ECT Trollphobia: the L'Abri doctrine of being open to questions

D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
Acts 13
13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.


Show me my error.
Click to expand...

Shawn showed you 25 of your other errors; clearly laid out.

You rejected that.

I myself have pointed out other of your errors.

Same result from you and your pals.

Because your study approach is off.

As a result, you are unable to see the obvious.

By the way, I figured how Shawn came up with that list.

I recently ran across a study by Jordan on the difference in study approach between the Acts 9 and the Acts 28 Position, in which he touched on various of the errors of the 28ers and how they ended up off.

It struck me that that is very similar to what I have been saying to your deaf ears about your approach..

Your approach obviously being a mix of the study approach of both positions, which is why I have humorously referred to your position as The ALMOST Acts 28 Position.

Which your faulty approach, and that of your pals, mis-read to mean "The Acts 28 Position" itself.

Well, all Shawn apparently did was apply what Jordan taught (he is of their camp) about how The 28ers arrive at their errors, to yours.

For how Shawn has worded his nevertheless valid conclusions about your hybrid of the Acts 9 approach with that of the Acts 28ers, reveal that the principles by which he arrived at his conclusions against your errors are straight out of the actual Acts 9 Position taught by Jordan.

But I did send you a link to Jordan's studies on Romans and Ephesians.

Never heard back from you.

You are no Acts 17: 11-12er - none of you are.

Now, three of your incompetent pals are neg rapping me for pointing these things out to you. :chuckle:

For that only shows how petty and narrow minded your pals are.

Even my making light of that has been concluded my crying about it. :chuckle:

Always with your pals, it is the other side that is in the wrong.

Your pals are that narrow minded in their double-standard.

Talk about an ever clueless Meshak concluding a non-existent jealousy.

In short, there just might not be any getting through to any of you, on your errors.

All one can do is point them out, that others who still possesse some measure of objectivity, might see your errors for what they are.

A hybrid or mix, of where the Acts 9 Position studies things out, with where the Acts 28 Position erroneously does.

That and one heck of a blind, narrow mindedness and intolerance to any view but one's own.

Rom. 14:5 towards you, STP, in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Shawn showed you 25 of your other errors; clearly laid out.

You rejected that.

I myself have pointed out other of your errors.

Same result from you and your pals.

Because your study approach is off.

As a result, you are unable to see the obvious.

By the way, I figured how Shawn came up with that list.

I recently ran across a study by Jordan on the difference in study approach between the Acts 9 and the Acts 28 Position, in which he touched on various of the errors of the 28ers and how they ended up off.

It struck me that that is very similar to what I have been saying to your deaf ears about your approach..

Your approach obviously being a mix of the study approach of both positions, which is why I have humorously referred to your position as The ALMOST Acts 28 Position.

Which your faulty approach, and that of your pals, mis-read to mean "The Acts 28 Position" itself.

Well, all Shawn apparently did was apply what Jordan taught (he is of their camp) about how The 28ers arrive at their errors, to yours.

For how Shawn has worded his nevertheless valid conclusions about your hybrid of the Acts 9 approach with that of the Acts 28ers, reveal that the principles by which he arrived at his conclusions against your errors are straight out of the actual Acts 9 Position taught by Jordan.

But I did send you a link to Jordan's studies on Romans and Ephesians.

Never heard back from you.

You are no Acts 17: 11-12er - none of you are.

Now, three of your incompetent pals are neg rapping me for pointing these things out to you. :chuckle:

For that only shows how petty and narrow minded your pals are.

Even my making light of that has been concluded my crying about it. :chuckle:

Always with your pals, it is the other side that is in the wrong.

Your pals are that narrow minded in their double-standard.

Talk about an ever clueless Meshak concluding a non-existent jealousy.

In short, there just might not be any getting through to any of you, on your errors.

All one can do is point them out, that others who still possesse some measure of objectivity, might see your errors for what they are.

A hybrid or mix, of where the Acts 9 Position studies things out, with where the Acts 28 Position erroneously does.

That and one heck of a blind, narrow mindedness and intolerance to any view but one's own.

Rom. 14:5 towards you, STP, in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.
Click to expand...

Oh.
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
:idunno:


Was this salvation sent to Gentiles that did not fear God?
Click to expand...

As usual, yours is the wrong question.

I'm reminded of what Brackin himself basically said about you, in an audio of his, where he brought your name up.

That although he admired your zeal, you tended to read things into a thing.

He, of course, then went on to prove that so did he, Mitchell and Moore. :chuckle:

But you have said that "Brackin especially" had basically been your go to teacher for what to know "about" these various things that supposedly differ, and that you and your pals now parrot as if they were the result of each your own labor.

Til you get the basic principle right; there will be...no reasoning with any of you. Let alone, any hope for an honest "debate."

Til then, various of your assertions; and of your questions; and of your citing of various passages will often be...off.

Approach BEFORE result.

NOT after.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God...

1 - distinctly, and...

2 - gave the sense, and...

3 - caused them to understand the reading."

Barbeque that.

The resulting aroma?

"A Right...Study Approach."

Duh-uh.

Rom. 5: 6-8.
 
oatmeal

oatmeal

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
One of the unusually healthy doctrines of L'Abri Fellowship is (or was last checked) their masthead doctrinal statement that they are not afraid that any question will somehow disintegrate the Christian faith or message. That message will stand all tests.

So whenever a group has to end, stop, or ban a certain question, it must be a fear that something will come apart. A Marxist must stop a free market person from asking about Lenin-worship. There still is Lenin-worship; it is disgusting. Iran, as another example, must hit dissenters and break their faces. The FM is a 'troll' because the Marxist has fundamentalist procedures that he is trying to protect.

In the last century, trying to help the Bible, Ryrie and others proposed doctrines like 'two peoples, two programs' because 'the Bible didn't make sense' and 'needed their help.' However, the doctrines don't make sense! People who follow Ryrie and D'ism now have a fear of trolls who ask real questions about these concoctions.

By contrast, a radio program today called Table Talk (after Luther) by a group called Life Bearers .org, featured 3 hosts discussing what Isaiah saw coming in Messiah, especially in chs 9, 42, 55. The NT interpretation of such passages was the guide. No fear of boogeymen, they had a sound understanding of the passages in their normal, ordinary sense.
Click to expand...

People afraid of questions need to read scripture and to overcome their fears.

God is always right, we are not.

One great tool to learning is to ask questions and to be asked questions
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
Was this salvation sent to Gentiles that did not fear God?
Click to expand...

Was the following before, or after Acts 13?

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

I don't care for open ended questions the asker does not also answer.

My answer is that that was before Acts 13.

Those Acts 13ers :)chuckle:) were "heathen."

Passages like those in Galatians 1:16 ARE the ACTUAL context of Acts 7-28.

Why was Paul going to both Jew and Gentile despite what they APPEAR TO agree on in the following?

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: ) 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Because other than those of the Circumcision who had believed before Acts 7 "the rest" had been concluded UNcircumcision or Heathen, BEFORE Paul was saved.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Romans 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Acts 17: 11, 12.
 
D

Danoh

New member
heir said:
No, he didn't. You lie in an attempt to discredit brother SaulToPaul. Grow up. Get a ministry. Move along.
Click to expand...

Oh yes he did express his sense that STP appeared to have read one thing into another.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top