DECONSTRUCTION - How far is too far?

[St. SteVen]

Our exchange is one such example. You believe in a form of universalism which I believe the Bible in no way teaches and while this has been proven to you on a couple of occasions, real change in belief will only happen when you take your own views above and apply them to "proving all things", only then will you be convinced in your own mind that you have the mind of Christ.

Let's discuss the character of God.
- What does Damnationism and Annihilationism say about the character of God?
- What does UR say about the character of God?

 

[face2face]

Let's discuss the character of God.
- What does Damnationism and Annihilationism say about the character of God?
- What does UR say about the character of God?

It's like shifting sands with you.

So far you have quoted and made false claims about these passages:

Matthew 5:43-48
1 Corinthians 2:16
1 Corinthians 15:22
Romans 5:18-19
1 Corinthians 15:21-23

And every time you were shown the correct interpretation, did you acknowledge your error, even in part?

Not once!

In fact you moved on leaving them in your dust...
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, in this case, a sad duck!"

 

[St. SteVen]

It's like shifting sands with you.

So far you have quoted and made false claims about these passages:

Matthew 5:43-48
1 Corinthians 2:16
1 Corinthians 15:22
Romans 5:18-19
1 Corinthians 15:21-23

And every time you were shown the correct interpretation, did you acknowledge your error, even in part?

Not once!

In fact you moved on leaving them in your dust...
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, in this case, a sad duck!" View attachment 34775

You have a right to your opinion. I didn't agree with you.
How does your differing opinion suddenly put me in the wrong and you in the right?

Not sure how you can conclude false claims about those scriptures.
Did Jesus not tell us to love our enemies? Was this not shown to be godly behavior?
If loving our enemies is godly behavior, shouldn't we expect God to love his enemies?
Somehow that is unreasonable to you? Not sure where you are coming from.

 

[quietthinker]

You have a right to your opinion. I didn't agree with you.
How does your differing opinion suddenly put me in the wrong and you in the right?

Not sure how you can conclude false claims about those scriptures.
Did Jesus not tell us to love our enemies? Was this not shown to be godly behavior?
If loving our enemies is godly behavior, shouldn't we expect God to love his enemies?
Somehow that is unreasonable to you? Not sure where you are coming from.

John and James, yup, the ones privileged to see Jesus transfigured, were keen to incinerate the Samaritans a little while later because they were slighted. Luke 9:51-54

What a lesson for us. Do we consider ourselves having privileged information? Do we want to 'incinerate our enemies' because of a slight or a perceived one? Some intellectual honesty would be helpful for those considering themselves to be chosen.
This is how Jesus replied to their p.ssed off attitude......Luke 9:55-56

55But He turned and rebuked them and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

 

[face2face]

You have a right to your opinion. I didn't agree with you.
How does your differing opinion suddenly put me in the wrong and you in the right?

It's called evidence. When its shown and not refuted, but ignored, you lose credibility in the discussion, which is where you are at.

Not sure how you can conclude false claims about those scriptures.

So you have gone from "pretty sure to "not sure"...what are you sure about?

Did Jesus not tell us to love our enemies? Was this not shown to be godly behavior?
If loving our enemies is godly behavior, shouldn't we expect God to love his enemies?
Somehow that is unreasonable to you? Not sure where you are coming from.

I've never said or made such a claim, not once.

But we are seeing a trend with your posts which questions your integrity, that is more concerning at present than your views on God's approach toward His enemies.

F2F

 

[face2face]

John and James, yup, the ones privileged to see Jesus transfigured, were keen to incinerate the Samaritans a little while later because they were slighted. Luke 9:51-54

What a lesson for us. Do we consider ourselves having privileged information? Do we want to 'incinerate our enemies' because of a slight or a perceived one? Some intellectual honesty would be helpful for those considering themselves to be chosen.
This is how Jesus replied to their p.ssed off attitude......Luke 9:55-56

55But He turned and rebuked them and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

No problem with your post quiet!

