Testimony, judgmentalism, and designated drivers.

[ALAYMAN]

Telling...

No, what is telling is that you have so much self-importance that you think everything you say is worthy of comment, but in reality you produce more rabbit-trails than Peter Ruckman or ANY cotton-candy IFB preacher EVER did.  Your logic is often fraught with non-sequiturs, sophistry, and ignorance unworthy of dignifying, but rather more appropriately ignored or tossed on the trash-heap of irrelevance.

You are aware that not knowing all the answers is ok, right?

Where God speaks authoritatively and clearly we ought to stand.  Through such feigned ambiguity or ignorance I hear the subtle whisper "yay hath God really said"?  Christian Universalism is either willful ignorance, or patent heresy.  To put it in the softer words of one in your trophy case of theologues...

Biblical 'universalism', therefore, consists in this, that in Christ God has revealed the one way of salvation for all men alike, irrespective of race, sex, colour or status. This biblical 'universalism' (unlike the other sort) gives the strongest motives for evangelism, namely, the love of God and of men. (This itself is evidence that we are thinking biblically here.) This view specifically excludes the other sort of 'universalism', because scripture and experience alike tell us that many do miss the one way of salvation which God has provided.---N.T. Wright

So do you want to engage the passages above or ignore those too?

The Romans 11:32 passage is parallelism, referring to the elect obviously, and it stems from Paul's desire to say that all sorts of people groups will be saved, not just the Jews (his kinsmen in the flesh).  Your inability to read in context in order to justify such flagrant error speaks volumes of your penchant for being easily deceived, all because you want to write out large chunks of the Bible regarding hell and eternal punishment.

Actually my roots are hyper-dispensational, hyper-arminian, southern baptist, but thanks for trying.

It matters not what your original roots are, as I was referring to your not-so-long-ago claim that you were essentially reformed.  That's laughable, as you are clearly like many on these "fundy" formums, running from what you used to be, ever learning and never able coming to the truth, wresting scripture to your own destruction.  Okay, maybe you will stop short of destruction, but your trajectory is the same as many I've seen on here before, leaving their identity behind, constantly in search of some new angle to oppose their "legalistic fundy" history.

That word doesn't mean what you apparently think it means...

No, you're not going to slither away from this one.  You're on the hook, and it's not the first time for this behavior.  It's in black and white.  Your finger-wagging at me is an obviously glaring inconsistency on your part.  Regardless if my behavior ("ad hominem") is wrong, it is abundantly clear that you rushed past bandboy's posts doing the exact same.  Why is your standard of indignation and judgment so blind?  The answer....hypocrisy.  Just own it.

This post makes no sense at all given my well-publicized stance on the question at hand.

Well, at least you're a consistent liberal, umm, libertarian.  You want to hand out needles, condoms, pot, and keys of a sober driver to enable the drunks to continue on in their drunken debauchery. 

Nope, but it definitely has appeal. Kind of like going into the slums instead of waiting on those in need to find you.

Or going into the slums and handing out the crack-pipes so that they don't have to go steal some other poor addict's stash.

 

[rsc2a]

Telling...

No, what is telling is that you have so much self-importance that you think everything you say is worthy of comment, but in reality you produce more rabbit-trails than Peter Ruckman or ANY cotton-candy IFB preacher EVER did.  Your logic is often fraught with non-sequiturs, sophistry, and ignorance unworthy of dignifying, but rather more appropriately ignored or tossed on the trash-heap of irrelevance.

You don't think it's telling that you just explicitly stated you "might" ignore those passages that give your questionable theological understanding fits instead of wrestling with them and/or changing your theology?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

You are aware that not knowing all the answers is ok, right?

Where God speaks authoritatively and clearly we ought to stand.  Through such feigned ambiguity or ignorance I hear the subtle whisper "yay hath God really said"?  Christian Universalism is either willful ignorance, or patent heresy.  To put it in the softer words of one in your trophy case of theologues...

