Closing the Gap in Dispensationalism

[Dave-L]

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.

I think it's obvious by now I'm not interested in your opinions.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

corrected your statement, Dave-L ...

I think it's obvious by now I'm not interested in your opinions the Word of God.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

- Albert Einstein

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.​

​

Relativity: The Special and General Theory ​

A Popular Exposition​

by Albert Einstein​

[heh]

 

[Dave-L]

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.​

​

Relativity: The Special and General Theory ​

A Popular Exposition​

by Albert Einstein​

[heh]

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.

 

[Dave-L]

corrected your statement, Dave-L ...

Then why pay attention to me, unless you just want to argue.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Then why pay attention to me

Yeah ... you'd love it if no one exposed your erroneous dogma ...

unless you just want to argue.

Who's arguing?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

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.

You need to read God's Word.

 

[Dave-L]

You need to read God's Word.

I do every day. I think it interesting though he theorized what the bible says about predestination and free will several hundred years after the Westminster Confession stated the biblical position.

 

[Dave-L]

Yeah ... you'd love it if no one exposed your erroneous dogma ...




Who's arguing?

Do you subscribe to the Ecumenical Creeds?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Do you subscribe to the Ecumenical Creeds?

I prefer Scripture.

 

[Dave-L]

I prefer Scripture.

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?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You prefer your own take on things?

I prefer God's "take on things".

Like I showed you in the passage you misinterpret ... 1 Kings 22:19-23 ... which you refuse to read "because it's too long". hahahahaha!!!!!

 

[Dave-L]

I prefer God's "take on things".

Like I showed you in the passage you misinterpret ... 1 Kings 22:19-23 ... which you refuse to read "because it's too long". hahahahaha!!!!!

You reject what it says because it doesn't fit your "model".

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You reject what it says because it doesn't fit your "model".

Please provide your proof that the "model" is incorrect. Thank you.




.

 

[Dave-L]

Please provide your proof that the "model" is incorrect. Thank you.




.

My model is the scriptures saying God causes the false prophets to deceive among whom was Ahab.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

My model is the scriptures saying God causes the false prophets to deceive among whom was Ahab.

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.

 

[Diakonos]

the LORD hath spoken evil

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.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

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.

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 ...

 

[Dave-L]

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.

Do you have a commentary that backs your position? If so, name it and quote it if possible.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Do you have a commentary that backs your position? If so, name it and quote it if possible.

It'd be best for you to quit claiming "the scriptures saying God causes the false prophets to deceive" and instead declare the truth of Scripture.

If you disagree with what has been submitted at Posts #341, #342, #343, #488, please explain why you disagree.