Doug Batchelor Defends

[NightEternal]

DL, my salvation theology has been called everything under the sun, from 'sloppy agape', to 'cheap grace', to 'heresy' to a lot worse. Some have even made it intentionally personal. I have been accused of everything from being 'soft on sin' to 'making excuses for cherished sins in my life' amongst other such nonsense.

Do I take it personally? No. Why should I? Why should I allow anyone to have that much control over me? My identity is not wrapped up in my theology.

And if I die tomorrow, are the views of those who hate my salvation theology going to suddenly change? No. So, why should my opinion of Crews' salvation theology change just because he is no longer with us?

It was not personal. I really have nothing more to say in my defense if you cannot or will not see that.

 

[TrustAndObey]

DL, my salvation theology has been called everything under the sun, from 'sloppy agape', to 'cheap grace', to 'heresy' to a lot worse. Some have even made it intentionally personal. I have been accused of everything from being 'soft on sin' to 'making excuses for cherished sins in my life' amongst other such nonsense.

Do I take it personally? No. Why should I? Why should I allow anyone to have that much control over me? My identity is not wrapped up in my theology.

And if I die tomorrow, are the views of those who hate my salvation theology going to suddenly change? No. So, why should my opinion of Crews' salvation theology change just because he is no longer with us?

It was not personal. I really have nothing more to say in my defense if you cannot or will not see that.

LOL Night, if there's one thing I have figured out about you brother, it's that you WILL respond to OntheDL if he replies with something you don't like.

You've got a lot of pride.

Skipping over those posts we don't like really isn't that easy is it?

 

[OntheDL]

DL, my salvation theology has been called everything under the sun, from 'sloppy agape', to 'cheap grace', to 'heresy' to a lot worse. Some have even made it intentionally personal. I have been accused of everything from being 'soft on sin' to 'making excuses for cherished sins in my life' amongst other such nonsense.

Do I take it personally? No. Why should I? Why should I allow anyone to have that much control over me? My identity is not wrapped up in my theology.

And if I die tomorrow, are the views of those who hate my salvation theology going to suddenly change? No. So, why should my opinion of Crews' salvation theology change just because he is no longer with us?

It was not personal. I really have nothing more to say in my defense if you cannot or will not see that.

I remembered when you first came here you were the same way as you are today.

I don't want to say who's at fault or who started it. I'm willing to leave all the personal and condescending remarks behind and move on. We should have learned a lesson from the past weeks to address others as if they are standing in front of you.

 

[TrustAndObey]

If Night were standing right in front of me, the first thing I'd have to do is thwack him for looking like my ex-husband.

Then I'd continue to lurve him for reasons I still cannnot explain.

 

[NightEternal]

Not liking a topic and being offended are two different things Trust. I always avoid those threads which offend me, just because I do not see anything productive coming from my involvement.

But you will never hear me say DL or others should have thier views banned or the thread locked if what he is saying offends me. Never. If that were the case, I would have been crying blue murder to have YourNeighbor banned, because that guy truly did offend me with the way he conducted himself here.

That was the context and point of my 'skipping over threads' statement. Better to skip it than ask for the topic to be banned, as Woob has been incessantly pushing for.

Oops, I'm not supposed to mention him, am I?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Not liking a topic and being offended are two different things Trust. I always avoid those threads which truly offend me, just because I do not see anything productive coming from my involvement.

But you will never hear me say DL or others should have thier views banned or the thread locked if what he is saying offends me. Never. If that were the case, I would have been crying blue murder to have YourNeighbor banned, because that guy truly did offend me with the way he conducted himself here.

That was the context and point of my 'skipping over threads' statement. Better to skip it than ask for the topic to be banned, as Woob has been incessantly pushing for.

Oops, I'm not supposed to mention him, am I?

It's just as much censorship not to want someone to respond as it is to try to limit the topic altogether.

I've seen you comment with things like "I'm really offended by that!" so I still say the suggestion that we just skip over posts we don't like should apply to all, not just us.

The only thing I'm offended by is personal attacks. The person that did that the most is on my ignore list, and he knows it.

I didn't feel the need to defend myself against every one of his personal attacks with just about every single post I make. People are telling me that he's still doing it. I really don't care and eventually he'll figure it out.

A rose by any other name is still a statrei.

It isn't easy just to skip over topics, especially when they blatantly go against what the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches as doctrine.

If you don't say anything, visitors could get the impression that you're okay with it or that the Adventist church has changed its doctrine.

