Bible Study According to Caldwell

[reformed1689]

That's why I provided the link.

Yeah, and if people actually go to it you know you are taking it out of context. Not to mention I gave the full context explanation here yet you disregard it. You are lying repeatedly and intentionally so we know who your father is.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm not a kid John. You were not using it for age, you were using it as a derogatory term. More lies, more slander, more deception you snake.

Sorry, kid. You cannot tell me how I am using words. This is what you have been trying to do with God.

I was going off the pic on your avatar. You look young. I don't.

Just like with Scripture you try to determine what another person means by assigning to their words a meaning and insisting you are correct.

 

[reformed1689]

You cannot tell me how I am using words.

Context can.

This is what you have been trying to do with God.

More lies, more slander.

I was going off the pic on your avatar. You look young. I don't.

That's actually quite an old picture.

Just like with Scripture you try to determine what another person means by assigning to their words a meaning and insisting you are correct.

No, I go with context.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

"John Caldwell,

Anthony D'Arienzo rejected the "literal" or traditional method as subjecting God to a "dictionary".

Do not misquote me as you bear false witness. I hold to a literal interpretation, just not how you define it.

You show where I said I do not hold to a literal understanding...show it now, or stop posting it.

Instead of using the meaning conveyed by a words grammatical construction and historical context, @Anthony D'Arienzo suggested words in the biblical text have a different meaning - a "biblical meaning". This is an example of eisegesis. It is a liberal method of hermeneutics which is subjective by definition.

 

[reformed1689]

"John Caldwell,

Do not misquote me as you bear false witness. I hold to a literal interpretation, just not how you define it.

You show where I said I do not hold to a literal understanding...show it now, or stop posting it.

Lying is all he knows how to do.

 

[John Caldwell]

This could have been a good topic. Unfortunately I think that @David Taylor , @SovereignGrace and @Anthony D'Arienzo just wanted a thread to slander me (not that the title gave it away ).

Like I said to the admins - this was nothing but a poor effort at trolling, and like I said before responding, it'll work because I'll play along for a little while.

Now hopefully the forum can see exactly who they are dealing with when they choose to engage the puppy squad. They are a cult-like group.

 

[reformed1689]

This could have been a good topic. Unfortunately I think that @David Taylor , @SovereignGrace and @Anthony D'Arienzo just wanted a thread to slander me (not that the title gave it away ).

How have you been slandered in this thread? The only one slandering is you John. You have lied repeatedly in this thread.

It's not trolling. I caught you in contradiction to your own statements. So rather than admit you were wrong, you lash out and start lying through your teeth about things I have said, or what I believe, and then try to demean me for your assumption of my age.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

This could have been a good topic. Unfortunately I think that @David Taylor , @SovereignGrace and @Anthony D'Arienzo just wanted a thread to slander me (not that the title gave it away ).

Like I said to the admins - this was nothing but a poor effort at trolling, and like I said before responding, it'll work because I'll play along for a little while.

Now hopefully the forum can see exactly who they are dealing with when they choose to engage the puppy squad. They are a cult-like group.

Play along indeed...you continue to lie and have been exposed as such.

 

[John Caldwell]

I mean "play along" so that others know my statement about the puppy squad and their agenda was legitimate.

That has been accomplished. I doubt that anyone on this forum has a doubt about this group.

 

[reformed1689]

I mean "play along" so that others know my statement about the puppy squad and their agenda was legitimate.

That has been accomplished. I doubt that anyone on this forum has a doubt about this group.

No, what has been accomplished on this thread is the following:

1. You contradicted yourself when you say you look at Scripture and nothing else.
2. You have lied repeatedly about me and others on this thread and need to ask for forgiveness and repent of your sin.

 

[John Caldwell]

No, what has been accomplished on this thread is the following:

1. You contradicted yourself when you say you look at Scripture and nothing else.
2. You have lied repeatedly about me and others on this thread and need to ask for forgiveness and repent of your sin.

I never contradicted myself. I stated how I engage Scripture. I believe that one has to deal with Scripture honestly and not add to it what we think it should say.

The only thing you have proven is the cult-like behavior of the puppy squad. And your fellow pups enforced this conclusion.

 

[reformed1689]

I never contradicted myself. I stated how I engage Scripture. I believe that one has to deal with Scripture honestly and not add to it what we think it should say.

And that is what I do. That is what you do, I think, but we come to very different conclusions.

But you should be honest enough to admit you use outside resources when interpreting Scripture, you do not use just the text itself.

