A Muslim Tax-Drivers Wisdom

My reasearch has been quite exstensive. Some of my current books, that contain the subject are Sytematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, A Theology for the Church as edited by Dr. Danny Akin, Christian Theology by Millard erickson, R. L. Dabney's Sytematic theology, etc. I have also done research outside of those books, and have found that all of the scriptures that I've researched have been reconciled, quite nicely.

You mentioned the 95% model, and I would have to ask you what do you consider a working definition of Biblical Inerrancy?

Then you drift into illumination of the H.S. Thats all, well, fine, and good, but that can also get subjective. What if the H.S. tells you something different than I, who's right? I may feel spirit led, and so would you, so who's right?

I do not "kow-tow" to my church. I teach systematic theology. I teach it from as many angles as I am aware of. I teach them all aspects, and let them make their mind up on their beliefs. I teach Calvinism as well as Arminianism and as much as I can in between. I try to teach everything out there involving christianity, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

All of the books you mention are traditional Christian theology taken from an apologetics point of view. If you are suggesting you are teaching a truly wide vision of Christianity, the books you have mentioned don't support your contention. None of them are academic criticism, just theological justifications.
I don't begrudge that, but don't imagine you are embracing a widespread and inclusive vision of how Christianity is embraced. These books suggest a very narrow focus.

 

can you list how they are opposites

what Islamic countries have you been in and how long have you spent amongst and living with Muslims to evaluate these differences you speak of?

how did you live so long then? you are saying the most ridiculous things here about Muslims yet I feel sorry for you because clearly you never spent time with Muslims and don't know anything except repeating the same old rubbish about us.

I don't need to live among Muslims to note that any Muslim majority country is totaltarian or pretty darn close to it.
all I can do is shake my head at this line

what fruits? what are you talking about?

more rubbish

explain how you figure this out?

wrong the Jewish towrat does not mention remission

Jesus and Mohammed pbut both updated the old Jewish scriptures and they both said to forgive was better to any harm done to you and IF you had spent any time in any Islamic country which you haven't obviously, you would witness every day this being true.

my dear you need to do some research on pre islamic era

abortions are carried out in Islamic countries all the time in hospitals so where are you reading all this rubbish?

do you know that divorce was common in Islam way before Christianity! inheritance for women way before Christianity!
do you know that a Muslim woman who works has sharia law to protect her money and not one piastre needs to be used for the family and she can buy as many bars of chocolate and handbags as she likes with her salary and her husband has no say in the courts at all !
All the money she inherits is 100% hers to do with as she likes. Not one piastre can be taken from her under sharia.
The mans inheritance on the other hand MUST be used for the family and extended family while the females can be left in a bank or used to buy anything she wants with it. All in her name.

You really need to do some research before posting this nonsense here.

 

I do get some material from the internet, but as you probably already know, you have to be very discriminatory with the data disseminated.

what are the qualifications of "academic criticism"?

 

Criticism that approaches scripture without the agenda of proving it to be true, or false for that matter. Apologetics is the discipline of finding scripture credible by whatever means necessary.

As for being "discriminatory" with the data, that suggests you aren't quite as open minded as to what you share with your charges regarding the faith, letting the "chips fall where they may" as you say. You have chosen to limit the chips that are offered.

 

So if I approach the defense of scripture, and someone else is trying to "attack" (for lack of a better word) then what I'm doing is wrong?

If the point is to defend your stance, and you adequately do that, then thats somehow wrong?

 

So what are the books that you would offer up as a sytematic theology?

You are right about one thing for sure, I'm not so opened minded that I let my brains fall out.

 

That is the crux of Biblical interpretation.

I know that from the 1st time that I read a Living Bible xlation of the Bible, which I chose as being easy to read---not for it's absolute accuracy of interpretation--but wanted to get the basic knowledge of what was in it.

I then moved on to the new KJV, but then also settled on the NASB with the supplement of the Amplified Bible' to dig out the options of the interpretation of the various word meanings. Also bought a Strongs Concordance later on.

But from my beginning as a 'baby Christian' I always wanted the 'honest truth' that the scriptures presented and compared my studies with what was being taught from several pulpits---S. Baptist, AOG, & inter/non-denominational churches.

I've always trusted in my earnest integrity of looking for the truth in the scriptures and weighed any teachings of men against what "I saw" in them. And so I trust in my 'nobleness' of effort in understanding the scriptures, and look for the 'feels right' and the "Aha feeling' that I believe that the Holy Spirit gives me while reading them.

Altho I later went to a 2 yr Bible College and discovered some new ways of looking at scripture; I came out feeling confident that I didnt need that schooling to understand spiritual principles, as I could be diligent with fervor and dig them out for myself. Esp holding to the scripture, "Cursed is the man that trusts in mankind," as I've seen many, many ministries (both big & small) fail over the years, and always felt a Holy Spirit 'heads-up' b4 they failed! And so again, I trust in the Holy Spirit to lead & guide me as both teacher & comforter...

