The prophetical argument for IM

[DCR]

What Marc said.  Mmm hmm.

Lively:  The message is not only applicable to Mark...

Actually, his reply #186 had to do with just you.  Comprehension, Lively.  You might want to work on that.

Lively:  My comprehension is fine...  again, the message was not only applicable to Marc...  it applies to others as well...

Let me help.  Nick was not saying that your message applied to Marc.  He was agreeing with what Marc had just said in his previous post.  So, go back and read Marc's post right above Nick's comment.

[Scoobydoo]

Nick, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Quote from: Scoobydoo on October 26, 2009, 07:45:38 PM
Without exception folks who don't use or like CENI-- have a problem with the teaching of the texts..

you responded with--

That's a false statement.

My response---No, not at all  You just have to understand CENI  and how it is used and by whom.
From what I have read here--It is way off base--which is why I no longer engage in discussing it folks want what they want when they want it..

Scoobydoo

[marc]

You see, as someone who grew up with CENI and rejected it when learning how to read for meaning, I think you have it backward.  CENI tends to be a convenient system for getting what you want out of a text rather than what was originally intended.  There's no other system that would let us hang on to some of our practices while claiming to be the One True Church.

I do understand why you would want to avoid opposing views, however.  When I first started to realize I didn't have a handle on everything I thought I had a handle on, the realization was disturbing, to say the least.

[Scoobydoo]

Marc, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Hmmm, I am the exact opposite--I did not grow up with It. I have found it to be a very stable way to examine the texts. Now, it is not to say that I have not seen abuses--men in the name of God have abused just about everything and anything that has to do with God--all in His name of course.

Now, I don't like discussiing it because it gets really warm and heated at times. And, what most people fail to grasp--even those who grew up with it--or without it--is that CENI IS NOT A HERMENUTIC.
 Yet that is how it is viewed and treated--so there is just not sense in fighting over nothing--folks are going to do what they want.

I have been doing forums like this and bb prior to the internet--I have had hundreds of discussions on this. That is my basis for saying that in all of those discussions--there at the root was a biblical issue that someone did not want or like or believe.

CENI has been under attack more so in the last 10-12 years but it is still God's Word. It is God's way of communicating with us--the problem is not in CENI but in men who have personal goals who are different from others.

Scoobydoo

[DCR]

"CENI" is probably a misnomer for what the underlying problem really is.  The problem is not with the concepts of commands, examples, and necessary inferences.

I think most try to follow God's commands (when they understand it to apply to them) and imitate Biblical examples (when they deem it appropriate to do so).  And, everyone makes inferences... necessary or otherwise.

The difficulty comes in the parenthetical statements I italicized above.

Here are the hard questions:

1) When does a command apply to us?  Is there any command given to the early church that is not applicable today for cultural or other reasons?
2) How specifically do I follow that command?  Is it to the letter only, or is there room for "expediencies" and/or a little "wiggle room" in the details?
3) How meticulously and to what lengths do we imitate examples of what the early church and/or the apostles did?  Are there ever exceptions where examples should not necessarily be imitated exactly?

Different answers to those questions coming from different perspectives on any given issue give rise to many of the problems.

[Mere Nick]

Nick, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Quote from: Scoobydoo on October 26, 2009, 07:45:38 PM
Without exception folks who don't use or like CENI-- have a problem with the teaching of the texts..

you responded with--

That's a false statement.

My response---No, not at all  You just have to understand CENI  and how it is used and by whom.

That really doesn't address your false statement that "Without exception folks who don't use or like CENI-- have a problem with the teaching of the texts..".

[Mere Nick]

What Marc said.  Mmm hmm.

Lively:  The message is not only applicable to Mark...

Actually, his reply #186 had to do with just you.  Comprehension, Lively.  You might want to work on that.

Lively:  My comprehension is fine...  again, the message was not only applicable to Marc...  it applies to others as well...

Let me help.  Nick was not saying that your message applied to Marc.  He was agreeing with what Marc had just said in his previous post.  So, go back and read Marc's post right above Nick's comment.

Even with giving the reply # it sails right over.  But, of course, his comprehension is fine.  Mmm hmm.

[Scoobydoo]

DCR, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

As we become more comfortable in studying the scriptures by covenants..men will get the right laws in the right places and a lot of this stuff will be unnecessary.

Because once again we have "messed up" our study habits and practices--we ask the wrong question first..which affects CENI

The first question needs to be--

[1] What is the speaker saying right then and now to the audience--

[2] What is the speaker saying to the folks who read this letter for the first time

[3] Then and only then--what is the speaker saying to me


As an aside--the questions that help with each are Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.

Far too often folks take #3 and then work the answer back wards and that does not work and it is tougher to CENI where it belongs.

CENI is on God's side of the communication process--we to much better when we take the commands by covenants  and do not mix and match.

What compounds the issues for many folks is what it does to the MDR discussion where most folks who hold the traditional view cause themselves to call God a liar because they have learned the text incorrectly.

