ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[godrulz]

We should love truth and hate error. The goal is to know what the Word of God teaches and to oppose false teaching of all kinds. Some issues are not clear and have been debated by godly believers for centuries. The Bible is our authoritative source for truth. I try to use other resources only as a confirmatory, subordinate help.

The Galatians 2:9? or 7? proof text seems to me to mean that the one Gospel was taken to two different target groups by different men/ministries. I do not think it is explicit that it is two messages, one for the circumcised, one for the uncircumcised. The gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ was taken to the Jews by one man, while the same gospel was taken by Paul to the Gentiles. This is parallel to some being called to share their faith on university campuses, while others go to the unreached tribes of the 3rd world. The core gospel is the same with some adaptation to the different cultures/target audiences.

Any speculation on who wrote Hebrews, if not Paul?

I once rationalized classical theism as you mentioned trying to reconcile it to what I liked about Open Theism. In the end, I had to jettison some traditional ideas to move towards a more biblical position (in my mind). This may be the same with Mid-Acts, but I doubt it. I do not understand it well enough yet to be dogmatic. I am surprised I have not heard about it all these years.

 

[1Way]

godrulz, you said

(1) Some issues are not clear and have been debated by godly believers for centuries. (2)The Bible is our authoritative source for truth. I try to use other resources only as a confirmatory, subordinate help.

(1) Right, in that humans are limited in our understanding and some minor issues in God's word can not be expected to be reconciled until God makes us see it clearly like being face to face. But what about major and meaningful doctrines that have split Christianity for centuries??? The fact is that God expects man to get such things correct! It does not matter that man has a history of messing up God's word, the fact is that God plainly expects us to get it right. So baring humanity's natural limitations in getting limited info correct, centuries of hotly debated Christian issues is a concept that is slaughtered by the truth that God expects us to get His teachings correct. Period, end of discussion, no buts, that much is only clear, and there is no need to help God by overturning this very basic truth. Fair enough?

(2) That is very appropriate, and better put than I would have so quickly submitted. May your actual use conform to this humble and righteous ideal.

As to the Galatians reference, that was hardly where we disagree by saying that both groups taught the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's not over the commonality that they had their troubles, it was over the differences that they argued doctrine.

But even on this seeming agreement, there is a difference that bares notice. There was a time when Jesus sent out his disciples to preach the gospel message before His death and resurrection and also commanded them not to tell anyone that He was the Christ and that He would die and be raised on the third day! So if they had the same exact gospel message that we have today, then how could they possibly preach the good news and not proclaim Jesus as the Christ who would die and be raised on the third day??? Plainly, there was a time when the central message of our gospel unto salvation was forbidden to be preached! So on several levels you are wrong for suggesting that our gospel messages were the same, they are not despite some notable similarities. Besides, the Galatians passage I had in mind was over the Jerusalem council, not the one you picked.

The author of Hebrews, I have not personally studied it beyond what I already mentioned, and that was largely given to me by likeminded believers.

You said

I once rationalized classical theism as you mentioned trying to reconcile it to what I liked about Open Theism. In the end, I had to jettison some traditional ideas to move towards a more biblical position (in my mind). This may be the same with Mid-Acts, but I doubt it. I do not understand it well enough yet to be dogmatic. I am surprised I have not heard about it all these years.

Chuckles, your habitual focus on the manmade is thinly veiled and yet in some respects, quite understandable. We all do it more than we would like to admit. However, as I think you would readily admit, the truth of a bible teaching should not rest so tenuously on our "hearing about it" in the context of accepting and dumping traditional ideas. Come on Godrulz, your repeated reference to manmade references is more than just a coincidence, it's a picture of part of your spiritual development (or lack therein), as a man is, so does he speak. I could be wrong, but I'm definitely getting the sense that if I was to talk to you when your 70 years old, I'd still catch you automatically making honest but thinly veiled references to manmade concepts when contemplating divine teachings! Actually I already got that sense about you after the first dozen or so times of finding you so quickly repeat this same error.

