- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,130
- Reaction score
- 1,144
- Points
- 113
Timothy said:
Doctrinal reading!
A 'rebuke' to readers of stuff fundies like.
- Thread starter Tarheel Baptist
- Start date
Doctrinal reading!
rsc2a said:
^^ This.
Instead, they'd rather focus on music and clothes and "separation".
[/quote]
Yes. Because fundies can ....
... define the parameters of clothing (skirts on women)
... make a list of acceptable songs they can listen to (oops! Every Bible College has their own list!!!)
... separate from those who don't label themselves "fundamentalists" YET invite evangelists to take control of their pulpit for a week, knowing full well that they have an aberrant gospel.
BTW: since this is a fundamentalist forum, it would be acceptable for me to give Karma to the admin, right?! Bwahahaha!
rsc2a said:
I did. That's still not the same as what you said. You are burning a straw man here. You are trying to tie me to the extremes of a position in order to invalidate what I say.
I've got real work to do today so I'm pulling the eject button.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=pastorryanhayden][quote author=rsc2a]
Let's make it simple:
Did you or did you not say that those who would argue that the long-hair passages are cultural risk invalidating all of Scripture when they interpret it that way?
Did you or did you not say that there have always been people who believed like Baptists?
[/quote]
I did. That's still not the same as what you said. [/quote]
I said: I also see you're for long hair on women
You said those who would argue that the long-hair passages are cultural risk invalidating all of Scripture when they interpret it that way?
Care to explain how these are different?
****
I said: [you] flirt with Landmark-ism (although, I'll grant you don't fully embrace it)
You said: there have always been people who believed like Baptists.
Care to explain how these are different?
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]You are burning a straw man here. You are trying to tie me to the extremes of a position in order to invalidate what I say. [/quote]
I haven't tied you to any extremes. Your own writings have tied you to extremes. If your extreme positions invalidate what you say, then don't place that blame on my quoting of your own words.
Let's make it simple:
Did you or did you not say that those who would argue that the long-hair passages are cultural risk invalidating all of Scripture when they interpret it that way?
Did you or did you not say that there have always been people who believed like Baptists?
[/quote]
I did. That's still not the same as what you said. [/quote]
I said: I also see you're for long hair on women
You said those who would argue that the long-hair passages are cultural risk invalidating all of Scripture when they interpret it that way?
Care to explain how these are different?
****
I said: [you] flirt with Landmark-ism (although, I'll grant you don't fully embrace it)
You said: there have always been people who believed like Baptists.
Care to explain how these are different?
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]You are burning a straw man here. You are trying to tie me to the extremes of a position in order to invalidate what I say. [/quote]
I haven't tied you to any extremes. Your own writings have tied you to extremes. If your extreme positions invalidate what you say, then don't place that blame on my quoting of your own words.
Nearly a dozen posts? I counted 3. I did one series on reasons I could not be "mainstream" that's it.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,130
- Reaction score
- 1,144
- Points
- 113
pastorryanhayden said:
Move on...once rsc2a has his mind made up, he isn't impressed with facts.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
pastorryanhayden said:
1 - Some thoughts on separation.
2 - Why fundamentalism? Biblical separation.
3 - What's the matter with "contemporary"?
4 - Reasons I could never be mainstream
5 - Reasons I could never be mainstream: separation
6 - Reasons I could never be mainline: music
7 - Reasons I could never be mainstream: dress
8 - Reasons I could never be mainstream: the King James issue
9 - Reasons I could never be mainstream: the history of independent baptists
...did I miss any?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,130
- Reaction score
- 1,144
- Points
- 113
ALAYMAN said:
WHEN will you learn to bow at the feet of the superior wit, wisdom and intelligence of r2?
you're such a slow learner.....
Actually 1 and 3 have nothing to do with the type of separation to which you are referring.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
rsc2a said:
I did. That's still not the same as what you said. [/quote]
I said: I also see you're for long hair on women
You said those who would argue that the long-hair passages are cultural risk invalidating all of Scripture when they interpret it that way?
Care to explain how these are different?
****
I said: [you] flirt with Landmark-ism (although, I'll grant you don't fully embrace it)
You said: there have always been people who believed like Baptists.
Care to explain how these are different?[/quote]
*crickets*
rsc2a said:
I said: I also see you're for long hair on women
You said those who would argue that the long-hair passages are cultural risk invalidating all of Scripture when they interpret it that way?
Care to explain how these are different?
****
I said: [you] flirt with Landmark-ism (although, I'll grant you don't fully embrace it)
You said: there have always been people who believed like Baptists.
Care to explain how these are different?[/quote]
*crickets*
[/quote]
I have more to do than to follow internet forums all of the time. I do think that the "well that's just cultural" treatment of Paul's admonitions of men/women differences is just a dodge and one that can potentially wreak havoc on your understanding of scripture. God set up rules for gender differences in Deuteronomy (although I don't think that they apply to Christians), based on God's immutability, why would I want to interpret those scriptures any other way. I do not, however, take the application of those verses to mean a woman may not cut her hair or that a woman is sinning by wearing pants. I think Paul was advocating for a difference in the way genders dress.