Biblical 'universalism', therefore, consists in this, that in Christ God has revealed the one way of salvation for all men alike, irrespective of race, sex, colour or status. This biblical 'universalism' (unlike the other sort) gives the strongest motives for evangelism, namely, the love of God and of men. (This itself is evidence that we are thinking biblically here.) This view specifically excludes the other sort of 'universalism', because scripture and experience alike tell us that many do miss the one way of salvation which God has provided.---N.T. Wright

[/quote]

C.S. Lewis, John Stott, N.T. Wright - one a (possible) Christian universalist, one an annihilationist, one a "Hell is hot and forever"-ist*

Three fantastic teachers, no consensus. You know what that tells me? Things aren't as cut-and-dried as you want them to be (unless you ignore certain passages). I make it a practice not to ignore those passages that bother me and readily admit "I don't know". I know that  all of the Bible is authoritative, not just those parts I happen to like.

Particularly regarding Wright, he believes the punishments last forever, but he gets there by saying those being punished cease to be human.  (Are you ok with that?) He has also stated there are passages which bother him that a universalist understanding would make plain.

Which is why I land where I land: pragmatic "Hell is hot and forever"-ist and hopeful universalist. You aren't hopeful that God will save everyone? You desire to see others burn?


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So do you want to engage the passages above or ignore those too?

The Romans 11:32 passage is parallelism, referring to the elect obviously, and it stems from Paul's desire to say that all sorts of people groups will be saved, not just the Jews (his kinsmen in the flesh).  Your inability to read in context in order to justify such flagrant error speaks volumes of your penchant for being easily deceived, all because you want to write out large chunks of the Bible regarding hell and eternal punishment.[/quote]

- So you don't think when God says "all", He means "all"? (I'm not rejecting this argument...I just think it's funny how those who believe in a "plain understanding" of Scripture quickly run from that argument when it starts messing with their personal beliefs.)

- You also grabbed the "easiest" (by far) verse to critique. Want to try the other one?

- The idea that I "want to write out large chucks of the Bible" is extremely amusing coming from someone who has explicitly stated they "might" ignore those parts that conflict with their own beliefs. The funny thing is that I don't ignore said passages; I just acknowledge there are arguments for each side and try to live my life in a way that reflects Jesus regardless of which one is right.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Actually my roots are hyper-dispensational, hyper-arminian, southern baptist, but thanks for trying.

It matters not what your original roots are, as I was referring to your not-so-long-ago claim that you were essentially reformed.  That's laughable, as you are clearly like many on these "fundy" formums, running from what you used to be, ever learning and never able coming to the truth, wresting scripture to your own destruction.  Okay, maybe you will stop short of destruction, but your trajectory is the same as many I've seen on here before, leaving their identity behind, constantly in search of some new angle to oppose their "legalistic fundy" history.[/quote]

Do you know what determinism is?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

That word doesn't mean what you apparently think it means...

No, you're not going to slither away from this one.  You're on the hook, and it's not the first time for this behavior.  It's in black and white.  Your finger-wagging at me is an obviously glaring inconsistency on your part.  Regardless if my behavior ("ad hominem") is wrong, it is abundantly clear that you rushed past bandboy's posts doing the exact same.  Why is your standard of indignation and judgment so blind?  The answer....hypocrisy.  Just own it.[/quote]

hy

 

[ALAYMAN]

You don't think it's telling that you just explicitly stated you "might" ignore those passages that give your questionable theological understanding fits instead of wrestling with them and/or changing your theology?

I think it MUCH more telling that though I've explained to you that there are times that I ignore your points because they are merely distractions, or attempts at sophistry, you still plunge your head into the ground and insist on ignoring that plain explanation in favor of a <untrue> reason that puts you in the most favorable light <at least in your own mind>.