Does ancient Catholicism have the defense/excuse that prior to the reformation, they never heard of Protestantism? Of course not. It's never been what people hear is true that matters, it's always been what is true whether it's well promoted or not that matters, it makes no difference what so ever how wide spread a teaching is or not. NONE, either a teaching is true or it is not, popularity or prevalence is fully beside the point.

If you would learn but only one thing from me Godrulz, that would be that you should stop emphasizing and relating to man's ideas and interpretations, and instead you should turn both first and foremost to God and His word and ideas and interpretations. And furthermore, until you do that, you should gain the humility that says, until I have a solid grasp of what God teaches on this issue, I refrain from promoting one way or the other and hold these beliefs with sincere anticipation over what God teaches on the matter. Since you nearly constantly resort to referencing manmade works when dealing with spiritual matters, collectively you are admitting that you have not giving these issues serious bible attention. And that in and of itself does not make you a bad person, everyone has room to grow in their bible knowledge, what is problematic is being dogmatic when instead you should be humble and willing to learn.

I am a guitarist, and although I have MUCH to learn, I still act and walk and talk like a guitarist. But I'm a beginner guitarist. I would never put off as being a capable experienced guitarist UNTIL I've been there and done that.

I realize that you appreciate such an admonition to primarily go with God's word over and above man's thinking, but your repeated actions speak louder than words and betray that improvement is still in order. Not that you've ever heard me say such thing before. Right?

 

[godrulz]

I concur that God's Word was meant to be understood by the masses. It is simple enough for a child, yet profound enough for centuries of scholastic debate.

There is a language, geographical, cultural, time barrier from the biblical times to our modern day. We must accurately translate, interpret, and apply Scripture. It is possible to know truth and reject error. We need the Spirit. This does not mean that language tools are not helpful. Most of us have been influenced by speakers, books, TV, etc. We must guard against having a preconceived theology and reading it back into Scripture. A rejection of Calvinism or Catholicism is not a rejection of biblical Christianity. Much of the 'Church' is simply wrong on major issues.

Your admonitions are noted and agree with. Many people here are now Mid-Acts or Open Theists because of the influence of Enyart and "The Plot". It is systematic and logical on the surface. I have noted that some of his points are supported with proof texts from NKJV that would not be as clear or contradicted from/by other versions or the original Greek (interlinear). If honest, many would suggest that they would not have their Mid-Acts understanding without reading the Bible through the eyes of this book. This may or may not be bad, depending on how credible any given book is. The JWs read the Bible through the eyes of the Watchtower. Its systematic use of proof texts makes them think that they are believing the Bible, when it is actually the Watchtower's distortion of the Bible (translation and interpretation).

One can read numerous commentaries and come up with multiple translations. They are a limited tool.

It is my desire to be theocentric and Word-centered. I would also feel it is arrogant if I could not learn from other learners/teachers.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

"...shall there be evil in a city and the LORD has not done it?" Amos 3:6

"...as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day..." Gen. 50:20


"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."
Acts 2:23

I know that you people refuse to acknowledge that God's motivations can be different from the motivations of men, nevertheless the truth is that God can and does for His own just purpose ordain that which men see only as evil, many times using wicked men as instruments whose motives ARE evil. We have covered this before, but as before, you will refuse to understand. Lo siento mucho por ustedes.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
You said

I have noted that some of his points are supported with proof texts from NKJV that would not be as clear or contradicted from/by other versions or the original Greek (interlinear). If honest, many would suggest that they would not have their Mid-Acts understanding without reading the Bible through the eyes of this book.

I've never seen it that way at all, but then, I don't put a lot of emphasis on what other men say is true or not, I have learned to go to God's word and let it stand on it's own even if it contradicts man's ideas. Here's the way I see it as plain as could be. You would naturally read the bible agreeing with the mid acts view if you did NOT start out understanding God and the bible through the influence of man's tradition.

