The "Claim to the Name"

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

He also didn't say: except a man be born of the flesh and born of the Spirit.

No, but He did say .... “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:6, KJV.

BeenThinkin

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

He also didn't say: except a man be born of the flesh and born of the Spirit.

There is a much greater chance that he said born of the flesh (water), than the previous statement. What you are saying is you don't like how I interpret it, what I am saying is it is misquoted based on an assumption about interpretation. I don't misquote it to arrive at my interpretation.

[notofworks]

Mowerman, you baffle me.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

It has nothing to do with arrogance or exclusivity whatsoever and I stated nothing about superiority.

••Of course it does and yes you did! You said (direct quote), "They can't get a handle on it like "we" do. You also said, "Someone who doesn't understand biblical oneness just can't get a handle on what God did." You also said, "I've seen it dawn on Trinitarian seminarians, I've taught and it just seems to drive them to their faces in awe and humility." I'm sorry, but if you think that isn't exclusivity or theological arrogance, you're on a different planet than mainstream Christianity. I'll tell you something that happened today at the end of this.

Actually, if you go back and read what I did say, I said that Trinitarians have more of a handle on justification by faith that oneness folks do. So I guess you'll ignore the superiority I gave them and I'll take your personal attack calling me theologically arrogant.

••No, you didn't say that. You said, (direct quote), "Most Trinitarians have a good handle on justification." By connecting dots, one could argue you said what you claim. But even if, that doesn't change you degrading statement against trinitarians. I'm unaware of any trinitarians that would agree with your condescending claim.

Those who have a "handle" on the gifts are not superior to those who don't. They're just in a different place. We're all there to some degree and that has nothing to do with who is better.

Like I've said before....it seems that no matter what I say or how I say it you'll try to pick a fight.

••I'm very aware you don't like me ever since my calling you out for your tasteless and, to me, vulgar remarks about the nudity of Nancy Pelosi. But if you feel I'm picking fights with you, you're entitled to you opinion. No problem.

I won't return your personal attack but I've explained what I meant in the most simple terms I could. I take responsibility if you didn't understand it.

Your way of communicating is primarily why I don't get on AFF much anymore. It gets totally silly.

Regardless, if you don't care for my conclusions concerning what I would call your "theological arrogance", allow me to share an experience I had today.

I spent some time with a regional leader of "Fellowship of Christian Athletes." Somehow the subject of harmony between denominations and theological thought patterns, came up. So I thought I'd see what he thought about your opinion about Oneness' followers better understanding of "what God did." I told him I'd had a conversation with someone who said....and I quoted you.

Well, he laughed and said, "Wellll, you can't pay any attention to guys like that. They think they know everything." And then he said the magic words, "Arrogance can be a real problem."

You may not want your words to sound like they do. But they do. Sorry.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Wow, great comeback. I'll have to remember that next time I encounter someone with a better argument than I have

You avoid the heart of debate, and skim the surface to appease the mind of your shallow view. I've done this in the past, and may even do it today.

In spite of it all, I still think we can be friends. The last thing I want is War...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

There is a much greater chance that he said born of the flesh (water), than the previous statement. What you are saying is you don't like how I interpret it, what I am saying is it is misquoted based on an assumption about interpretation. I don't misquote it to arrive at my interpretation.

I don't misquote it.....I expand (elaborate) the meaning and look to see what the apostles preached concerning salvation. Their first opportunity in Acts 2 they preached water and Spirit. Jesus elaborated or further explained to Nicodemus what it meant to be born again when he said it is to be born of water and of the Spirit. The new birth is a "MUST" and that is what Peter taught the very first chance he got.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

No, but He did say .... “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:6, KJV.

BeenThinkin

That is way to logical for some, and besides it doesn't fit a predetermined theology.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I don't misquote it.....I expand (elaborate) the meaning and look to see what the apostles preached concerning salvation. Their first opportunity in Acts 2 they preached water and Spirit. Jesus elaborated or further explained what it meant to be born again....to be born of water and of the Spirit. The new birth is a "MUST" and that is what Peter taught the very first chance he got.

It absolutely was misquoted, and if you want to hold that erroneous view go ahead. But that is your assumption. My view doesn't require taking a passage from acts and superimposing it over a passage in John and forcing the passage in John to say something it does not say.

Most importantly I do not misquote the verse to push a three step plan of salvation, that is nowhere found in Scripture. Paul really missed the boat when he was asked what one must do to be saved I guess.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It absolutely was misquoted, and if you want to hold that erroneous view go ahead. But that is your assumption. My view doesn't require taking a passage from acts and superimposing it over a passage in John and forcing the passage in John to say something it does not say.

Most importantly I do not misquote the verse to push a three step plan of salvation, that is nowhere found in Scripture. Paul really missed the boat when he was asked what one must do to be saved I guess.

Sharp eye, Baron. I didn't catch or honestly, even read all of it. It makes a major difference, doesn't it?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It absolutely was misquoted, and if you want to hold that erroneous view go ahead. But that is your assumption. My view doesn't require taking a passage from acts and superimposing it over a passage in John and forcing the passage in John to say something it does not say.

Your view has to explain away the meaning of "water" to mean anything but baptism.

Most importantly I do not misquote the verse to push a three step plan of salvation, that is nowhere found in Scripture. Paul really missed the boat when he was asked what one must do to be saved I guess.

Are you saying that repentance, water baptism, and Spirit baptism are not found anywhere in scripture? Really?

Paul started off with what everyone has to start out with...belief in Christ. That wasn't the be all and end all of salvation otherwise Paul would have taught things a little bit differently. He would never have said, " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" knowing full well that they would have received the Spirit at faith because without the Spirit of Christ we can not be Christ's.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

That is way to logical for some, and besides it doesn't fit a predetermined theology.

Then you are saying, "that which is born of flesh is born of the water." Sorry, it doesn't say that either!