As far as the landmarkism comment. Landmarkism is the belief in the continuation of the original church through the Baptists. I don't believe that and said as much.
Some questions for you:
1. Do you believe there is no mandate for Christians to dress in a gender distinctive way in scripture?
If not, what exactly do you think the scripture says about dress and what do you do with the passages in the NT that mention it?
2. Do you believe that, from the time of the apostles to the time of the reformers, there were no churches acting out the new testament teachings of baptism by immersion, salvation by grace through faith, individual soul liberty, etc.?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]I have more to do than to follow internet forums all of the time.[/quote]
But you engaged in other points. Thus the reason I re-iterated the questions.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]I do think that the "well that's just cultural" treatment of Paul's admonitions of men/women differences is just a dodge and one that can potentially wreak havoc on your understanding of scripture. [/quote]
If you really think hermeneutics is important, you have to consider the cultural context of everything written in Scripture.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]God set up rules for gender differences in Deuteronomy (although I don't think that they apply to Christians)...[/quote]
Genesis actually.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]...based on God's immutability, why would I want to interpret those scriptures any other way. [/quote]
Do you like shrimp? How about a poly blend for your jogging shorts?
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]I do not, however, take the application of those verses to mean a woman may not cut her hair or that a woman is sinning by wearing pants.[/quote]
So you are considering the culture in which the passages are being written?
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]I think Paul was advocating for a difference in the way genders dress.[/quote]
I think Paul was discussing something else entirely. Actually, I'm pretty certain he was.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]As far as the landmarkism comment. Landmarkism is the belief in the continuation of the original church through the Baptists. I don't believe that and said as much. [/quote]
But you believe there have always been Baptist...ergo the reason I said you flirt with landmarkism.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]Some questions for you:
1. Do you believe there is no mandate for Christians to dress in a gender distinctive way in scripture?
If not, what exactly do you think the scripture says about dress and what do you do with the passages in the NT that mention it?[/quote]
I think there is mandate for specific gender-defined roles in Scripture. Those passages you want to interpret as prescriptive for clothing are referring to headship, war, and what-not. I think the old covenant nation was instructed to lay off the synthetics however...but that was for everyone, not just the ladies.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]2. Do you believe that, from the time of the apostles to the time of the reformers, there were no churches acting out the new testament teachings of baptism by immersion, salvation by grace through faith, individual soul liberty, etc.? [/quote]
I believe that, for that period in history, most of the world was illiterate and books were extremely rare. The idea that there was a secret "bible-believing" church that is completely undocumented in history is absurd.
But you engaged in other points. Thus the reason I re-iterated the questions.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]I do think that the "well that's just cultural" treatment of Paul's admonitions of men/women differences is just a dodge and one that can potentially wreak havoc on your understanding of scripture. [/quote]
If you really think hermeneutics is important, you have to consider the cultural context of everything written in Scripture.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]God set up rules for gender differences in Deuteronomy (although I don't think that they apply to Christians)...[/quote]
Genesis actually.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]...based on God's immutability, why would I want to interpret those scriptures any other way. [/quote]
Do you like shrimp? How about a poly blend for your jogging shorts?
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]I do not, however, take the application of those verses to mean a woman may not cut her hair or that a woman is sinning by wearing pants.[/quote]
So you are considering the culture in which the passages are being written?
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]I think Paul was advocating for a difference in the way genders dress.[/quote]
I think Paul was discussing something else entirely. Actually, I'm pretty certain he was.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]As far as the landmarkism comment. Landmarkism is the belief in the continuation of the original church through the Baptists. I don't believe that and said as much. [/quote]
But you believe there have always been Baptist...ergo the reason I said you flirt with landmarkism.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]Some questions for you:
1. Do you believe there is no mandate for Christians to dress in a gender distinctive way in scripture?
If not, what exactly do you think the scripture says about dress and what do you do with the passages in the NT that mention it?[/quote]
I think there is mandate for specific gender-defined roles in Scripture. Those passages you want to interpret as prescriptive for clothing are referring to headship, war, and what-not. I think the old covenant nation was instructed to lay off the synthetics however...but that was for everyone, not just the ladies.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]2. Do you believe that, from the time of the apostles to the time of the reformers, there were no churches acting out the new testament teachings of baptism by immersion, salvation by grace through faith, individual soul liberty, etc.? [/quote]
I believe that, for that period in history, most of the world was illiterate and books were extremely rare. The idea that there was a secret "bible-believing" church that is completely undocumented in history is absurd.
Great.
I'll look into your views tomorrow. Let's leave it alone till at least then can we.
Thanks,
Ryan Hayden
I'll look into your views tomorrow. Let's leave it alone till at least then can we.
Thanks,
Ryan Hayden