Like I've been saying for a long time, that is still your problem just like it's the problem of the masses. Everyone believes that God's knows the future, like exactly when I'm going to die and exactly how, etc. so there fore God must have exhaustive foreknowledge, etc. etc. etc. They say we are modern day Israel so anything written in the bible can directly apply to us, this serves to place us otherwise boring people into the limelight, into the forefront see, we WILL have to go through the tribulation so you'd better be prepared, you'd better be able to camp out for a long time so watch out for the signs of the end times, you don't want to be caught off guard, even though the times of trials and tribulation is called Jacobs trouble, who's name was also called, Isrrael, so the end times are specifically designed for Israel, not us!

Furthermore, what could be more exciting that miracles and signs and wonders! So we teach that miracles are for today even though they were specifically given to Israel to help them through God's prophetic plans, they are not for us today since we are not a part of that plan. The sermon on the mount is such a wonderful teaching FOR US, even though we are not of the circumcision who Jesus was specifically ministering to. Hello already, biblical speaking, national Israel, God's elect nation, SHE IS CUT OFF FROM GOD DUE TO NATIONAL UNBELIEFE! We uncircumcised have NO GOOD REASON to want to mix our lot up with theirs, besides, it's not our choice which group we are in, God dictated that we are not a part of their group and they are not a part of ours, we are two different groups in Christ, not one single homogenous group.

So the main reason it's hard to discover the mid acts view is not because it's mostly just taught in the Plot, it's because man has hosed up the teachings in the bible on a grand scale from the beginning which makes finding the truth difficult at best because of so many false presuppositions and false doctrines.

You "should" be humble enough to forget so much of your Christian presuppositions and just go to the bible and learn. Isn't that what finally brought you to the open view? Did you have to trust in man's ideas to get there, or was it ultimately God's word that set you free from closed theism? I know you say your trying, but more clearly and understandably, man has already taken a hold on you. You need to free yourself by letting God's word reign supreme, unless YOU do that much, the truth will remain a mystery.

I am NOT cut off from God by carelessly identifying myself with Israel because I know full well that I am not a part of God's prophetic program with Israel, which has been temporarily suspended for a time. I am NOT of the circumcision, I am of the Gentiles, I am of the uncircumcision, my Apostle is the one that God specifically gave us to us for us and no other. Taking God at His word over such things makes understanding the entire bible a synch. If you think the open view makes understanding God and the bible easier and more enjoyable, getting the mid acts view turns the entire bible into a proof text for your clear understanding.

But then again, that's my experience which has proven true by God's word against all takers every since I've discovered it. On the other hand, to each his own, other's find the truth with different tactics, different focuses, taking longer or shorter time, verifying things in different ways, etc.

I wish you the best in your journey, just stay away from the habitual reflex impulse to not be the man yourself, YOU ARE THE MAN, you and only have can handle what God has given you, it's up to you to understand and promote the truth, don't be a great follower where tradition has a death grip, Christian tradition is the main and only pure source of the most sincere yet FALSE "Christian" doctrine! Stay away from trusting in all that, become a godly leader going against the stream by sticking with God and His word no matter what.

Sports victory or body smack
:banana:
High Five
:thumb:
Stadium wave
:the_wave:

 

[1Way]

Rolf,
Your a moron, maybe you see evil in what God does, but we who are not closed theists are more than capable of understanding that God is HONESTLY AND REALISTICALLY truthful and good and righteous just as scripture says, and unlike you closed theists, we are not willing to violate God's word just to protect false doctrine.