Takes a lot of time to get all this out and worked on. And, some folks just will never ever get it..

Here are the hard questions:

1) When does a command apply to us?  Is there any command given to the early church that is not applicable today for cultural or other reasons?
2) How specifically do I follow that command?  Is it to the letter only, or is there room for "expediencies" and/or a little "wiggle room" in the details?
3) How meticulously and to what lengths do we imitate examples of what the early church and/or the apostles did?  Are there ever exceptions where examples should not necessarily be imitated exactly?

Different answers to those questions coming from different perspectives on any given issue give rise to many of the problems.

My observation--yes, it does create problems but that is not an excuse to have each do their own thing--it takes work to stay on track--It is not an excuse to decry CENI.

Scoobydoo


[/quote]

[Johnb]

Scooby
I know you don't like to hear about what the Campbells believed and taught but they were very wise.  Like the Campbells I would not disagree with much of what you said about how you look at the text.  However, like the Campbells I understand that everything you have just said depends very much on the use of human logic.  Therefore they should not be bound on others farther than they can see the connection.  There simply is nothing scripture that gives us the perfect way to look at and determine the text and exactly how it applies or does not apply to us today.  Surely you are not dumb enough to believe that your human logic is inerrant.  Regardless of how brilliant you believe your approach to scripture is in the end is still based on human logic and yours is no better or worse than a hundred other approaches and conclusion.

[Mere Nick]

Surely you are not dumb enough to believe that your human logic is inerrant.  Regardless of how brilliant you believe your approach to scripture is in the end is still based on human logic and yours is no better or worse than a hundred other approaches and conclusion.

And right there you seem to have hit the nail on the head why it is good for folks to meet with others to examine scriptures.

[Johnb]

Yep Nick
However, you realize after I meet with them and we discuss the scriptures and they don't see it my way I have to mark them and with draw from them?   

[Scoobydoo]

Johnb, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,
you said
Scooby
I know you don't like to hear about what the Campbells believed and taught but they were very wise.  Like the Campbells I would not disagree with much of what you said about how you look at the text.  However, like the Campbells I understand that everything you have just said depends very much on the use of human logic.  Therefore they should not be bound on others farther than they can see the connection.  There simply is nothing scripture that gives us the perfect way to look at and determine the text and exactly how it applies or does not apply to us today.  Surely you are not dumb enough to believe that your human logic is inerrant.  Regardless of how brilliant you believe your approach to scripture is in the end is still based on human logic and yours is no better or worse than a hundred other approaches and conclusion.

My response--I once read a commentary on the book of Romans by a guy named Barth--or, anyway I think that was his name and he was a confirmed atheist. Yet he did a good job on Romans.

Now, if you consider "human logic" to be the determining factor in studying the scriptures--you might as well enjoy life because you are never going to get there using that vechicle.

No one comes to Christ or remains in Christ by human logic. I did not.

Human logic will separate a person from Christ--because after all we are all entittled to use our human logic.

Human logic is not the standard of measurement. in coming to or serving Christ.

The scriptures are not silent here...but it gets ignored when we favor human reaoning..

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Since we are all human beings=all have human logic=we each have our own standard on how we serve God.{Thank you for making that point so well}

Mark :1616 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Even Karl Barth--was a wise human being..but not wise enough to obey the gospel..yet is able to teach Romans as one being wise in the scriptures..

I serve my risen Lord not by human logic or human reasoning but by FAITH---16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Scoobydoo

[Johnb]

Scooby
You clearly used human logic in coming to your conclusions you posted that logic.  Now you say human logic is not the standard and tell some story about an atheist doing an accurate commentary on Romans.  Even if you thought he did that makes no valid point.  But I have to wonder why an atheist would be writing a commentary on any book in the bible .  Who was he and where can I find a copy of this commentary?

If this is another source you can't find or gave away you really should stop using claims to prove your case that you  can not support.  

I agree that the scripture is the standard.  However, to bind you conclusions about examples etc makes your human logic the standard for others.  The fact that one does not agree with our conclusions does not make them wrong in the site of God.   

[Livelysword]

What Marc said.  Mmm hmm.

Lively:  The message is not only applicable to Mark...

Actually, his reply #186 had to do with just you.  Comprehension, Lively.  You might want to work on that.

Lively:  My comprehension is fine...  again, the message was not only applicable to Marc...  it applies to others as well...

Let me help.  Nick was not saying that your message applied to Marc.  He was agreeing with what Marc had just said in his previous post.  So, go back and read Marc's post right above Nick's comment.

Lively:  I have read all the posts, what I said to one does not only apply to that one at all times.. it may apply to another or to ten others...  no different then when Peter on Pentecost preached and three thousand obeyed... the message did not apply only to the three thousand, but to all that could hear it...

[DCR]

You appear to have no idea what Nick or I are talking about.  Nick's comment had nothing to do with whatever it was you said applied to anyone. 

He was agreeing with what marc had just said, not responding to anything you had said.  But, that's okay.  We'll let it go.