tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post113986238065544183..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Essential Truths, Secondary IssuesKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1140089402702122952006-02-16T03:30:00.000-08:002006-02-16T03:30:00.000-08:00Did 'anonymous' just post and run, or is he going ...Did 'anonymous' just post and run, or is he going to interact with this issue? Or is there interaction about this going on somewhere else that I'm unaware of?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,Jeff Voegtlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718288010688756299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1139976717966747082006-02-14T20:11:00.000-08:002006-02-14T20:11:00.000-08:00Anonymous,To start, for your information, I'd be g...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>To start, for your information, I'd be glad to believe what you espouse if you show me from Scripture. This will probably sound rough, but it seems that you start with reason, history, and experience, before getting into very light arguments for something seemingly so important. I've thought of and read this as a historico-rationale apologetic. First, you start with reason (common sense). Scripture itself is reasonable, but I'm not going to be judged by reason (Mt. 12:48). I agree that deity is an essential doctrine. The Sabbath has clearly been rescinded. I've never met a Sabbatarian who didn't have many more unscriptural beliefs and practice. You use history, or at least your view of it, when you make the point about evangelicals distinguishing between fundamental and secondary doctrines. If I'm not wrong, you are saying that some things are not worth separating over. I contend that the passages that hit this subject don't make these kinds of distinctions (Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5; Eph. 5:11; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; Rom. 16:17,18; etc.). Isn't it amazing how much the Bible says about this? Why ignore following those passages explicitly? I would say then, at least for purposes of your article, you use a kind of smear job by using the term "quasi-Christian cult." I have to take your word for it, even though I don't know these people. This is authority by experience or even by ad hominem attack. So far, you've used reason, history, and experience as your authority. These same kind of people, you say, believe you are going to hell if you disagree with them. That is extreme; hard to believe that is anyone's position, but it is extreme. Why is anyone extreme? If they don't believe and practice the Bible, then they are extreme, but if they do, why are they extreme? Because you don't like it? Respectively I say, shouldn't someone who uses reason, history, and experience to start an argument be viewed as extreme?<BR/><BR/>I agree that the no-proposition-is-worth-defending-group is the biggest and fastest growing. I don't know anyone who doesn't say there aren't priorities in Scripture. My concern is that in the reductionist view, also the view of the Pharisees (which is the greatest?), we become the authority on what is important. Why not make it all important? What's bad is when it is a fleshly attempt to keep low or high standards. I see this hierarchy of truth position as nothing other than prioritizing a view of unity above all others, a view of unity that doesn't even fit a proper exegesis of Scripture. People want to be big and will give up doctrines in order to get that way and then stay that way. They simply marginalize the separatists by calling them something like a "quasi-Christian cult."<BR/><BR/>I appreciate that you say that this is implicit in Scripture. I mentioned the "gnat" passage in my blog and I think I got the historic/grammatical context correct. Jesus was prioritizing the heart. The gospel takes priority because people can't understand any of Scripture or please God until they receive the Holy Spirit [your 1 Cor. 15:3 argument] (Rom. 8:9). I agree that greater condemnation or judgment enters into deciding what is a priority. I don't agree that gnats are doctrines unrelated to heaven and hell; that's speculation on your part. I agree that the foundation is a priority to that which is built on it. None of these means something is more important than something else. This is not just semantics. Romans 14 deals with issues that are non-Scriptural issues that are matters of conscience for one person but not for another person. I don't agree this is "undeniably a point of doctrine." The teaching of Romans 14 is important, but non-Scriptural positions are not.<BR/><BR/>You looked for resources that discuss these in depth. You should look to historical and contemporary books on separation if you wanted more on it. I have a lot to say about it if you were open to a discussion, oh, and if this is you who wrote the article. I have also written a lot on it. I believe someone can be consistent when they take a Scriptural view. God has not made it impossible to keep certain doctrines.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1139973408711039032006-02-14T19:16:00.000-08:002006-02-14T19:16:00.000-08:00Sometimes I really wish I knew who anonymous was. ...Sometimes I really wish I knew who anonymous was. I think those that just don't want to register with blogger should at least pick the "Other" option where you can insert your name without a link to a blogger profile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1139962947073749282006-02-14T16:22:00.000-08:002006-02-14T16:22:00.000-08:00How would you respond to this article?How would you respond to <A HREF="http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-do-common-sense-and-scripture.html" REL="nofollow">this article</A>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com