Should we value the gift of prophecy today as Paul and Moses did?

[JAL]

That is NOT what happened here.

Feel free to speak for yourself, please. I don't see why you'd presume to speak for me, Guojing, and all possible spectators both current and future.

 

[topher694]

Feel free to speak for yourself, please. I don't see why you'd presume to speak for me, Guojing, and all possible spectators both current and future.

I speak from insight and experience. All anyone has to do, if they are so inclined, is read through the 15+ pages, to see that I am right. Many times it is hard to see clearly that which you are closest to.

 

[Guojing]

After about 20 pages of discussion with @JAL, what would you say are the main insights you've learnt? What are the main conclusions?

Also, has your position changed in the slightest after all the time and effort spent in this back-and-forth exchange? Do you think @JAL's position has changed in the slightest? Did anyone's position change in the slightest? Did anyone learn anything new? Did anyone get closer to the truth?

Ultimately, do you think long back-and-forth exchanges are worth it?

I cannot speak for JAL, but I have learnt plenty from this exchange. I have made various posts detailing that in this thread, that you can read if you want.

But on a personal level, our exchange regarding his elderly father who was "canceled" by his church friends, was the most meaningful to me.

Thanks JAL, I appreciate you sharing that. =)

 

[chad kincham]

When you say "Jewish Christians", do you mean Jews?

James 1:1 tells you he is addressing the 12 tribes of Israel.

And James 5 says he’s writing to the church.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Except they look like loaded questions, not impartial ones. Hence my reaction.

Then feel free to respond to the actual questions, not to your "loaded" interpretation of them.

 

[JAL]

Then feel free to respond to the actual questions, not to your "loaded" interpretation of them.

I already proved they were loaded. Prejudicially they challenged long exchanges for a problem equally symptomatic of short exchanges, namely unresolved disputes. That's objective fact, not my interpretation.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I already proved they were loaded

Where? Where is your formal "proof"?

 

[JAL]

Where? Where is your formal "proof"?

You just read it for the second time and, just like before, couldn't refute the analysis.

 

[topher694]

I already proved they were loaded. Prejudicially they challenged long exchanges for a problem equally symptomatic of short exchanges, namely unresolved disputes. That's objective fact, not my interpretation.

In his defense, TruthSeek3r has a very long and established history of asking exactly these types of questions without any prejudice attached. It's just what he does. I can see why you came to the conclusion you did, but in this case you are mistaken. It's just his nature.

 

[JAL]

In his defense, TruthSeek3r has a very long and established history of asking exactly these types of questions without any prejudice attached. It's just what he does. I can see why you came to the conclusion you did, but in this case you are mistaken. It's just his nature.

That would only constitute half the story. A question is loaded based on the content of the question, not necessarily on authorial intent/motive. Example:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

 

[topher694]

That would only constitute half the story. A question is loaded based on the content of the question, not necessarily on authorial intent/motive. Example:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

You are assuming motive in order to interpret the content. That is circular reasoning and does not proof of anything... even if you are right, which you are not in this case.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" is not the same as:

Also, has your position changed in the slightest after all the time and effort spent in this back-and-forth exchange? Do you think @JAL's position has changed in the slightest? Did anyone's position change in the slightest? Did anyone learn anything new? Did anyone get closer to the truth?
Ultimately, do you think long back-and-forth exchanges are worth it?

Everything mentioned in that quote that was not a question did in fact actually happen. There was a lengthy exchange, it's right here for all to see. This is not a random accusation like, "have you stopped beating your wife"

Again, I totally understand how you got there, but I'll say it again, I completely believe that Truthseek3r was altruistic in these questions. He sincerely wanted to know and was not implying anything. It's how he rolls. I have seen it many times, at first I doubted myself, but I no longer do.

Try reading it again without assuming negative motives and perhaps you might see it differently.

 

[JAL]

You are assuming motive...Try reading it again without assuming negative motives and perhaps you might see it differently.

Wow. That's what I explicitly disavowed in my last post when I clearly stated that "loaded" is not a matter of authorial intent/motive.

Since your post was based on that false premise, the rest is ignored.

 

[topher694]

Wow. That's what I explicitly disavowed in my last post when I clearly stated that "loaded" is not a matter of authorial intent/motive.

Since your post was based on that false premise, the rest is ignored.

Again you misread and misunderstand. Regardless:

Truthseek3r has explicitly said that he had no ill intent
I have backed him up and said I believe he has no ill intent and has shown a pattern of behavior to support that.

It appears you refuse to accept this no matter what anyone says.

Your refusal to accept this and insist there was ill intent reflects far more negatively on you that it does him.

 

[JAL]

Again you misread and misunderstand. Regardless:

Truthseek3r has explicitly said that he had no ill intent
I have backed him up and said I believe he has no ill intent and has shown a pattern of behavior to support that.

It appears you refuse to accept this no matter what anyone says.

Your refusal to accept this and insist there was ill intent reflects far more negatively on you that it does him.

This is baffling. I see no evidence at all that you read what I wrote.

 

[topher694]

This is baffling. I see no evidence at all that you read what I wrote.

Ok, I'm trying really hard to not be frustrated or single you out in a negative way or something, so please consider my intent here as such.

1) yeah, you said you disavowed the motive/content connection. I saw that. My observation is just because you disavowed it doesn't mean you didn't actually do it. I think you did without realizing you did, and I've said multiple times, I think it is very understandable in this situation.