 

[face2face]

John and James, yup, the ones privileged to see Jesus transfigured, were keen to incinerate the Samaritans a little while later because they were slighted. Luke 9:51-54

What a lesson for us. Do we consider ourselves having privileged information? Do we want to 'incinerate our enemies' because of a slight or a perceived one? Some intellectual honesty would be helpful for those considering themselves to be chosen.
This is how Jesus replied to their p.ssed off attitude......Luke 9:55-56

55But He turned and rebuked them and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

However, you would be wrong to think this section of Scripture teaches universalism.

 

[quietthinker]

John and James, yup, the ones privileged to see Jesus transfigured, were keen to incinerate the Samaritans a little while later because they were slighted. Luke 9:51-54

What a lesson for us. Do we consider ourselves having privileged information? Do we want to 'incinerate our enemies' because of a slight or a perceived one? Some intellectual honesty would be helpful for those considering themselves to be chosen.
This is how Jesus replied to their p.ssed off attitude......Luke 9:55-56

55But He turned and rebuked them and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

further.....and what did John and James use as their justification to wanting to fry their enemies? Elijah! yup, the scriptures.

This tells us something about Elijah. He too considered himself chosen. He stood boldly up against King Ahab and Israel and presented his challenge....and God responded in his favour. It was pivotal to say the least. However it emboldened him to murder (400 odd)...the result being PTSD. He bolted for his life at the threat of Jezebel but he hadn't learned his lesson; he further incinerated another 102 men....and compounded his PTSD.

Jesus puts God into perspective for his scripture wielding cock sure disciples. By saying what he said he is saying Elijah was out of order by his murderous attitude. We need to feed on the implications of that; we need to unknot our knickers and take a back seat with our 'the scripture says'

 

[face2face]

Do we want to 'incinerate our enemies' because of a slight or a perceived one?

Dearly beloved quiet, avenge not yourselves! but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Leave judgement to the One Who will repay it!

F2F

 

[quietthinker]

However, you would be wrong to think this section of Scripture teaches universalism.

ahhhhh, 'Universalism', what an opaque word!
Just as Elijah had a twisted rationale after the spectacular performance on Mt Carmel, could we too have a twisted rationale when we hear the word 'Universalism'

Was Elijah ever wrong? If so, where was the error?
When we hear the word 'Universalism', what do we mean?, what do we conclude? Could even its proponents be in error? Could those who object be in error; after all, aren't we all 'the chosen'? or at least consider ourselves so?

Back seats are useful places for the cock sure and self assured!

 

[face2face]

John and James, yup, the ones privileged to see Jesus transfigured, were keen to incinerate the Samaritans a little while later because they were slighted. Luke 9:51-54

What a lesson for us. Do we consider ourselves having privileged information? Do we want to 'incinerate our enemies' because of a slight or a perceived one? Some intellectual honesty would be helpful for those considering themselves to be chosen.
This is how Jesus replied to their p.ssed off attitude......Luke 9:55-56

55But He turned and rebuked them and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

The example of Christ that day with the Samaritans bore fruit 1-2 years later when they eagerly responded to the Gospel.... Read Acts 8:5-6, and verse 12 for which Peter and John go down and command the fire of the Holy Spirit down on them!! Acts 8:14-17 (cp Acts 2:3-4)
We are tasked with loving our neighbors and we leave God's judgement to Him to carry out - we know they will come and they will be fierce but as we have determined, none of us can look upon the heart or read a persons thoughts.
Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.
F2F

 

[face2face]

ahhhhh, 'Universalism', what an opaque word!
Just as Elijah had a twisted rationale after the spectacular performance on Mt Carmel, could we too have a twisted rationale when we hear the word 'Universalism'

Was Elijah ever wrong? If so, where was the error?
When we hear the word 'Universalism', what do we mean?, what do we conclude? Could even its proponents be in error? Could those who object be in error; after all, aren't we all 'the chosen'? or at least consider ourselves so?