God does no evil, far be it from Him, and NEVER exchange good for evil. SO DEMANDS GOD

God does (moral) evil, it is one of His good and righteous tools. SO SAYS FALSE DOCTRINE and FOOLS

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

"...shall there be evil in a city and the LORD has not done it?" Amos 3:6

"...as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day..." Gen. 50:20


"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."
Acts 2:23

I know that you people refuse to acknowledge that God's motivations can be different from the motivations of men, nevertheless the truth is that God can and does for His own just purpose ordain that which men see only as evil, many times using wicked men as instruments whose motives ARE evil. We have covered this before, but as before, you will refuse to understand. Lo siento mucho por ustedes.

I agree with this, but there is a difference between God using evil nations to discipline Israel, using evil dictators to judge wicked nations, using evil Satan for judgment, etc. and God Himself doing evil things like killing babies out of the blue for no reason. They evil doers are used by God, but will later be judged for their own evil. The nations that disciplined Israel, were later rebuked and judged and attacked by God and Israel.

Of course God's ways and motivations are perfect. His actions are not moral evil, but righteous responses to evil. Using instruments that are going to do evil anyway, does not make God the one chosing to exercise evil from His own will. The evil will be ultimately dealt with by His holiness. If God did something Himself that was inherently evil, He would not be the holy, righteous God of the Bible. His demonstration of righteous justice is not evil, but wise and good.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Rolf,
Your a moron, maybe you see evil in what God does, but we who are not closed theists are more than capable of understanding that God is HONESTLY AND REALISTICALLY truthful and good and righteous just as scripture says, and unlike you closed theists, we are not willing to violate God's word just to protect false doctrine.

God does no evil, far be it from Him, and NEVER exchange good for evil. SO DEMANDS GOD

God does (moral) evil, it is one of His good and righteous tools. SO SAYS FALSE DOCTRINE and FOOLS

Closed theists ignore God's specific self-revelation of His character and attributes. God does not do moral evil, period.

A deterministic view and a wrong understanding of sovereignty as meticulous vs providential control leads to the wrong conclusion that God controls everything. Logically, this makes God responsible for evil despite their denials. The problem is that God is not responsible for evil, so their other assumptions about His character and ways are flawed.



I forget the name of the view that says the Church is spiritual Israel (?Replacement Theology). It is popular in some charismatic circles. I agree with you, 1way, that there is a different eschatological plan for Israel and the Church/Body of Christ. There are some similarities between Israel/Church (we are the people of God with a common Messiah), but there are also differences. There is also a difference between the nation of Israel, and those in the nation who are spiritual Israel (cf. some in the church are not true believers).

I agree with most of Enyart's conclusions about truth for the church. I disagree on OSAS, believer's baptism, and spiritual gifts based on my understanding of Scripture on each point. I imagine there are a few Mid-Acts people who speak in tongues or teach that it is good to be water baptized. If Paul taught for the 'uncircumcision', then what would you conclude if Pauline teaching could be found to support water baptism, miracles/spiritual gifts, and conditional eternal security? Each verse should be looked at in context, not based on Enyart's template of what is valid for us or not.

I appreciate dispensationalism (God did work differently in different eras), but there are so many varieties and conflicting nuances of it. I would also be careful to confuse the Old Covenant, New Covenant/Gospel distinction by adding another category: Old Covenant before Christ; Jewish/circumcised believers after Christ; uncircumcised believers after Christ. I take it that all believers= former Jew/Gentile after a certain time (?100 A.D. or what date Acts 9?) are all considered Body of Christ/uncircumcised (even if they were circ. Jews?) now.

Mid-Acts seems to excise much of the NT truth for the Body of Christ (all believers after the cross) and directing it only at a limited group for a brief time, the 'circumcised'. This honestly does not seem right or self-evident in reading Scripture without "The Plot". I have only skimmed one critique of "The Plot". I think there are some valid objections against this minority view, as there are for many new teachings (there are objections against Open Theism, but I find most of them misrepresent the view as Process theology or merely assume Calvinism is true. They use the same arguments against Arminianism).