2) I think Truthseek3r is a good, honest guy who asks a whole lot of questions... a whole lot. I've known a few people like him, so I get it. If I'm asking anything of you it would give him the benefit of the doubt. If you feel you have fine, but it really didn't seem that way to me, I could be wrong.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

That would only constitute half the story. A question is loaded based on the content of the question, not necessarily on authorial intent/motive. Example:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Can you explicitly quote individual questions I asked and show, for each one, what is loaded about them? Something along the lines of "you asked question X, which is clearly loaded because of reason Y".

 

[JAL]

Can you explicitly quote individual questions I asked and show, for each one, what is loaded about them? Something along the lines of "you asked question X, which is clearly loaded because of reason Y".

I was clear enough at 447. Aspersions were prejudicially cast on long exchanges. I've participated on several threads with you and never once have seen you ask the same questions about SHORT exchanges. Prove me wrong. Substituting the word "short" for "long" in your questions, on what percentage of your threads have you asked the following questions:

"Also, has your position changed in the slightest after [a short] exchange? Do you think [your] position has changed in the slightest? Did anyone's position change in the slightest? Did anyone learn anything new? Did anyone get closer to the truth? Ultimately, do you think [short] exchanges are worth it?"

Waiting.

 

[JAL]

@Guojing,

Sorry to beat a dead horse, and I'm not trying to harass you (I realize you are ready to move on) but I think, a moment ago, I (hopefully) learned something (maybe?) about hyperdispensationalism from this article:
WERE OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS REQUIRED TO HAVE WORKS FOR SALVATION? – Grace Gospel Press
I found this article because I was googling to find out how OT saints were saved in the hyper-D view since I was still foggy on this point despite my discussions with you, and a (short) discussion with my Dad.

The article is written by a dispensationalist and it begins by citing the dispensationalist Charles Ryrie to prove that dispensationalists, unlike hyper-Ds, ultimately held to faith-alone for both OT and NT saints. Ryrie stated:

"The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ: the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every dispensation is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pg. 115).

Thus the CONTENT of faith has changed (literally increased) due to a gradual unfolding of God's plan known as Progressive Revelation. (Personally I don't find this fact terribly relevant to debates about salvation, but maybe I'm wrong).


He then goes on to directly quote several hyper-D thinkers (Les Feldick, Cornelous Stam, Charles Baker, and Randy White). Those statements make it clear that faith-alone salvation began only with Paul, in their view. In other words:

1. Abel and Cain NEEDED animal sacrifice to be saved.
2. Noah NEEDED to build the ark to be saved
3. Abraham NEEDED circumcision
4. Israel NEEDED both animal sacrifice AND obedience to the law
5. In Acts 2 the God-fearing Jews NEEDED to obey Peter's command to get water-baptized

- Les Feldick is slightly unclear because he says that faith alone INITIALLY INDUCTED OT saints into the Kingdom of God (it allows you to MEET the Savior). However Feldick, like the other hyper-Ds, seems clear that faith-alone did NOT sustain a lasting, saving relationship with Him (at least not until the day of Paul).

One more comment on my Dad (who seems to view the Les Feldick DVDs night and day). The irony with my Dad is incredible. For 30 years, at least, he has verbally abused my Catholic Mom for "stupidly" believing in faith-plus-works! And he still does so today! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I was clear enough at 447.

At post 447 you said:

I already proved they were loaded. Prejudicially they challenged long exchanges for a problem equally symptomatic of short exchanges, namely unresolved disputes. That's objective fact, not my interpretation.

So what? I still didn't make any claims about long exchanges, I only asked questions.

You claimed that my questions are loaded based on their content, but you haven't provided any syntactic or semantic analysis of the questions showing that their content presupposes premises that are problematic.

For example, when I ask a question like "are long exchanges worth it?", the only assumed premise in that question is that long exchanges exist, but what is problematic about that? The worthiness of long exchanges, which is the object of the question, is not being neither affirmed nor denied in the question itself. Nothing in the question affirms or denies the worthiness or unworthiness of long exchanges. You can either answer "Yes, they are worth it because of reasons X, Y and Z" or "No, they are not worth it because of reasons X, Y and Z". It's that simple.

Another example, courtesy of yourself: "When did you stop beating your wife?". The assumption in this question is that you started beating your wife at some point in the past, which is obviously very problematic to assume if there is no evidence to even think that that is the case. None of my questions make assumptions like that. You can perfectly answer any of my questions without having to assume faulty premises in the process.

Aspersions were prejudicially cast on long exchanges.

Aspersions? Again, can you quote a single question I asked and show what "damaging" or "false" remarks I made? Just quote one question, and show in which part of it I make a false/damaging claim about long exchanges.

Waiting.

I've participated on several threads with you and never once have seen you ask the same questions about SHORT exchanges. Prove me wrong. Substituting the word "short" for "long" in your questions, on what percentage of your threads have you asked the following questions:

"Also, has your position changed in the slightest after [a short] exchange? Do you think [your] position has changed in the slightest? Did anyone's position change in the slightest? Did anyone learn anything new? Did anyone get closer to the truth? Ultimately, do you think [short] exchanges are worth it?"

Waiting.

So what? You still haven't proved that the questions I asked are loaded. Again, a question is loaded if it is worded in such a way that forces you to accept faulty/invalid assumptions in order to answer it. Can you please quote at least one of my questions and show a faulty premise that my question allegedly forces you to accept? Can you please indicate what part of the question states the faulty premise? A syntactic and semantic analysis of the question will be appreciated.