Bart Goddard wrote:
> lsenders{at}hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > And again you fail to distinquish between application and
> >> > interpretation.  It is a fundamental error.
> >>
> >> You can try to hide behind platitudes,
>
> > Bart, if you could stop posturing for once, and stop presuming that
> > everyone opperates off of your own mental orientation, then perhaps
a
> > discussion could proceed.
>
> Yet another example of you not having the faintest idea of
> what the conversation is about.  How on earth could you think
> that I think that everyone operates off of my own mental orientation,

simple, your words.  "you can try to hide behind platitudes."

> when I specifically and multiply have stated that I am good at
> logic and you (and others) are hideously inept at it?  (The
> current comment is a case in point.)
>
"Logic."  It seems to be your mantra.  It also seems to be your
Messiah.  By it you can divine the true essence of what is.  This is
evidenced by your humanistic tendency of shunning sola scriptura.  It
is further evidenced by your conclusions, the supposed ability of one
"in Christ" being able to separate himself based on demerit, even
though being placed "in Christ" was never merited to begin with.  So
much for "logic."

Only those who by grace have *received* true faith and therefore true
virtue in their hearts will enter into the "deep things which are hard
to understand."  By faith ALONE can we accept the existence of the
Triune God.  By faith ALONE do we and can we accept the redemptive work
of Christ and His Spirit in space/time history.  By faith ALONE can we
accept the fact that we are creatures and sinners before God.  By faith
ALONE can we understand the progress of history to be that of the
conflict of Christ vs Satan.  By faith ALONE can we accept the fact
that the issue of each man's life and of history as a whole is that of
eternal life and the eternal damnation with victory for Christ over His
enemies.  But then....

"let those sceptics who refuse to credit the divine writings give me,
if they can, a rational account of them." [Augustine]

That is, logic will not get you there.  Accept what the Bible reveals
or vainly try to explain it all in terms of yourself as Uberman.
>
> If I had indeed failed at something, you'd be able to show, in
> some way, some evidence of what you mean.

Ahem!  I just did.

>  But you don't.  You
> just rattle off some meaningless words that sound nice to you.
> Who knows what you mean by "distinguishing between application
> and interpretation"?  (As if any sensible person couldn't tell
> the difference.)  And even if it meant something, who knows
> how the silliness applies to me?
>
And herein lies the evidence that you are not refined enough to discuss
such issues.  It is like discussing election with a new convert or an
unbeliever.  But then you would object because by your "logic" you
could plumb their depth.  "I think therefore I AM."

> My observation that you hide behind such drool is quite accurate.
> Whenever you find yourself painted in a corner, you start
> the drool machine and hope to save face.
>
No, I simply try another route in which it is hoped that the proverbial
cookies can finally gain a shelf low enough that even you can enjoy
them.  Apparently you do not like what is distilled in the WCF when it
reads:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike
cleary unto all. [Ch 1. pt 7]

> But I repeat:  Nobody on this newsgroup is fooled in the slightest
> by your false airs.

It is interesting how both you and Matthew always end up concluding
your arguments based upon 1) your are the majority view and 2), the
majority view is always correct.

> You try to be a pseudo-intellectual, but
> you just look foolish.  You can't hide behind volumes of inconsistant
> and meaningless verbage like you think you can.  No one is fooled.
>
>
> > What matters is that people gain true truth.
>
> "True truth"?  You can't have a concept of "true truth"
> without the concept of "false truth".  And, unfortunately,
> I'm not a bit surprised that the notion of "false truth"
> is banging about inside your head.
>
Obviously, being so trained in "logic" you have a naive world view as
to the present culture and its understanding of "truth."  It was hardly
I who coined the term.  It has been around since the mid-40's.  It
differentiates between Obiwan Kenobi's pantheistic view and the
biblical Christian's antithetical view.  Much of what is termed "true"
today is only relative truth which is based upon such arbitrary things
as "cultural opinion" or something establish by some arbitrary elite,
whether it be the abortion law or it be the teaching of evolution.
Both are "true" to their constituents yet they are not True as having
the Infinite-Personal standing behind them.
>
> > it does not promise to
> > gain us the true truth of Scripture, only our emotional wantings.
>
> Since I say the exact opposite of this, and yet, you think
> I say this, proves, again, that your brain doesn't work right.
> You really are a "false truth" kind of guy.
>
>
> > Counter to this is true bible study.  Why should we think that we
need
> > Bible colleges and seminaries if all we have to do is what you
> > suggest?
>
> What is it, exactly, that you think I'm suggesting?  You
> have no idea, upon reading a paragraph, what that paragraph
> just said.  You have no idea what I believe and, likely, you
> have no idea what you believe.
>
Whoa!  Now here is clear, concise reasoning that all can be proud of!
>
> > Use some of the
> > logic you're oh so found of parading in front of your supposed
> > students and us here.
>
> This from a guy who said "true truth".
>
Such a term should be an elementary thing to one so learned as yourself
and who teaches others for profit.
>
> > Bible study methodology does not rest on logic.
>
> ALL thinking rests on logic.

You confuse logic for reason.  IF you are a teacher of logic, surely
you don't need a newt such as myself to explain it to you!  Btw, I
don't charge for my classes.  Maybe you don't need a class in logic.
Maybe what you need is a class in epistemology.  You think?

>  If you don't use logic, then
> your Bible study can't go anywhere.  Of course, _you_ wouldn't
> use logic in your studies.
>
>
> >Get over it.  Grow up.  Move on.
>
> And speaking of mindless platitudes....
>
It still finds application, however.  Move on!  There was nothing
gained in this whole post & reply other than more pompous posturing.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/19/05 8:59:02 PM ---