 

[Rolf Ernst]

One Way--you are without understanding. I refer you back to the verses I quoted. If you don't like the impression they give you, the problem you have is not with me but with the Bible. AND--thanks for calling me a moron. I wouldn't want people to think my understanding did not tick you off. As for profans asperions against people, I would rather--much rather--be assaulted by them than to be guilty of doing unto others such things, You have a good day.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
You said

If Paul taught for the 'uncircumcision', then what would you conclude if Pauline teaching could be found to support water baptism, miracles/spiritual gifts, and conditional eternal security? Each verse should be looked at in context, not based on Enyart's template of what is valid for us or not.

There is no "if", he is the Apostle for the uncircumcision and contrasts our group against the circumcision consistently and numerously. Pau's teaching can be found to support those things, no one ever said they can't! But there was a change going on as Paul got what we call progressive revelation. You need to understand all of God's word and how it all fits together prior to staking claims on such issues.

And you, OF ALL PEOPLE, warning me to not stick with a manmade template, eat some crow. I am one of the most staunch supporters of the like minded sort of faith expressed in the plot here at TOL, yet I have referenced the Plot about a handful of times because it's teachings are not derived from man, they are discovered by man and reside quite simply in scripture! THE BIBLE IS MY SOURCE BOOK, MY REFERENCE BOOK, MY GUIDE FOR LIFE. So I quote God's word and relate that way, no problem, no false manmade template.

You said

I would also be careful to confuse the Old Covenant, New Covenant/Gospel distinction by adding another category: Old Covenant before Christ; Jewish/circumcised believers after Christ; uncircumcised believers after Christ. I take it that all believers= former Jew/Gentile after a certain time (?100 A.D. or what date Acts 9?) are all considered Body of Christ/uncircumcised (even if they were circ. Jews?) now.

I'm not confused. The old covenant has fulfillment in Christ such that some of their practices changed, some did not. They are both however, before and after Pentecost part of the same group, they are the circumcised and are under the law, that is one group, and we are the other, just two groups, normal bible stuff, no confusion.

So what? Do you think that this dispensation somehow includes God's prophetic plan with Israel which the end times obviously has not happened yet? He started this dispensation precisely because He stopped working with Israel and suspended their prophetic program, so why do you not see another dispensation after this one?

As to varieties and conflicting nuances
Is it even possible that you could stop looking at man and get things right yourself? It's up to you to get the right understanding of how God works out different dispensations and all that. The fact that man messed things up is WHY you should stop focusing and worrying and fretting and complaining and constantly referencing what HE THINKS, because in the end, it matters NOTHING WHAT MAN THINKS, it's up to you to find the truth from God's word.

You said

Mid-Acts seems to excise much of the NT truth for the Body of Christ (all believers after the cross) and directing it only at a limited group for a brief time, the 'circumcised'. (1) This honestly does not seem right or self-evident in reading Scripture without "The Plot". (2) I have only skimmed one critique of "The Plot". I think there are some valid objections against this minority view, as there are for many new teachings (there are objections against Open Theism, but I find most of them misrepresent the view as Process theology or merely assume Calvinism is true. They use the same arguments against Arminianism).

(1) As in??? This is one of the first times you've taken a decidedly biblical slant to this discussion, brazo, however, all you do is guess, we need something of substance.

(2) You are so blind to the truth, so it does not surprise me that you would go to man to review another man's work to see what is biblically true or not. You are way too much, it seems that your reliance on man is replete and unswerving.

Please seriously reconsider things.

 

[1Way]

Rolf, the impression the entire bible gives me sets me free from so much false teaching. I have no problem with the passages you offered, the only problem I can see is you are trying to twist and violate scripture to make it seem like they support your manmade views.

Of all issues conceivable, and even though I am a moderately talented artist in a general sense. I would have never in my life had imagined that one of the most common and riveting bible discussions of notable controversy BETWEEN CHRISTIAN FELLOW BELIEVERS, would be whether or not God is implicated with the commission of moral evil. I would sooner expect a demon or an enemy who hates God with a passion to come up with such a heinous and despicable claim.