Back seats are useful places for the cock sure and self assured!

This feeds into another subject...

Who is responsible for Judgement?

Provide quotes in your answer!

 

[MatthewG]

I agree with your righteous sentiment. We ought not to paint everyone with a broad brush. I get that and I agree with you on that point. But am I really painting people with a broad brush?

Words have meaning and in order to attain a fuller understanding of various concepts, one needs to tighten up definitions. One might examine preconceived notions but is that, in truth, deconstruction? One might explore presuppositions but is THAT, in truth, deconstruction? One might question a religious tradition, but is that, in truth. deconstruction?

I don't think so. Consider the word "deconstruction" itself. If I am right, the prefix "de-" in the word "deconstruction" indicates "reversal". A particular belief system is systematically being reversed, which results in a departure from that system altogether.

In the building trade, we call that "demolition" -- the process of removing part or all of a building to make way for newer parts or a completely new building. It is very costly to remove an entire building. It is more cost-effective to remove the roof and the walls and keep the foundation.

Paul the apostle spoke about this in his first epistle to the Corinthians. In that context, Paul speaks about his role as the foundation builder, and one man might build on top of the foundation with fireproof materials. In contrast, another man might build with combustible materials. The foundation, of course, is non-combustible. The teaching of Paul is uncontestable as it comes by direct revelation from above. Thus, if a man or a woman were to build on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ, one would be saved even if he or she should build with combustible materials. (false doctrines.)

Thus, concerning the faith, one will do well to demolish down to the foundation but keep the foundation. Based on the conversations I have been reading on this board, I fear that some are deconstructing or demolishing the foundation itself.

But why is it called "deconstruction"? Why do people use $10 words they borrowed from a college professor? I fear some are giving way to peer pressure, or attempting to gain approval, or fear the lack of authenticity.

I design houses for a living, so one might say that I am in the construction business. Builders begin with the foundation and build everything on top of that. The strength of the building depends on strong materials and good engineering practices. But suppose the house has a leaky roof. One is not likely to deconstruct the house all the way down to the foundation and rebuild the house just to fix a leaky roof.

Deconstruction doesn't seem to indicate an examination of a doctrinal confession. The goal of deconstructionism isn't to fix the house; the goal of deconstructionism is to demolish the house. The use of a $10 word seems to obfuscate the actual process. A Baptist who questions one of the distinctives isn't destroying the foundation. Not even close. But I am concerned for those in the deconstruction movement who claim to have abandoned Christianity, when in fact, one has abandoned "folk" Christianity characteristic of young children.

But I also fear for the college-age Christians who beg the approval of professors and classmates and in the face of challenges to authenticity, burn the entire house down.

If that is the case.

Jesus said anyone who builds a house on sand it will fall. Therefore if a house in sand; and needs to be assessed it should be; to know truth is to be set free of any man-made tradition; which Jesus also spoke against them.

There is no spiritual authority on earth for people to demand people to believe anything they say but power can be abused by saying such things exist you see?

The only Authority there is God; aside from the local governing forces here on earth.

 

[quietthinker]

This feeds into another subject...

Who is responsible for Judgement?

Provide quotes in your answer!

here is my quote or rather is it a reiterated question? Ah yes, 'who is responsible for judgement?' .....and this is not to skirt your question, because I believe it's valid, but to flesh it out.

Consider a court case, who is it that initiates it? the one presiding (the Judge) or the Prosecutor?
For any court case to go into motion there must be an accusation and an accuser. Who is the accuser?

We know Satan is the accuser and there's doubt, we are as well; we accuse others and ourselves.

Jesus tells us he has not come to judge the world but to save it (John 12:47) 'And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world'. Hey! here's that quote you're looking for .....kinda makes me think Jesus is the defence?

Anyway, we have another subject being birthed.....maybe on a new thread?

 

[face2face]

here is my quote or rather is it a reiterated question? Ah yes, 'who is responsible for judgement?' .....and this is not to skirt your question, because I believe it's valid, but to flesh it out.