It's not a matter of pride at that point, it's about stating what the church really teaches, ya know?

 

[honorthesabbath]

Why should I be nice about theology that has discouraged and poisoned the faith of hundreds of Adventists? You know nothing of my past experiences with pefection theology and you know nothing about the people I know personally (some of them family) and the many I have talked to who have left the church in despair because thier assurance of salvation was ripped from them, and they were unable to live up to the insane perfection requirements for salvation that have been foisted upon them by authors such as Crews. So I suggest you keep your inaccurate accusations to yourself.

Night--I have heard you make this comment many times in the past--now explain to me how the 'perfection' doctrine has hurt you . I have ask you before, but you haven't answer me. Please do so now. Thank you.

 

[sentipente]

I didn't feel the need to defend myself against every one of his personal attacks with just about every single post I make. People are telling me that he's still doing it. I really don't care and eventually he'll figure it out.

< snip>

If you don't say anything, visitors could get the impression that you're okay with it or that the Adventist church has changed its doctrine.

Something just does not feel right when those two sentences appear in the same post.

 

[thecountrydoc]

When one has the facts, they argue the facts.








When one has the law, they argue the law.








When one has neither, they attack the person.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Would it be OK with everyone posting to this thread to stay on topic???

PLEASE???

This thread has become like a one car funeral going the wrong way on a one way street.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[thecountrydoc]

Back to things that pertain to the original post.

Are there any of you that won't be able to attend a local church for HERE WE STAND, or can't download it live, that would be intrested in having the audio on audio cassett ?

Let me know.

Yor brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[Jon0388g]

it won't be of much value, in changing any one s mind, because you can't hear a response. It will be preaching to the choir. If they really wanted to defend the SDA church and it's teaching they would invite Ratzlaff , Desmond Ford, Mark Martin, Derek Anderson, Ronald Numbers or others to a debate and kick the stuffing out of them. the fact that they won't do that is proof that there postition can not be defended

This is a good point, Ice. I too have thought this.


He may have some good points to counter with, but there would be nothing greater than having the opposing side present for a live debate.



This is the same reason I sometimes feel uncomfortable in Sabbath school, practically laughing at the people who believe in evolution, for example. It's very easy to win the argument when the opponent isn't present.



Jon

 

[djconklin]

the fact that they won't do that is proof that there postition can not be defended

Did God invite Satan to a debate and "kick the stuffing out of him"? According to the above "logic" the reason God didn't do so is because He couldn't beat him. Never invite chronic habitual liars to a debate--they make a mockery of the truth.

 

[djconklin]

If you felt that this announcement held no interest for you, then why didn't you just pass by without comment?

The temptation to make a quick shot was to great to resist. They can't help themselves.

 

[NightEternal]

If Night were standing right in front of me, the first thing I'd have to do is thwack him for looking like my ex-husband.

Lol. Sorry Trust, I can't really help you there. Hopefully my appearance isn't causing you too much annoyance.

We better let this train get back on track before Doc has a stroke.

 

[NightEternal]

A rose by any other name is still a statrei.

What in the world is a statrei?

 

[Mankin]

All right, back to the matter at hand. I have met Doug Batchler once. He is a nice enough guy, and he has some interesting things to say. I disagree with some of his theology though. I may watch some of his seris, it depends. But on the other hand, I have better things to do.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Did God invite Satan to a debate and "kick the stuffing out of him"? According to the above "logic" the reason God didn't do so is because He couldn't beat him. Never invite chronic habitual liars to a debate--they make a mockery of the truth.

Actually chronic habitual liars are the easiest to win a debate with. Those seeing the debate know who won the liar simply claims he won.

 

[honorthesabbath]

it won't be of much value, in changing any one s mind, because you can't hear a response. It will be preaching to the choir. If they really wanted to defend the SDA church and it's teaching they would invite Ratzlaff , Desmond Ford, Mark Martin, Derek Anderson, Ronald Numbers or others to a debate and kick the stuffing out of them. the fact that they won't do that is proof that there postition can not be defended

Wonders if Dale Ratzlaff ever HAD an opportunity to present his views on a world wide media such as Doug has?

And if he ever did--did he ask for Doug to share the stage?

 

[tall73]

Wonders if Dale Ratzlaff ever HAD an opportunity to present his views on a world wide media such as Doug has?

And if he ever did--did he ask for Doug to share the stage?

The fact that this series is addressing such views apparently give him that stage indirectly.