It all comes down to a personal decision one has to make as feeling as being lead by the Spirit of God---

 

Only if you want to be viewed as credible in regards to your claiming to "let the chips fall where they may". If you eliminate those that don't attack but rather find a different message within it, like Red Letter Christians for example, or those that admit error while still embracing it for guidance, have you let the "chips fall", or just selectively offered chips?

If the point is to defend your stance, then you never wanted to present all the chips anyway.

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree", as I don't trust the "aha" or "feels right" portion. The Bible says the heart is "deceitfully wicked", so I don't always trust what I "think" or others "think". As paul said, "the things I want to do I don't do", and vice versa. I also use the NASB, as it seems to be the most accurate to the scriptures. I ,as well, like the "honest truth", but I believe I could be led astray by evil spirits.

- - - Updated - - -

It depends on whom finds me "credible" or not. If it stands up to scrutiny, then the chips have fallen where they may.

 

But only the chosen chips, chosen by you. Right?

 

Do I try to teach all angles? yes

You may have missed my other question, do you have any "academic criticism" backed Sytematic Theology books in mind?

 

Contradiction in terms.
I don't think you really do try to teach "all angles". It sounds like you haven't even bumped into some of them.

 

Or let valid secular criticism in.

 

Are you looking up the books for me, or have we abandoned that idea?

 

I answered you.
It is a logical contradiction.

Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. It is also called Dogmatics. -Wikipedia

That is not the goal of secular criticism.

 

If your asking if I've read other opinions or viewpoints, then yes I have. But, I also seek to find resolutions for the problems, if there are any.

 

But do you also investigate the validity of the problems?
Truth is found in all kinds of places, within scripture and without.

 

Of course you investigate the "validity" of the issue, because how else could you arrive at a suitable conclusion?

 

Not by approaching it with a pre-ordained concept, which is what systematic theology, by definition, does.

 

Do you mean approaching it without a presupposition?

 

Yes. Do you feel there is a distinction being made?
Systematic theology presupposes that the bible is God's word, and attempts to build a theology around that premise.
The academic study of the bible enters in with no such presupposition, and so has nothing to fear when finding inconsistencies.
This does not necessarily lead to a lack of belief. It merely requires the honesty to accept what is found and embrace it as part of that evolving faith.
Truth wherever it is found.

 

To think that anyone approaches anything without presuppositions is a fairey tale.
So what I do is try to rethink what I read, and ask the questions, does it really say that or is that what I'm reading?
Now as for inconsistencies, there will always be what may appear to be unresolved issues in everything, be it science, scripture, or everyday life.

I think you meant to say "Truth is truth, wherever its found". I would agree with that because as I always say "Truth never changes".

But you've got to be introspective enough to try and see your own inconsistencies, and I believe that as a fallen creation, there isn't anyone able to attain that level of introspection that it would take to completely eradicate all their personal prejudices. We're a product of our environment.

 

Yet you live in the west. The hypocrisy is actually up and flashing blindingly

 

It's not that hard. Just mark the bits of text you want to quote and click on the speach bubble in the menue. Or else you can do it manually by typing "QUOTE" in square barckets before and "/QUOTE" in square brackets after the bit of text you want to quote.

Where did you get that nonsense from? Certainly not from the first epistle to the Corinthians, in which Paul clearly preaches a spiritual resurrection:
"44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
(…)
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

It seems you have severe problems with reading comprehension. Paul says they would believe in vain, if Christ had not risen from the death, because then nobody would be saved.
“17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.“
If you only believe because you expect a bigger reward than non-believers, may the Lord have mercy on your soul. True love isn't calculating - if you love God only because you want special hand-outs, you don't love Him at all.

A) It almost seems as if you want atheists to be especially miserable – a rather unchristian sentiment.
B) What I stated is that we’re miserable in this life, not in the next. That’s what salvation is about: the reunion with God.

Belief in the gospel makes perfect sense from my standards. What doesn’t make sense it to declare it “good news” that supposedly most of mankind is doomed for all eternity. Do you not trust into Christs ability to save all of us, even those who lived before the crucifixion, if that’s what he set out to do? Granted: the Bible is full of black pedagogy. My parents too often threatened me with doom and gloom, if I did not do this or that. Yet they always helped me out when my stubborn stupidity and disobedience got me into trouble. Do you think our father in heaven loves us less unconditionally than our earthly parents? How so, if the gospels clearly tell you otherwise?

Why do universalists like me preach the gospel? Because they want to share the joy and the inner freedom it brings. With universalism being a dominant belief in the early Church a lot of martyrs probably were universalists. Why did they get martyred rather than denouncing their faith? Because they loved God whom they served out of love rather than out of fear. If one only serves God for fear of punishment that doesn’t make one a good person, but a mere coward.

As for the „fallen angels“: If hate had a place in heaven these angels would not have been cast out. Are they cast out for all eternity? No, they are cast out till judgement day when they together with the rest of us shall be cleansed of evil. (2 Peter 2:4). Why hasn't judgement day come yet? "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) I'd say what the allmighty God wants the allmighty God will get in the end.