C.S. Lewis, John Stott, N.T. Wright - one a (possible) Christian universalist, one an annihilationist, one a "Hell is hot and forever"-ist*....

Particularly regarding Wright, he believes the punishments last forever, but he gets there by saying those being punished cease to be human.  (Are you ok with that?) He has also stated there are passages which bother him that a universalist understanding would make plain.

The Roman Catholic church stands on many moral/theological issues that I agree with, but where they part from proper Biblical theological reasoning/justification I separate from them.  Same goes for Wright.  I'm a Baptist.  Do you think that I agree with the Anglican view of the elements of the Table just because I agree with Wright's stand <generally speaking> against Christian Universalism?  How foolish is such reasoning?  I cited Wright on the specific matter of Universalism because he agrees with me, and yet he is far from a "fundy", and in doing so kept you from being able to poison the well by pointing to the source cited as being in my own camp (which there are plenty of folk who could have been cited reputably).  It is not a matter of nose-counting, but, it does show that the claim you made to ambiguity doesn't hold ground sufficient to make a valid argument based on either historical nor contemporary weights of evidence from orthodox theologians.

Which is why I land where I land: pragmatic "Hell is hot and forever"-ist and hopeful universalist. You aren't hopeful that God will save everyone? You desire to see others burn?

The whole underpinning of Universalism is staked on the peg of "love", and hope that the Bible is wrong about what it clearly states regarding hell.  I hope I see my dad in heaven, but according to what I know the Bible says, it is extremely unlikely.  Hopefulness that is rooted in concepts at odds with revelation is really nothing more than idolatry of the sort that says "my god wouldn't send anybody to hell".

- So you don't think when God says "all", He means "all"? (I'm not rejecting this argument...I just think it's funny how those who believe in a "plain understanding" of Scripture quickly run from that argument when it starts messing with their personal beliefs.)

Where have I ever said all always mean all in the way you intimate above?  See, this is where your argumentation is fallacious continuously.  Argue against what I say, not what you wished I had said.

- You also grabbed the "easiest" (by far) verse to critique. Want to try the other one?

Rather than hijack the thread why don't you start your own thread.

- The idea that I "want to write out large chucks of the Bible" is extremely amusing coming from someone who has explicitly stated they "might" ignore those parts that conflict with their own beliefs. The funny thing is that I don't ignore said passages; I just acknowledge there are arguments for each side and try to live my life in a way that reflects Jesus regardless of which one is right.

I'm not ignoring anything of substance.  I demonstrated quickly that you use selective prooftexting for your defense of universalism.  It would be much the same in the other instances.

Do you know what determinism is?

And that relates to your claim to being reformed in what substantive way?  Who is the author of such determinism (biology, man, fate, God, etc)? 

Of course your question doesn't address my point in any meaningful way.  You are running from what you were and you travelled the paths of reformed doctrine along the way, liking them for the moment, but now you've moved on to being much more amenable to the POMO scene.

hy

 

[BandGuy]

Ya ain't gonna get off the hook that easy by your typical obfuscation.  You pointed out my namecalling, yet conveniently breezed right past the bandboy's use of ad hominem.  What's the word.........


Hypocrite?

Don't be such a

 

[rsc2a]

You don't think it's telling that you just explicitly stated you "might" ignore those passages that give your questionable theological understanding fits instead of wrestling with them and/or changing your theology?

I think it MUCH more telling that though I've explained to you that there are times that I ignore your points because they are merely distractions, or attempts at sophistry, you still plunge your head into the ground and insist on ignoring that plain explanation in favor of a <untrue> reason that puts you in the most favorable light <at least in your own mind>.

Lest we forget:

This another one of those passage [of Scripture] you prefer to ignore?