Instead you have God loving Christians lead the way in teaching that God does good and godly moral evil.

And they say God is merciful and kind, talk about an understatement.

As to you ticking me off, I'm a Christian, Jesus Christ is a part of who I am, so my identification with who Jesus is, is naturally a part of me just as it is all Christians. It is basic elementary school level learning that God does not do (nor is personally implicated in) any: evil, sin, iniquity, hypocrisy, immorality, etc. It is about the most insulting as you can possibly be to find someone who should know and understand God the best, a fellow Christian, instead of honoring and faithfully representing God, you are ripping out the heart of God and implanting evil in it's place.

As to "profans asperions" and your claim that you do not do such a thing unto others. I don't think you could be more profane and insulting than you have already been. Somehow, the fact that you say that you are not that way does not remove the fact that you are. Consider.
If it were that easy to get out of guilt, then someone could commit mass murder and then just say, hey, I didn't do it, and we'd have to just let them go because after all, they openly admitted that they did no wrong...
:freak:

 

[1Way]

I get you now Godrulz. No more discussions until you've been humble enough to take in God's word first and foremost. I have no time for your thought processes until then. See you in a couple of years, right?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

I get you now Godrulz. No more discussions until you've been humble enough to take in God's word first and foremost. I have no time for your thought processes until then. See you in a couple of years, right?

Que sera...

Reading a brief critique of "The Plot" months ago that had valid biblical exegesis and pointed out some issues with the book while commending others should not be viewed as not putting God's Word first. As a new believer with no bias or understanding, I would honestly not arrive at Mid-Acts without "The Plot". It does not occur to hundreds of millions of Pentecostals that God withdrew the spiritual gifts and miracles centuries ago. It does not occur to most evangelicals that water baptism is not for the Church today. Millions of man hours of prayerful Scripture study and reading as led most believers to conclude the opposite of what you suggest is plain as day without "The Plot". Is it possible that your ideas have been influenced to some degree? Regardless, it is unfortunate that your hasty judgments have put me on the outside as someone who does not desire or deserve truth. Fortunately, the Spirit of truth and the Word of God are more patient.

Until Mid-Acts theories can be reconciled with sound exegesis of all relevant passages, I will have to wait and see.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that we should never use a Greek language tool or read "The Plot" or those who may raise issues about it. "The Plot" is not Scripture and should be critiqued like any book on the Bible.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

One way--once again, your problem is that your understanding of scripture is too shallow to take in what scripture says.

You charge me with saying that God does evil. I said no such thing. I only quoted scripture and that is the way you interpreted it. As long as you persist in your weak doctrine you will be unable to comprehend certain texts of scripture. You need to study some reformed theologians. Here are some other scriptures for you to rail against.

In II Sam. 12:11,12 we read: "Thus saith the LORD, behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun; for you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun."

Then, in II Sam 16:21-23, we see the fulfillment of God's justice against David's sin. Notice particularly--in verse 22 it is David's own son who is an instrument in God's judgement. Notice in verse 23 that the BIBLE says, "...the counsel of Ahitophel which he counseled in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God..."

Once again--I am only quoting you scripture. If you THINK I am accusing God of doing evil it is only because your Arminian/Open View of scripture is unable to comprehend certain texts of scripture. It is your weak understanding of scripture that MAKES YOU THINK THERE IS SOME ACCUSATION AGAINST God in these verses. If you want to understand the Word of God, come down off your high horse of assigning to God His prerogatives. Instead, before you read Scripture, acknowledge in
your heart that God is God and you are only a man in need of instruction in the things of God. Then ask Him, as the Psalmist did, "open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things."
If you want someone to help you with things your doctrine cannot get around, buy Matthew Henry's complete (not the concise) commentary on the bible, or study some other reformed theologian such as R. C. Sproul or C.H. Spurgeon.