Consider a court case, who is it that initiates it? the one presiding (the Judge) or the Prosecutor?
For any court case to go into motion there must be an accusation and an accuser. Who is the accuser?

We know Satan is the accuser and there's doubt, we are as well; we accuse others and ourselves.

Jesus tells us he has not come to judge the world but to save it (John 12:47) 'And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world'. Hey! here's that quote you're looking for .....kinda makes me think Jesus is the defence?

Anyway, we have another subject being birthed.....maybe on a new thread?

I need to point this out...but you have done precisely what @St. SteVen has done consistently in our exchanges and that is cherry pick a verse in defense of your "angle" on this subject.

Take your John 12:47 verse, which on its own, sounds very pleasant to the ears, but what of the next verse?

"The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. John 12:47

Why would you not complete his message? Are you purposefully trying to misrepresent your Master?

F2F

 

[face2face]

@quietthinker

Has the Lord given you a group of people in earth who are responsible to judgement?

Note: the one who rejects me!

Here is another group "we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ" (Rom 14:10)

Note the we is referring to the true household of God.

Same here: To the Corinthians he said, "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ" (2 Cor 5:10).

I'd be interested in who you think is responsible for judgement? What makes them responsible? And those who have no knowledge of Christ or God what happens to them?

Here are some passages for you to work through: John 12:46-48; 15:22; 9:41; Rom 2:12-16

As St. Steven has learnt "WE" & "US" is not "ALL"

Pray before you look and allow Him to guide you into truth.

F2F

 

[quietthinker]

I need to point this out...but you have done precisely what @St. SteVen has done consistently in our exchanges and that is cherry pick a verse in defense of your "angle" on this subject.

Take your John 12:47 verse, which on its own, sounds very pleasant to the ears, but what of the next verse?

"The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. John 12:47

Why would you not complete his message? Are you purposefully trying to misrepresent your Master?

F2F

Truth either exonerates or condemns us. It doesn't matter who speaks it. Does that answer your question?
Do we assume the accuser (Satan) will only use lies to accuse? Could it be possible that his accusations are right on the money?

If I assume my premise is unflawed about 'judgement' will I weaponise scripture against scripture just so I can be made right?

I had hoped meaningful interaction could sidestep the natural propensity for accusation for the purpose of learning and growth. Let truth do its own work in the mind of the hearer instead of 'my truth' used as a bludgeon to make me right.

 

[face2face]

Truth either exonerates or condemns us. It doesn't matter who speaks it. Does that answer your question?
Do we assume the accuser (Satan) will only use lies to accuse? Could it be possible that his accusations are right on the money?

If I assume my premise is unflawed about 'judgement' will I weaponise scripture against scripture just so I can be made right?

I had hoped meaningful interaction could sidestep the natural propensity for accusation for the purpose of learning and growth. Let truth do its own work in the mind of the hearer instead of 'my truth' used as a bludgeon to make me right.

It's just missing something quiet.

 

[quietthinker]

It's just missing something quiet.

Having well loved and entrenched views placed on shaky ground in our own selves (understanding) is never easy. It requires a rethink of what we deem our foundation and how we understand it. It requires giving others plenty of rope as it does giving ourselves rope.

In the meantime, I will feed my enemy and give him/her drink not because I deem myself better but because I need food and drink myself.....and remember that he who loves much has been forgiven much.

 

[face2face]

Having well loved and entrenched views placed on shaky ground in our own selves (understanding) is never easy. It requires a rethink of what we deem our foundation and how we understand it. It requires giving others plenty of rope as it does giving ourselves rope.

In the meantime, I will feed my enemy and give him/her drink not because I deem myself better but because I need food and drink myself.....and remember that he who loves much has been forgiven much.

What's missing is a Biblical reality which both you & St.SteVen avoid...I get it...you want to over emphasize His Goodness and undervalue His Severity.

It's a mistake.