Maybe, but if I were wise, it would be your posts that got the ignore feature

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The Roman Catholic church stands on many moral/theological issues that I agree with, but where they part from proper Biblical theological reasoning/justification I separate from them.  Same goes for Wright.  I'm a Baptist. [/quote]

Yay! You're a Baptist. I'm a Christian.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]Do you think that I agree with the Anglican view of the elements of the Table just because I agree with Wright's stand <generally speaking> against Christian Universalism?  How foolish is such reasoning?  I cited Wright on the specific matter of Universalism because he agrees with me, and yet he is far from a "fundy", and in doing so kept you from being able to poison the well by pointing to the source cited as being in my own camp (which there are plenty of folk who could have been cited reputably).[/quote]

So you disagree with his reasoning but agree with his conclusion so you cited him? Are you kidding?



[quote author=ALAYMAN]It is not a matter of nose-counting, but, it does show that the claim you made to ambiguity doesn't hold ground sufficient to make a valid argument based on either historical nor contemporary weights of evidence from orthodox theologians.[/quote]

I honestly don't think you have any clue regarding the "historical weights" about either the atonement or hell.

And to imply that Stott isn't orthodox is laughable. You do know he wrote one of the most most widely acclaimed books on the atonement, specifically on penal substitutionary atonement, in the modern era, right?



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Which is why I land where I land: pragmatic "Hell is hot and forever"-ist and hopeful universalist. You aren't hopeful that God will save everyone? You desire to see others burn?

The whole underpinning of Universalism is staked on the peg of "love"...[/quote]

and justice and mercy and grace and restoration and holiness and shalom and....

(The difference between you and I is I can see where all three viewpoints are about these things.)



[quote author=ALAYMAN]...and hope that the Bible is wrong about what it clearly states regarding hell.  I hope I see my dad in heaven, but according to what I know the Bible says, it is extremely unlikely.  Hopefulness that is rooted in concepts at odds with revelation is really nothing more than idolatry of the sort that says "my god wouldn't send anybody to hell".[/quote]

You mean except for those passages that you like to ignore? (cf Romans 11:32, 1 John 2:2, 1 Cor 15:26, Romans 5:18-19, Col 1:19-20, want more?)



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

- So you don't think when God says "all", He means "all"? (I'm not rejecting this argument...I just think it's funny how those who believe in a "plain understanding" of Scripture quickly run from that argument when it starts messing with their personal beliefs.)

Where have I ever said all always mean all in the way you intimate above?  See, this is where your argumentation is fallacious continuously.  Argue against what I say, not what you wished I had said.[/quote]

So you disagree with those who say the only way to understand the Bible is to "read it plainly"?



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

- You also grabbed the "easiest" (by far) verse to critique. Want to try the other one?

Rather than hijack the thread why don't you start your own thread.[/quote]

I'll take that to mean "no".



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

- The idea that I "want to write out large chucks of the Bible" is extremely amusing coming from someone who has explicitly stated they "might" ignore those parts that conflict with their own beliefs. The funny thing is that I don't ignore said passages; I just acknowledge there are arguments for each side and try to live my life in a way that reflects Jesus regardless of which one is right.

I'm not ignoring anything of substance.  I demonstrated quickly that you use selective prooftexting for your defense of universalism.  It would be much the same in the other instances.[/quote]





[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Do you know what determinism is?

And that relates to your claim to being reformed in what substantive way?  Who is the author of such determinism (biology, man, fate, God, etc)? 

Of course your question doesn't address my point in any meaningful way.  You are running from what you were and you travelled the paths of reformed doctrine along the way, liking them for the moment, but now you've moved on to being much more amenable to the POMO scene.[/quote]

So you don't know what it means. Gotcha.

In regards to your second question, "yes".



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

hy

 

[Castor Muscular]

Your turn...why do you have zero concern for the lives at risk using your method of tough love?

To the Pharisee, external appearances (and control) trump almost all other considerations.  It didn't matter to the Pharisees that people were getting healed -- they were getting healed on the Sabbath, and that meant Jesus was behaving publicly in a way they didn't want Jesus to behave publicly.  To them, Jesus was implicitly approving of work on the Sabbath. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Lest we forget:

And since you are too obtuse to grasp the answer given you, I'll refrain from answering a fool in his folly. 

