper asks you if you are hiding Jews. You tell the truth, right?

Absolutely not!! Lying to the wicked to protect the innocent is not sinful.

• Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, "When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live." But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?"
  And the midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them."
  Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them. Exodus 1:15-20

If these midwives were sinning by lying to Pharaoh, then why did God reward them? The text says that they lied to Pharaoh because they feared God.

They also disobeyed a governing authority. Generally, we are supposed to obey governing authorities, but not when doing so would be sinful! Disobeying Pharaoh was not "the lesser of two evils," nor was lying to him. Neither was sinful whatsoever. In fact both were righteous and courageous.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by billwald

"then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures."

I have no explanation.

Thank you for your honesty.

Irony?

I don't understand.

Politics?

Isn't that a euphamistic way of saying that maybe Peter and the twelve (and Luke) were being insincere and untruthful? Why would the twelve help Paul deceive people by writing him an endorsement? Why would Paul deceive his circumcision followers by affirming Paul's authority in his letter to them? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke and Peter to record these endorsements of Paul's ministry and writings if Paul were a false teacher?

Earlier in this thread you said that you discount Paul's ministry and writings because Luke and the twelve wrote unfavorably of him. But we've shown you concrete evidence to the contrary. So now what reason do you have to discount Paul?

If you now see that writings which you believe are inspired by God endorse Paul, and you still reject him, what could possibly make you reconsider?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald
Deductive logic is a mathematical process that doesn't necessarially relate to the real world. Our world is inductive, Hegelian.

"Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how, otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything and that what I've said makes a lot of sense."

Originally posted by billwald
It is internally consistant but I disagree that it describes the real situation.

Originally posted by billwald
"then Peter and the twelve (and Luke) would not have endorsed his ministry and called his writings Scriptures."

I have no explanation. Irony? Politics?

Theology (Christian theology) must be based on Scripture and sound reason (logic). But in the above statements you have openly rejected both! And so I ask you, on what basis do you make the following statement?

Originally posted by billwald
I have been elect (saved) from before the foundation of the world.

I submit that the foundation which you throw away in order to avoid the apostle Paul is the very same upon which you base your own soteriology (doctrine of salvation).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[billwald]

"Isn't that a euphamistic way of saying that maybe Peter and the twelve (and Luke) were being insincere and untruthful? Why would the twelve help Paul deceive people by writing him an endorsement?"

For the sake of peace in the church? For the same reason various denominations put aside their differences for the sake of fellowship? Because they thought Paul would eventually calm down? Because they expected Paul's followers to eventually join the Jerusalem Synod? They were hoping Paul would get himself arrested and disappear?

"Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke and Peter to record these endorsements of Paul's ministry and writings if Paul were a false teacher?"

Maybe the Holy Spirit didn't.

"Earlier in this thread you said that you discount Paul's ministry and writings because Luke and the twelve wrote unfavorably of him. But we've shown you concrete evidence to the contrary. So now what reason do you have to discount Paul?"

The Holy Spirit is testifying to my spirit.

"If you now see that writings which you believe are inspired by God endorse Paul, and you still reject him, what could possibly make you reconsider?"

I believe that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. I do not believe that it is inerrant in the way that fundimentalists do.

 

[billwald]

""Logic is logic my friend, I don't care what you call it, if my logic is flawed then show me how, otherwise be brave enough to admit that you don't know everything and that what I've said makes a lot of sense.""


Redce your thesis to the standard format and will be happy to reply.

syllogism

\Syl"lo*gism\, n. [OE. silogisme, OF. silogime, sillogisme, F. syllogisme, L. syllogismus, Gr. syllogismo`s a reckoning all together, a reasoning, syllogism, fr. syllogi`zesqai to reckon all together, to bring at once before the mind, to infer, conclude; sy`n with, together + logi`zesqai to reckon, to conclude by reasoning. See Syn-, and Logistic, Logic.] (Logic) The regular logical form of every argument, consisting of three propositions, of which the first two are called the premises, and the last, the conclusion. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so that, if these are true, the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts to demonstration;

Note: as in the following example: Every virtue is laudable; Kindness is a virtue; Therefore kindness is laudable. These propositions are denominated respectively the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion.

Note: If the premises are not true and the syllogism is regular, the reasoning is valid, and the conclusion, whether true or false, is correctly derived.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

[Clete]

Theology (Christian theology) must be based on Scripture and sound reason (logic). But in the above statements you have openly rejected both! And so I ask you, on what basis do you make the following statement?

Originally posted by billwald
I have been elect (saved) from before the foundation of the world.

I submit that the foundation which you throw away in order to avoid the apostle Paul is the very same upon which you base your own soteriology (doctrine of salvation).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

Peter's epistles are "genuine scripture"

In one of his epistles, Peter identifies Paul's letters as Scripture. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Therefore Paul's letters are "genuine scripture."