 

[Stranger]

I'm not asking you to teach me anything. I already know how to interpret Scripture but you have just confirmed something. You do not "simply read Scripture and took it at what it says" as you claimed. You have to look at outside sources in order to get context and audience and how they would have perceived the text. So the very thing you trumpet that I should not be doing, is exactly what you do. Now that is not wrong, in fact, it is right, but it shows your deception on the matter.

Well, actually you did ask. See post #(1,5). So he answered and now all all you do is whine and complain about him lying.

So, having read through this, just what is your problem?

Stranger

 

[reformed1689]

Well, actually you did ask. See post #(1,5). So he answered and now all all you do is whine and complain about him lying.

So, having read through this, just what is your problem?

Stranger

Have you read through? The whole point of this thread was to point out his inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

[Berserk]

This thread eloquently illustrates the wisdom of Text Critic B. F. Wescott's famous wry observation:
"The simple Gospel is not so simple as the simple would have you suppose."

(1) Ultimately, the Bible can never be translated accurately because, for many important theological and ethical Greek and Hebrew terms, there is no one-to-one English equivalent.

(2) As renowned philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein demonstrates, "The meanings of words are determined by their use in (cultural) language games."
That means that Paul cannot be properly understood without a greater awareness of the specific situations in the congregations he addresses and the experiential dimensions of the culturally conditioned Greek idioms he uses. When Jesus makes discipleship conditional upon "hating" your family, his intent cannot be determined apart from the use Aramaic words for "hate" in that cultural context. Even the Hebrew and Greek terms translated "faith" also connote "faithfulness," an insight which decisively affects the faith vs. works righteousness debate! In short, there is no substitute for serious well-educated biblical scholarship and Fundamentalists who disdain such scholarship are just demonstrating their preference for comfort at the expense of truth over the hard work of critical engagement with biblical texts.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

@John Caldwell needs to step up and end his false accusations on others. I mean it is post after post this is happening.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

This thread eloquently illustrates the wisdom of Text Critic B. F. Wescott's famous wry observation:
"The simple Gospel is not so simple as the simple would have you suppose."

I've been saying this for years, and this is exactly why it is hardly ever preached, and why most Christians don't even know what it is, and why preachers balk at preaching it in church because all they think it is is a chance to vote one's self into heaven, something they say their church has already done. It is way more than that, and the latter is absolutely false, no one votes themselves into heaven.

Thank you for that quote! NAILED!

 

[John Caldwell]

This thread eloquently illustrates the wisdom of Text Critic B. F. Wescott's famous wry observation:
"The simple Gospel is not so simple as the simple would have you suppose."

(1) Ultimately, the Bible can never be translated accurately because, for many important theological and ethical Greek and Hebrew terms, there is no one-to-one English equivalent.

(2) As renowned philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein demonstrates, "The meanings of words are determined by their use in (cultural) language games."
That means that Paul cannot be properly understood without a greater awareness of the specific situations in the congregations he addresses and the experiential dimensions of the culturally conditioned Greek idioms he uses. When Jesus makes discipleship conditional upon "hating" your family, his intent cannot be determined apart from the use Aramaic words for "hate" in that cultural context. Even the Hebrew and Greek terms translated "faith" also connote "faithfulness," an insight which decisively affects the faith vs. works righteousness debate! In short, there is no substitute for serious well-educated biblical scholarship and Fundamentalists who disdain such scholarship are just demonstrating their preference for comfort at the expense of truth over the hard work of critical engagement with biblical texts.

I agree insofar as the gospel is concerned . That is why I am opposed to @David Taylor idea that "good theology" cannot be expressed in "what is written" and @Anthony D'Arienzo insistence that Calvinism is the gospel. Earlier @David Taylor challenged my belief that Scripture states Jesus is God.

At the same time, Scripture is more than the gospel. We are commanded to diligent study. I think it is important to be honest with the text of Scripture (not create "biblical meanings" and extra-biblical theologies).

We have to be faithful to Scripture. The question is not what Scripture means to us but what Scripture means.

 

[John Caldwell]

Have you read through? The whole point of this thread was to point out his inconsistencies and contradictions.

So the whole thread was not only a lie but also you trolling????

And still no inconsistencies. (Which does not matter so much to me as I did not come up with the methods).

 

[reformed1689]

So the whole thread was not only a lie but also you trolling????

That's not a troll John. That's showing your inconsistencies.

And still no inconsistencies. (Which does not matter so much to me as I did not come up with the methods).

You inconsistency is you DO look at more than just Scripture.