 

[Biker]

If saving the life of some innocent bystander is enabling, I guess I will just have to be an enabler.  Never been to a liquor store or bar, but went to plenty of parties in college where my sole reason for being there was to save people's lives.  I am not sorry for doing so and believe that God is probably happy with that decision.  Interesting thing to think about:  Would Jesus have ever gone to where the sinners were?  But yes, I do agree that if never share the Gospel with them (which I did and still do on a regular basis), then you probably have no basis to compare yourself to Jesus and what He did.

Your reply is generally directed to Alayman but I wanted to comment. I can see Jesus being good with you acting as a designated driver at the College. A College is primarily known as a place to better oneself, the exact opposite of a bar. Just being on location at a College doesn't risk a tainted testimony. A bar is designed for humans to drug themselves, and often, into oblivion. Due to the atmosphere it harbors, it is illegal for anyone under 21 to even be inside.. Colleges are fulll of young people going thru a wild phase. Closer to childhood than adulthood, they are still growing up.

Jesus ate with Sinners but he was no friend to sinners. Nor was he a drunkard. These false accusations were planted by Pharisees not known for their truth telling. Jesus' circle of influence was the Apostles, the saved.You know all this so it's added for others sake. Jesus was not unequally yoked. Even Judas who Jesus called friend didn't openly sin rubbing it right in his friends face or we know Jesus would have chastised him. His sin would never take place in his presence again. Would the friends of the OP turn her over for 30 pieces of silver? Imho, no doubt. Planning to risk human lives in the process of getting smashed shoes little regard for human life. 

Hopefully the Pastor/Elder who handled it went after this woman. It is his job to lovingly keep the sheep in his bosom (Isaiah 40) to protect them. Round them up when/if they scatter. Seems a petty thing to squabble over. A Mentor, an older spiritually mature woman per Titus 2:3-5 could be beneficial. I could use one of those  8)

1 Cor15:33 Do not be misled. Bad company corrupts good character.

2 Cor 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

 

[Biker]

Did I define this situation as someone engaging in sin?  I think some situations fall into the category of wisdom and foolishness, but not necessarily sin.  This being one of them.

But if there's no sin involved, then why would it affect his or her testimony?  Who are you to judge whether or not his/her actions are foolish or wise? 

You make alot of good points in this thread

 

[Biker]

Attention Old Timers


Is this who I think it is??


http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Humble-PD-Man-so-drunk-officers-forced-to-hold-head-to-take-mugshot-172852731.html

 

[Ransom]

Is this who I think it is??

Is it our Sean Payne, the street preacher, you mean? Not unless he's moved to Texas recently from Toronto. Besides, it doesn't even look like him.

 

[Biker]

Yeah it doesn't appear to be him though I see some similarities.

http://www.youtube.com/user/seanpaynedotnet

 

[Biker]

Proverbs 23 equates just being around heavy drinkers as sin according to the majority of translations & commentaries.- http://bible.cc/proverbs/23-20.htm

Her church needed to act, I would. Except the order to "stop runnin the bars" was clearly mean spirited. Authority run amuck
Lovingly supporting her to cease being a DD, praying with her, reading scripture.Her friend could die of alcohol poisoning if this keeps up. She needs help to get clean. The sensuality, groping, dirty talk that routinely goes on in bars between strangers means it's no place for a Christian. Or anyone. Scripture warns us of pursing a path of sensuality which this qualifies,no doubt. Even when DD is to save lives, she still chose that path.


1 Peter 4:3 For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, [a]having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.