But your accusing me of saying that God does evil when I never said nor thought such a thing will profit you nothing. I NEVER said such a thing. You SAY i did simply because your weak theology interprets the texts to which I refer you as TEACHING that. BUT YOU ARE WRONG!
Stop your incessant dictating of God's prerogatives to Him, and stop accusing me of saying things I never said. I am not required to limit my freedom in the use of scripture simply to adjust to the level of your understanding.

 

[Clete]

Rolf,

You are lying. It is your interpretation of these texts which brings a possible accusation against God, not Open Theisms. What's more, is that you know this to be true and yet persist in the sort of nonsense that you just put forth in your last post.

Don't believe me? Okay, fine.

Please explain what II Sam. 12:11,12 means in your own words.

I'd would just about bet my house that you cannot do it with accusing God of ordaining adultry.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--you deal with the text. Deal with the text. DEAL WITH THE TEXT. If it makes you uncomfortable, that isn't my fault.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

Que sera...

Reading a brief critique of "The Plot" months ago that had valid biblical exegesis and pointed out some issues with the book while commending others should not be viewed as not putting God's Word first. As a new believer with no bias or understanding, I would honestly not arrive at Mid-Acts without "The Plot". It does not occur to hundreds of millions of Pentecostals that God withdrew the spiritual gifts and miracles centuries ago. It does not occur to most evangelicals that water baptism is not for the Church today. Millions of man hours of prayerful Scripture study and reading as led most believers to conclude the opposite of what you suggest is plain as day without "The Plot". Is it possible that your ideas have been influenced to some degree? Regardless, it is unfortunate that your hasty judgments have put me on the outside as someone who does not desire or deserve truth. Fortunately, the Spirit of truth and the Word of God are more patient.

Until Mid-Acts theories can be reconciled with sound exegesis of all relevant passages, I will have to wait and see.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that we should never use a Greek language tool or read "The Plot" or those who may raise issues about it. "The Plot" is not Scripture and should be critiqued like any book on the Bible.

Bob Enyart (the author of The Plot) would agree! Critique away, all you want! But do so honestly and without prejudice. Every single critique I've ever seen has been either dishonest or very biased or both.
Further, what does or does not "occur" to other Christians has nothing to do with what the Bible actually teaches. In fact, I would say the majority view is the least likely to be correct. The simple fact is that most people do not think clearly when interpreting religious texts, including the Bible. Indeed, most do not think at all! Most people are lemmings, following the teachings of whatever teacher they happen to have found themselves sitting under. Even so called theologians who spend thousands of hours studying the Bible are not really studying the Bible so much as they are studying a theology. They spend countless hours and dollars getting educated in a particular brand of theology so that they can sit over a group of pew warming lemmings that will listen to their every word.
Further, your ability (or inability) to come up with a correct understanding of the Bible has no bearing whatsoever on what the Bible teaches either. So whether you would or would not have come up with Acts 9 Dispensationalism has exactly zero to do with anything. I would imagine that the same argument was made against the "radical" teaching of Martin Luther as well.
You call for sound exegesis and unbiased Bible study which is a very good thing to call for and something that the author of the Plot is 100% in favor of. Your post however, shows (in my view) that it is you who has the bias, not Bob Enyart or 1Way. You are emotionally attached to your theology as perhaps we all are, and understandably so. Pentecostalism is a very emotionally driven, experienced based theology and for this reason is virtually impossible to break free from, especially if one happens to be a feeler or an extravert, or both. The theology has a stronger draw on those with those personality types because of its anti-intellectualistic nature. I don't know whether you are a feeler or an extravert, although I would guess that you are not, but that isn't the point. I simply detected a minor bit of hypocrisy in your post that I thought you should be made aware of.
If you read The Plot and have issues with it, great! No one is demanding that you agree with it. But I can tell you that if you go into a book (any book) looking for something not to like, I can promise you that you will find something. The Plot is a book that attempts to lay out a systematic theology, if you read such a book, convinced that there are certain things in your own theology that are not up for debate or question then it is practically certain that you will discard whatever conclusions such a book makes in opposition to those particular positions.
This is precisely the wrong way to read such a book. Instead, one should take things one step at a time, following the author point by point and precept by precept. Follow the logic of the book one premise at a time and one conclusion at a time. If there is a flaw in the logic, great! Mark it down and send Bob an Email. He would be overjoyed to read such an email. But saying something like Acts 9 Dispensationalism is wrong because it brings one to the conclusion that miracles were for and about Israel and not the Body of Christ, and I don't like that conclusion because I enjoy "speaking in tongues" isn't going to cut it. Not that you would make such an argument but I think you get my point. You can't prove a flaw in someone's logic by disapproving of the conclusion. You have to actually show where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do such with The Plot, I will absolutely guarantee you that Bob Enyart will want to hear about it and if it is valid, he will change his position (and so will I, by the way). You will simply never meet anyone more intellectually honest than Bob Enyart, his earnest desire is to know the real truth about God and the Bible and to teach that truth, unvarnished to others.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--you deal with the text. Deal with the text. DEAL WITH THE TEXT. If it makes you uncomfortable, that isn't my fault.

