|
|
 | | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Open View Theism | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:08:35 GMT |
|
|
 | It is as I said so many posts ago, Muz and lbrty4us are one and the same.
That is ascertained by your style, vocabulary and deceitfulness. The
believer is told to "put on" the mind of Christ. Deceitfulness has nothing
to do with the mind of Christ.
God bless,
Steve
P.S. This is not a personal attack, only the truth of who and what you are
trying to do on this Christian newsgroup. I also notice that all the other
posters have left and it has just been lbrty and me for some time. Others
can see through your smokescreen. I will surely not be responding to any of
Muz's posts, Lbrty's posts, or Drewsk's posts, as they are all one and the
same poster. As Christians, we have been instructed to "put on" Christ.
Deceit has nothing to do with Christ.
"Muz" wrote in message
news:LX8Id.1607$YD5.1538@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >Muz, You are a dishonest poster that is only interested in argument
> for
>>arguments sake. You cannot be taken seriously
>
>
> Ah, yes. The Ad hominim finish. "Ad hominim and personal attacks are
> the most begruding (and satisfying) admission of defeat." - me
>
> In spite of your claims, I haven't changed positions on this. I've
> simply pointed out multiple lines of reasoning as to why your assertion
> about the covenant is wrong.
>
> Let's review:
>
> Scripture (from what you've already shown) says that God was going to
> consume Israel and make Moses a great nation. There is nothing in the
> context, either here or elsewhere, to suggest that God isn't serious
> about His intent. In fact, God recognizes His covenant responsibility
> to Abraham, and has already stated how He will honor that covenant by
> producing a nation through Moses. This has been my position all along.
> It is consistent with each of my responses to Steve.
>
> Steve, on the other hand, wants us to watch his waving hands and
> constructed theology about blood covenants, and insert into the text
> that these 12 tribes had to enter the promised land (although no
> scripture to support it), and that God gave up the right to judge
> Israel when He entered into a covenant with them.
>
> He also wants you to believe that God LIED to Moses in Exodus 32, as a
> test. That God never REALLY intended to wipe out Israel, in spite of
> what scripture tells us.
>
> Apparantly, when scripture rubs Steve's theology wrong, we have to step
> back from the text, and not take it "too literally." Scripture
> obviously needs to be adjusted, when it conflicts with Steve's
> theology. What's next Steve? Jesus wasn't serious when He said, "it
> is finished"? Are we taking THAT too literally?
>
> As for your last cite of me, I was unravelling the semantic game you're
> playing with "anihilate." You are correct, in that if God had wiped
> out EVERY decendent of Israel, the covenant wouldn't be kept. However,
> since God had already decided to keep Moses, the descendents of Israel,
> while greatly diminished in number, wouldn't cease to exist. The
> covenant is just as valid through one descendent as it is through
> thousands, as long as those decendents grow to be great in number
> again.
>
> Muz
>
>
|
|
|