 

[rsc2a]

Proverbs 23 equates just being around heavy drinkers as sin according to the majority of translations & commentaries.- http://bible.cc/proverbs/23-20.htm

Her church needed to act, I would. Except the order to "stop runnin the bars" was clearly mean spirited. Authority run amuck
Lovingly supporting her to cease being a DD, praying with her, reading scripture.Her friend could die of alcohol poisoning if this keeps up. She needs help to get clean. The sensuality, groping, dirty talk that routinely goes on in bars between strangers means it's no place for a Christian. Or anyone. Scripture warns us of pursing a path of sensuality which this qualifies,no doubt. Even when DD is to save lives, she still chose that path.


1 Peter 4:3 For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, [a]having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.

We would definitely define "pursuing a path of sensuality" differently.

 

[Biker]

We would definitely define "pursuing a path of sensuality" differently.

Lol!! Makes me want to search for a pic of Darryl Hannah tied to a tree... for your evaluation

"although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" said paul in 1timothy. Thinking maybe the Ops friend will get saved due to her designated driving ( hopefully not before someone is killed) and it could be done in ignorance. I just remembered something. I went to a bar a few decades ago- in Sacramento after work 20 yrs ago. I was a Waiter. Wore very tight clothing they provided- shirt and pants. Very erotic atmosphere..Worse than being a DD. It Felt more like a stripper than a waiter. Hated it but tips were Great. My wife was elated when counting the money.  I quit 12 wks later as planned. Had just started a Contracting business. Needed $ for equipment. We were both 21 with an 18 month old who cried alot.
Only went because it was Halloween & a coworker was fired for dressing up as a woman. He lived with mom in a broken down trailer. He cried then wanted to go out to this bar so i caved under pressure. Provided $ towards their rent. He was 19, 2 yrs younger (not sure how he got the job) & immature. I stayed about a half hr at this bar (as promised) socializing with a Kaiser Nurse. It was a fluke she decided to go to a bar.I asked her to dance. Seems again, worse than being a DD. We never ordered any drinks or food for fear of AIDS. We left and had coffee for another 1/2 hr before heading home. A few months later, I mentioned it. My Wife got mad. Hardly reveal much, even today, if there is a question she may get upset. Disliking bars anyhow, it never came up

I did it ignorantly in unbelief". shouldn't have been there.. Would've enjoyed staying home more, asleep in bed but it was nice anyhow.. Our baby cried ALOT so it was a "safe" break talking to that nurse. Maybe the Op's friend will get saved due to her designated driving though scripturally it doesn't seem the best idea as my bar visit wasn't. sorry if i rattled on..can't seem to sleep well lately

 

[ALAYMAN]

We would definitely define "pursuing a path of sensuality" differently.

You'd also define the gospel differently, but that didn't work out too good in that situation either.

 

[rsc2a]

We would definitely define "pursuing a path of sensuality" differently.

You'd also define the gospel differently, but that didn't work out too good in that situation either.

The part where you explicitly stated you ignore Scripture than runs contrary to your personal viewpoints? Or the part where you ignore all the holes in your argument even when they are pointed out to you clearly?

 

[brianb]

Is this who I think it is??

Is it our Sean Payne, the street preacher, you mean? Not unless he's moved to Texas recently from Toronto. Besides, it doesn't even look like him.

I know he was living in Hamilton. When was the last time you saw him in Toronto if you saw him? The last time he posted on the FFF I think he was going to a Reformed church - it sounded like he is no longer affiliated with IFB. Heavy or problem drinkers often age quicker so it could be him.

 

[prophet]

There is a period of time (unspecified), in which a new  believer has the influence to lead their 'old crowd' to Christ.  At some point, when God is done using them for that purpose, He will lead them to Separate. I D D'ed for my boss, while I was in Bible college.  Later,  he came to me, when some zealous freshman witnessed to him, and asked me:'Is it true I'm going to Hell, prophet?'  I was able to reap the ready grain for Jesus, right there in the middle of work

 

[ChuckBob]

In light of the events of yesterday this whole argument is trivial and just plain downright stupid.



ChuckBob