The text doesn't make me uncomfortable at all! I'm an Open Theist, remember?

Answer my question...

What does II Sam. 12:11,12 means in your own words?

I want to see you do it without accusing God of ordaining adultry.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[1Way]

Clete, thanks and you are right about his viewpoint being at best thinly veiled. Furthermore, in addition to Rolf's slant on the passages, which was sparse and mingled a fair amount of soft determinism in with the hard stuff, my tipoff was moreso his position in relationship set against the rest of the discussion (context) and the topic was God doing evil or not. If I am wrong about his view, then all he had to do was stop ranting and just explain what he believes instead. But, as everyone can see, he isn't doing that because I understood and reflected his view correctly. Instead he is still arguing that God is implicating in causing evil.

If closed theists have no qualms about violating God's word along with it's context, then to them, violating a discussion's context is no biggy.

Isn't it amazing, God's love for us.

Isn't it amazing, that people who love God think that they are honoring Him by preaching that He is implicated in the commission of evil through His "decree", "overarching will", "determinative council", or "sovereign control"? Those are code words for God "causes" evil to happen, but basically no one likes to be so brash and crude sounding. Arminian's are no different, only they try to confuse the issue with contradictory nonsense, too inconsistent.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
You defend your beliefs AGAIN and CONSISTANTLY relying on manmade tradition without first and foremost understanding God's word over the same issue. You can't possibly understand how blinded the masses are because of longstanding errant human tradition, because you constantly keep honoring longstanding human tradition for why you believe what you believe!!!

The Plot is not God's word, but it exposes what scripture teaches very well and constantly reveals the source of it's teachings, by respectfully and appropriately quoting more bible that about any other book I've ever read. The fact that you do not yet understand even the Mid Act's more foundational concepts, shows that you have not given this issue much earnest bible study. The Plot did not invent the view as you keep slanderously insinuating. It is discovered by reading God's word (DONT STOP READING) while holding one's presuppositions at bay until you have sufficiently heard God's view on the matter. It's ok to have presups, just learn to become humble enough to consider them lies compared to God's word.

As a new believer with no bias or understanding, I would honestly not arrive at Mid-Acts without "The Plot". It does not occur to hundreds of millions of Pentecostals that God withdrew the spiritual gifts and miracles centuries ago. It does not occur to most evangelicals that water baptism is not for the Church today. Millions of man hours of prayerful Scripture study and reading as led most believers to conclude the opposite of what you suggest is plain as day without "The Plot". -- Godrulz, a champion for manmade tradition.