Closing the Gap in Dispensationalism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
reneweddaybyday said:
since you don't want to understand, it doesn't matter how "simply" the passage is explained to you.

you are not interested in the truth of the passage to want to understand ... you prefer Gordon Clark's explanation.
Click to expand...
I think it's obvious by now I'm not interested in your opinions.
 
Dave-L said:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

- Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
The same person quoted by you also wrote this:

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies.1 Geometry which has been supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately ask as to the “truth” of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this by saying that by the “truth” of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction with rule and compasses.​
​



[heh]
 
reneweddaybyday said:
The same person quoted by you also wrote this:

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies.1 Geometry which has been supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately ask as to the “truth” of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this by saying that by the “truth” of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction with rule and compasses.​
​



[heh]
Click to expand...
You need to read Einstein of Predestination and Free Will. The Church was teaching the same thing 300 years earlier and he presented it as one of his theories.
 
reneweddaybyday said:
I prefer Scripture.
Click to expand...
You prefer your own take on things? And not the wisdom of the Church through centuries of debate making sure believers have a definite position on major doctrines? The prove many to be heretics. How do you know you are not one unless you study them?
 
Dave-L said:
My model is the scriptures saying God causes the false prophets to deceive among whom was Ahab.
Click to expand...
Post #488 corrects your misinterpretation ... to date, there has been nothing posted by you or anyone else which indicates the proper interpretation of 1 Kings 22:19-23 shown at Post #488 is incorrect.



 
reneweddaybyday said:
the LORD hath spoken evil
Click to expand...
Its not evil. Its calamity of disaster.
2 reasons:

1. "That which fills the heart proceeds out of the mouth". If God spoke evil, then there would be evil in His heart. Good luck defending that.
2. God commands us to not speak evil toward anyone. His commandments are a reflection of His character. He wouldn't tell us to do something if it wasn't something He would do.

That being said....we know that רָעָה (rā·ʿā(h) cannot be translated "evil" because it would contradict Scripture.

Even if God did in some sort of way "speak evil"....it would only be Him declaring what they brought upon themselves, not God's doing.
 
Diakonos said:
Its not evil. Its calamity of disaster.
2 reasons:

1. "That which fills the heart proceeds out of the mouth". If God spoke evil, then there would be evil in His heart. Good luck defending that.
2. God commands us to not speak evil toward anyone. His commandments are a reflection of His character. He wouldn't tell us to do something if it wasn't something He would do.

That being said....we know that רָעָה (rā·ʿā(h) cannot be translated "evil" because it would contradict Scripture.

Even if God did in some sort of way "speak evil"....it would only be Him declaring what they brought upon themselves, not God's doing.
Click to expand...
I do not believe God spoke evil ... and that is what I have been telling Dave-L ever since he introduced his misinterpretation of 1 Kings 22:19-23.

I explained the whole chapter to Dave-L in Posts #341, #342, #343.

In Post #488 I also explained to Dave-L why his misinterpretation does not make sense.

But Dave-L wants the passage explained in one sentence ... :rolleyes:


 
reneweddaybyday said:
Post #488 corrects your misinterpretation ... to date, there has been nothing posted by you or anyone else which indicates the proper interpretation of 1 Kings 22:19-23 shown at Post #488 is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Do you have a commentary that backs your position? If so, name it and quote it if possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back