STR, I was going to respond to your ridiculously long post,
I doubt that very seriously: you have a habit of dodging responses when you are shown to be in error.
More lies, STR...they are beginning to show your true character.
I think it is more of a matter that your statements being dealt with...you would rather fall into the background where it might be forgotten.
But as I said, you have a habit of dodging direct response. I would encourage anyone that might be interested to look a one-on-one debate we entered into which has a similar response as this one. There, because I would not conform to a format of more formal debate...this fellow refused to answer.
And it is sad to see you still maintain the same habits in your posting.which you purposely cut out numerous words that I stated
Not one word was left out...not one.
But the Public Record holds that information.
Another lie, which anyone can see just by calling your bluff and reading both posts one after the other...in an ill-concieved and uncouth tactic to try and make me look like I don't know what I am talking about...
It wasn't me that did that...you did.
Now if you care to respond to what I addressed in your poorly constructed response...we can discuss it.but then I decided that you will only continue with the dishonest, subversive and underhanded tactics
It is true, I will continue in the method of response with which I have responded to your first attempt, lol.
You got me there.
As far as whether you describe it properly or not, that is not for me to judge.
Like I said, since ill-gotten tactics are the ONLY way you seem to be able to win an argument (in your own mind, anyway) that is what you do. Nice try, thought.(since you apparently seem to think that is the only way you can win an argument),
First...there is no argument. In order for that to be true you would have to actually respond to my address of your post.
Secondly, there are a number of ways in which a debate can be won, and I particularly enjoy this method...letting my antagonist make my case for me.
;)so I decided not to.
Then perhaps public discussion, debate, and "arguing" is just not for you, lol.
At least not with someone who refused to debate by the rules, which you have already confessed that you refuse to do. Yes, that is the ONLY way you can win an argument, by side-stepping the rules and employing illegitimate tactics. Have fun with that, it won't get you into heaven.Nevertheless, not one of your points stands,
They all stand, and until you address my response...I have no choice but to accept your response as yielding.
Every single one of your "points" have been dealt with in the recent past, and every one of those points have been demonstrated to be fallacious. There is no need to re-hash a lost argument...they all fall in domino fashion, mainly from your lack of knowledge on the subject and apparent ignorance (if that is what it is) of understanding the principles of Biblical Interpretation...
I am not even sure you know what the subject is.
How about the subject of salvation solely based on the Blood of Christ, to which you responded..."Not!"
See, there you go again. Liar...try not to do that and perhaps we can engage in an honest debate...but someone I don't think you can or will. Produce the whole quote, or don't quote me at all. And the topic was baptism, not the blood of Christ...you are again playing stupid games.of which you broke so many that I stopped counting them.
Great. Please list how and where I broke them, lol.
I did...unless you cut them out of your response below...post a few of them which you fail (on a continuous basis) to utilize, which damages not only your interpretational credibility, but also your personal theology...
The following has nothing to do with anything I said, nor do they point out where I failed to meet your standard for proper interpretive skills.
For Pete's sake, SM, get of books about the bible and get into the Books of the Bible.
First, everything I posted has to do with practically every post you have ever posted. Read them again, and quite being a sore looser.3. The Progressive Revelation Principle: God does not give us all the information on one particular doctrine or teaching in one setting, instead He gives us glimpses of the whole of one topic scattered throughout His Word.
Show how I violated this principle.4. The Human willingness Principle: is the principle of the willingness of a man to so choose illumination by God’s Word, or to remain confined to lesser shades of light because of a number of human faulty attitudes addressed earlier.
Show how I violated this principle.Under the Context Principle, the following rules:
Rule Six – All of the passages of Scripture that deal with a given subject must be studied together topically; this maintains proper balance of Scriptural truth.
Show how I violated this principle.Rule Seven – Take passages that are plain to understand to illuminate more difficult passages on the same subject.
Show how I violated this principle.IV. Theological Analysis - A single verse cannot, and should not, be made to make a theological doctrine. Scripture often touches on issues in several different books. For instance, Gifts of the Spirit are addressed in Romans, Ephesians, and I Corinthians. To take a verse from Romans without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can not only cause a poor interpretation, but also results in incomplete knowledge on the subject, which can lead to false doctrinal statements.
Show how I violated this principle.8. The Contradiction Principle: always interpret a passage of Scripture in harmony with all other passages of Scripture, especially in harmony with other passages dealing with the same subject matter.
Show how I violated this principle.10. The Topical Principle: that, seeing as how God has revealed His Word in human history through Progressive Revelation, one must gather all the relative passages having to do with any one particular subject or topic, and study those passages as a whole, in order to come to a full and complete exegesis on any given topic in Scripture. In other words, one cannot take only three or four passages on a subject out of fifty and build a doctrine on that topic from those few passages. This is irresponsible handling of the Word of God.
Show how I violated this principle.V. Historical-Cultural Analysis - The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. Understanding that ancient Israel was a covenantal society helps us to comprehend the role and function of ANE covenants and their impact upon the New Covenant modeled after them.
Show how I violated this principle.Since the Historical Analysis is the one you violate the most, I will post the entire package here...
11. The Historical Principle: take into consideration the historical context of the passage, this includes (if possible) the politics and religion of the day that might give light to the passage, social customs (which include covenants), and laws of that day and time.
Show how I violated this principle.14. The Covenant Principle: that God deals with mankind towards redemption through the legality of the covenant. That we must understand covenants and the principles by which they operate, because the covenants which God has instituted (including the New Covenant) are based upon those principles.
Show how I violated this principle.And finally, the covenant principles by which all ANE covenants operate by (with the exception of blood covenants to a certain degree)...
1. A covenant is not in force until after both parties agree to all of the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and then inaugurate and ratify the covenant relationship. At that point all elements of the covenant are legally binding upon all parties involved.
2. Once the covenant has been agreed upon and entered into by both parties, it cannot be altered unless both parties agree to such alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.
3. Entering into covenant involved establishing not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as one of the most strongly held to relationships in the cultures in which they thrived.
4. The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant.
5. All of the elements of the covenant in question, be they terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originate.
6. None of the obligations of the covenant are legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant has been inaugurated and then ratified.
Show how I violated this principle.
And by the way, do I get any credit for not violating principles 1,2, and 5?
No, because the only reason you probably didn't violate them...YET...is because we have not yet discussed a topic where your exegesis would dictate such a violation. I am sure you will also violate them, since you know nothing about them.If you study these and apply them to your "study" of Scripture, you will have a better grasp of what you so far only think you understand as theology which you hold to. That is not meant to be insultive, but educational.
What I think I understand? lolAnd stop your dishonest tactics,
Was this meant to be insultive? lolor I will call you out on them every time.
You have my express blessing to call me out whenever you like.
I would prefer it, though, if you would actually include something I have said from time to time.Blessings.
I will not bother wasting my time showing you here where you violate every single one of these principles of interpretation, because you will violate them again and when you do I will let you know then.
Once again...refusal to respond.