The type of exasperation I experienced was more along the lines of surprise. Nothing with strong emotion, just surprised exasperation by my inability to understand how anyone could make such an irrational assumption of such importance as a way of trying to explain it away.
You did blame him for something without directly stating that claim. You said that Paul had summarized his Gospel, with the ramification of blaming him for leaving out one critical element for salvation that is in reality not an element for us at all, therefore the reason for Paul's omission.
I don't know if you have a job of any great importance, but tell us what YOU think your boss would do if briefing him on a critical matter, and you left out one of two most important and critical elements in your brief. Don't you think that would render you fired were he to make a decision on the basis of missing information. You don't see the importance of that?
Those people were not walking around with Bibles in their sashes in order to look back at what we today can do with them. They had letters read to them when gathered together. This is why we systematic theologians do interpretation based upon who the speaker is, who is his audience and what was the setting within which those things were stated and/or written.
Paul was among some of the most educated men of that era, and that you would suggest he would summarize his Gospel to them, and at the same time leave out one of the two elements of Peter's Gospel if it were still valid under the Gospel of Grace, that just seems incredible to me that you never considered the ramifications of that.
When something is a gross misrepresentation against someone of Paul's stature, then yes, that is indeed an accusation. You ignored that it was only two elements in Peter's Gospel, and the tragedy in leaving out one of the two, and you continue to ignore the importance of the writing and the posterity it conveys as a record to others who would read it centuries beyond his life, whether he knew that or not. What if Peter had merely "summerized" to all those Jews listening to him on Pentecost who had asked how they could be saved, and Peter left out the water baptism unto the remission of sins.
Do you now see what's going on here? Others through the years in discussing this have continued to minimize the error in their thinking along this line, all in an attempt to keep from having to make a change in their thinking. Diverting over onto other tracks is also an ineffective tact that doesn't work. This is the important point I'm fixating upon at this time, hoping you will actually answer it.
This is a non sequitur. I've already addressed this for the false conclusion that it is. With us both allegedly being in the same faith, we have that connection whereby we should both be able to call the other out onto the carpet when one has all the appearance of being in gross error. If you're one of those lone star christians who's accountable to no other, then I would understand this sentiment of yours in the question. If you're one of those, then I will apologize and will move on.
Hyper? That's a rather extreme identifier given that we ALL are dispensational. That's like saying I'm MORE dispensational than you. What is that supposed to even mean other than the pot calling the kettle "black," to use an old time cliche'?
Bottom line, if you're not willing to answer my prime question to you, which is appears you aren't, then it is what it is in that you won't because you can't. I can accept that. When you don't have a legitimate answer, then you don't have one. It's just that simple. Minimizing the importance of the differences is only a tactic, not a defensible position for denial.
MM
You did blame him for something without directly stating that claim. You said that Paul had summarized his Gospel, with the ramification of blaming him for leaving out one critical element for salvation that is in reality not an element for us at all, therefore the reason for Paul's omission.
I don't know if you have a job of any great importance, but tell us what YOU think your boss would do if briefing him on a critical matter, and you left out one of two most important and critical elements in your brief. Don't you think that would render you fired were he to make a decision on the basis of missing information. You don't see the importance of that?
Those people were not walking around with Bibles in their sashes in order to look back at what we today can do with them. They had letters read to them when gathered together. This is why we systematic theologians do interpretation based upon who the speaker is, who is his audience and what was the setting within which those things were stated and/or written.
Paul was among some of the most educated men of that era, and that you would suggest he would summarize his Gospel to them, and at the same time leave out one of the two elements of Peter's Gospel if it were still valid under the Gospel of Grace, that just seems incredible to me that you never considered the ramifications of that.
When something is a gross misrepresentation against someone of Paul's stature, then yes, that is indeed an accusation. You ignored that it was only two elements in Peter's Gospel, and the tragedy in leaving out one of the two, and you continue to ignore the importance of the writing and the posterity it conveys as a record to others who would read it centuries beyond his life, whether he knew that or not. What if Peter had merely "summerized" to all those Jews listening to him on Pentecost who had asked how they could be saved, and Peter left out the water baptism unto the remission of sins.
Do you now see what's going on here? Others through the years in discussing this have continued to minimize the error in their thinking along this line, all in an attempt to keep from having to make a change in their thinking. Diverting over onto other tracks is also an ineffective tact that doesn't work. This is the important point I'm fixating upon at this time, hoping you will actually answer it.
This is a non sequitur. I've already addressed this for the false conclusion that it is. With us both allegedly being in the same faith, we have that connection whereby we should both be able to call the other out onto the carpet when one has all the appearance of being in gross error. If you're one of those lone star christians who's accountable to no other, then I would understand this sentiment of yours in the question. If you're one of those, then I will apologize and will move on.
Hyper? That's a rather extreme identifier given that we ALL are dispensational. That's like saying I'm MORE dispensational than you. What is that supposed to even mean other than the pot calling the kettle "black," to use an old time cliche'?
Bottom line, if you're not willing to answer my prime question to you, which is appears you aren't, then it is what it is in that you won't because you can't. I can accept that. When you don't have a legitimate answer, then you don't have one. It's just that simple. Minimizing the importance of the differences is only a tactic, not a defensible position for denial.
MM
