|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 30, 2006 11:43:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 11:50:15 GMT -5
You are reading your preterism into the text.
Isn't that called eisegesis?
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 11:57:42 GMT -5
So I take it that you don't believe that the doctrine of sanctification exist in our day?
And no one is denying God completing anything. I am just advocating conditions because we do sin therefore our walk is not immutable.
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Mar 30, 2006 11:57:44 GMT -5
jnorm,
would you agree that 'sanctification' is an eschatological issue? yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 30, 2006 12:03:45 GMT -5
Forget Preterism then J. You still can't deal with the >>> WHO <<< Paul says is doing the Work. How are Pauls listeners from back in 60 something AD who have been dead now for 1900+ yrs going to still be "continuing the work which they supposedly/according to your view, were doing in themselves until the day of Jesus Christ?
So you believe dead folks are still progressing in Sanctification? LOL!!! Where/what two verses are you getting that doctrine from?
This here again is why the Catholics have folks getting in and out of Purgtory. THe logical end to this line of reasoning is that no one is sentenced to Heaven or Hell until the Day of Christ. Period.
Folks in hell can "sanctify" themselves right back into the game.
Thats a good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 12:05:31 GMT -5
King Neb,
Like Justification, sanctification is past, present, and future.
So yes, only the "shall be sanctifide" or "will be sanctifide" is an eschatological issue.
To me future sanctification is synonymous with "Gloryfication" and that didn't happen yet therefore there is still a second advent to come.
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 30, 2006 12:08:57 GMT -5
So I take it that you don't believe that the doctrine of sanctification exist in our day? And no one is denying God completing anything. I am just advocating conditions because we do sin therefore our walk is not immutable. INLOVE Jnorm J! I am really sorry here bro, but this is some sick doctrine. My walk IS MOST DEFFINATLY IMMUTABLE!!! It was made that in the efficatious work of Christ!!! You are destroying EVERYTHING God has ever done in all of Eternity! The work of Christ barely scratches the surface of the IMMUTABLITY of my Walk!!! I have no hope if my Walk is not Immutable! Period. |
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 12:11:30 GMT -5
Christvader,
Its synergy. I believe scripture teaches that our sanctification is synergistic.
I know God does the work. God is the first cause therefore we are second causes.
Just like God is the cause in this verse below
Romans chapter 11:19-21
You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
It is God who kicks us out!
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 30, 2006 12:14:38 GMT -5
Dude...who are those branches?
((on a side note...what you are doing is called eisegesis. You are lifting verses completely out of their context and building a doctrine out of them.))
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 30, 2006 12:18:58 GMT -5
"...broken off because of unbelief"
unbelief in "what" j ? hmmmm the eschatological reality's of Christ as He effected those of THE Flesh and THE Law and THE Sin. hmmmmmm why is there that big THE in front of all of those things in the book of Romans j?
|
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 12:19:36 GMT -5
You tell me about the branches.
I thought it was obvious
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 12:21:36 GMT -5
Christvader,
Those who died in blah blah blah A.D. are not dead. Instead, they are still alive in Christ 1900 plus years later!
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Mar 30, 2006 12:22:38 GMT -5
You are reading your preterism into the text. Isn't that called eisegesis? INLOVE Jnorm ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Mar 30, 2006 12:25:07 GMT -5
Dude...who are those branches? ((on a side note...what you are doing is called eisegesis. You are lifting verses completely out of their context and building a doctrine out of them.)) ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Mar 30, 2006 12:26:49 GMT -5
Christvader, Those who died in blah blah blah A.D. are not dead. Instead, they are still alive in Christ 1900 plus years later! INLOVE Jnorm  ok i'll stop |
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Mar 30, 2006 12:29:20 GMT -5
ok Jnorm, so if sanctification is an 'eschatological' issue, why chide C.V. for reading Phil. with his eschatological framework?
What really needs to be addressed then is who is reading Phil. with the correct eschatological framework, since we both agree that it affects how one will interpret 'sanctification'. yet, instead of folks refuting preterism through thorough detailed exegesis, they simply reply, "To me future sanctification is synonymous with "Gloryfication" and that didn't happen yet therefore there is still a second advent to come" which is just begging the question. What is 'glorification'? Its certainly not what you suppose it is.
This is why i stated at the beginning that for the most part i want to just sit back and observe the show because most people will not address the REAL issue with sanctification - eschatology. Instead, what we have seen all throughout church history is two parties fussing over the doctrine, BOTH working within a framework completely foreign to the Scripture.
The debate over sancfication has not nor will not get anywhere until we really buckle down and begin to take Scripture more seriously when it told first century disciples that "Behold, I come quickly" and that "some of you will not taste death until you see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" and "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" and "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book" and "Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay;" and Daniel's visions never extending past the time of the fourth kingdom and on and on and on and on.
THAT is Phillipians and Romans context. Not the 21st century whinings of empiricists who have quickly forgotten the profound joy and depth and riches of what it means to be saved in the New Covenant.
carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 30, 2006 12:30:03 GMT -5
Christvader, Those who died in blah blah blah A.D. are not dead. Instead, they are still alive in Christ 1900 plus years later! INLOVE Jnorm And still working on their Sanctification?!?!?! ROFL!!! So ya'll are both Catholic! |
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 12:45:06 GMT -5
King Neb
To me Gloryfication is synonymous with us getting our uncorruptible bodies.
So tell me how the issue of uncorruptible bodies fit in your theology?
Also what will you do about this?
2 Timothy 2:18
INLOVE Jnorm
P.S. "how do you know that the book of Revelations was written before 70 A.D.?
plus Nero died in 68 A.D. so how could Jesus slay his head with his tongue in 70 A.D.?
And why didn't the Apostle John teach what you are saying since he lived until 90 A.D.?
And why didn't he teach any of his disciples what you are saying?"
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Mar 30, 2006 13:15:31 GMT -5
'To me Gloryfication is synonymous with us getting our uncorruptible bodies."
again, begging the question. you need to demonstrate how you're getting that from Scripture
'2 Timothy 2:18"
Simple, Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place, WHEN THAT WAS WRITTEN PRE AD70. You're comparing apples to oranges. I don't believe that the resurrection was consummated pre-ad70 as H and P did; therefore, doesn't apply to me.
"P.S. "how do you know that the book of Revelations was written before 70 A.D.?
plus Nero died in 68 A.D. so how could Jesus slay his head with his tongue in 70 A.D.?
And why didn't the Apostle John teach what you are saying since he lived until 90 A.D.?
And why didn't he teach any of his disciples what you are saying?"
again, more begging of the question and you certainly can't refute something with more questions.
Furthermore, i know Revelation was written before 70 A.D. because that is the very event it is speaking to as being future. In other words, my argument for its dating is from exegeting the texts, not starting with some highly controversial quote from Iraneaus outside of the bible - hence the reason i bring up empiricism again.
funny how you avoided all the texts i mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 30, 2006 13:28:26 GMT -5
King Neb,
I will address your scriptures when I'm ready.
It's not my style to address them at first. I like to wait and feel you out first. I also like to know your terms and interpretation first as well.
For when I address the scriptures I am really addressing "your spin" to them.
don't worry, I will relook at your scriptures, but I need to think first.
INLOVE Jnorm
I'll try to respond on the weekend...........by the way, what I said about "glorification" can be backed up with scripture. I had scriptures in mind when I said it. but don't worry.........you will get to see them in time as well.
You are different therefore I have to take my time to figure you out.
|
|