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Turbo

Why would the twelve help Paul deceive people by writing him an endorsement?

Originally posted by billwald

For the sake of peace in the church? For the same reason various denominations put aside their differences for the sake of fellowship? Because they thought Paul would eventually calm down? Because they expected Paul's followers to eventually join the Jerusalem Synod? They were hoping Paul would get himself arrested and disappear?

None of these are good reasons to write a deceiver a letter of endorsement. There is no evidence whatsoever that the twelve did not truly endorse Paul's ministry.

Originally posted by Turbo

Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke and Peter to record these endorsements of Paul's ministry and writings if Paul were a false teacher?


Originally posted by billwald

Maybe the Holy Spirit didn't.

You had stated earlier that you believe Acts and 2 Peter were among the "genuine scriptures." Do you still believe that they are "genuine scriptures," but perhaps were not inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or are you now reconsidering whether Acts and 2 Peter are "genuine scriptures?"

Originally posted by Turbo

Earlier in this thread you said that you discount Paul's ministry and writings because Luke and the twelve wrote unfavorably of him. But we've shown you concrete evidence to the contrary. So now what reason do you have to discount Paul?


Originally posted by billwald

The Holy Spirit is testifying to my spirit.

But He didn't testify to Luke or Peter?

• Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1

We are supposed to test the spirits. There is strong evidence that the writings of Luke and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not testify against Himself. Therefore I must conclude that whether you realize it or not, you are a false prophet.

Earlier in this thread, you stated:

I did acknowledge [that the twelve, Peter, and Luke endorsed Paul] before I started reading the Bible for myself, before I took classes in Bible college and in Western Theological Sem.

Here you credit your Seminary classes and Bible studies with persuading you that Paul was a false teacher. But now you say it was direct revelation of the Holy Spirit. I think your first answer was a lot closer to the truth.

Originally posted by Turbo

If you now see that writings which you believe are inspired by God endorse Paul, and you still reject him, what could possibly make you reconsider?

Originally posted by billwald

I believe that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. I do not believe that it is inerrant in the way that fundimentalists do.

That does not answer my question. I suspect that your belief that Paul was a false teacher is not falsifiable. Please tell me what could conceivably prove to you that Paul was not a false teacher.

 

[billwald]

"I suspect that your belief that Paul was a false teacher is not falsifiable.

Which is why this is not a "scientific" topic. It is metaphysical or historical.

"Please tell me what could conceivably prove to you that Paul was not a false teacher."

(Possibly) New documentation, a NT equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is not a critical worry to me. I am not saved by St Paul.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Turbo

I suspect that your belief that Paul was a false teacher is not falsifiable.

Originally posted by billwald

Which is why this is not a "scientific" topic. It is metaphysical or historical.

That doesn't matter. Paul rightly stated that if Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain. Therefore Christianity, though historical and metaphysical, is falsifiable.

(Possibly) New documentation, a NT equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I doubt new documentation would help. The passages from Acts and 2 Peter were new to you, and they didn't persuade you at all.

I am not saved by St Paul.

Paul's gospel came from Jesus Christ Himself. If you reject Paul, you reject Christ.


Upon what do you base your belief that you are saved?

 

[billwald]

"That doesn't matter. Paul rightly stated that if Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain."

1. This is also stated by the "real" apostles so it doesn't matter if Paul wrote it or not.

2. If Christ is not risen then Jesus was not the Messiah and God will STILL send the Messiah so then the the question becomes, "Will God forgive us for accepting Jesus as Messiah?" In other words, we are no worse off than the people who lived before Jesus was born.

"Therefore Christianity, though historical and metaphysical, is falsifiable."

Nothing is falsifiable through metaphysics. That is why metaphysics is different than physics.

Christianity could be falsified through the finding of new historical documents. At this time there is insufficient historical information to falsify it.

"I doubt new documentation would help. The passages from Acts and 2 Peter were new to you, and they didn't persuade you at all."

You gots to be kidding. I have read the entire Bible cover to cover at least a dozen times. I have read the NT many times more.

"Paul's gospel came from Jesus Christ Himself. If you reject Paul, you reject Christ."

A goofy statement. An anology would be "Bill thinks Lincoln was a terrible president therefore bill think that negros should be slaves."

or "Bill thinks that life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness are not God given rights therefore Bill doesn't accept a representative democracy as a superior form of government."

So he said and convinced some others. Jos. Smith said basically the same thing about Mormonism.

"Upon what do you base your belief that you are saved?"

I have "invited Jesus into my heart" and "said the prayer" several times" and have been baptized. <G>

I have publically confessed that Jesus is the Messiah and repented of my sins. I confess the ecumenical creeds as truth. I trust the Creator of the universe to do what is right.

Gen 18: 25. That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?