[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

My position in this particular situation is that there is not really a position to take. We are so strong to try to figure it out — a la sola scriptura — and then apply our new-found theology as a yardstick to judge others.

I don't think anyone in this thread has really disagreed. While in the LRC we seemed sure we knew what happened, but I think the verses we have looked at have made a very strong case that at the very least the LRC position is not a strong one and, actually may be an erroneous one.

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not saying that there is no cause for getting things right. But the history from which we spring tends to push us to repeat the same errors that we now despise in Lee and the LRC. And that is thinking you got it right and judging everyone else for their error.

That is one reason why I stood firm on this discussion because I was clearly painted with that brush because I asked someone training children a question about their teaching. If you are saying the response I got was reminiscent of the LRC I wouldn't disagree. If you are saying that I am the one that is so sure I got it right it doesn't make sense, over the course of the discussion I have completely changed my understanding.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a place for getting it right. And that place is together. It is as the church. Not the Catholic church, or this denomination or that denomination. But as Christians willing to look beyond our petty preferences and search for truth together.

Isn't that what we were doing?

Originally Posted by OBW

I prefer immersion for baptism. Others sprinkling. I prefer believers baptism. Others take the words where whole households were baptized and do it on that basis of the household (and thus infant baptism). (BTW, do any of those groups believe, as a matter of teaching, that the infant is now saved?) But beyond these things that we differ upon, there is the core of the faith. And on this we agree. We may ultimately conclude that other positions are "right."

Paul taught headcovering, he explained it, he brought in the OT and created a solid NT teaching. But he also said if anyone seems contentious we have no such doctrine. The point is he didn't prohibit or discourage the study of the word, he just understood there are priorities. No one on this thread ever made a point that this topic is an item of the faith. Overcomers are not an item of the faith. The rapture is not an item of the faith. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't study it. There is no basis to imply that anyone on here has elevated this discussion to "an item of the faith".

Originally Posted by OBW

But we should always consider whether they are important. What does scripture actually say about it? Or is it just am implication?

And we should ask more questions than we answer. Even the scientific method of modernism finds answers by asking questions and seeking beyond what is known. Too often, our only question is where to find proof of what it is that we have already decided is true.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression you were objecting to us asking these questions? That was also my reading of Macduff's understanding as well.

Originally Posted by OBW

And when that is the exercise, then the postmodern position is far superior. Don't just tell me. Show me.

That was the point of what Ohio was doing by bringing in the accounts and testimonies of those who have been resuscitated.

Originally Posted by OBW

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Shw me how you are changed.

I did. I shared the testimony of the Buddhist that died and saw Jesus.

Originally Posted by OBW

You claim that Christ makes you one. demonstrate it. I will assure you that just because there are two different groups meeting in different ways across the street from each other, that alone will not be seen as disproof of oneness. The fact that they come out together to live the gospel in the community without discord is proof that they are.

I obviously love logic. And, at some level, I love theology. But I hate theology that does not have meaningful impact on people's lives today. That picks through what is wrong with other Christians and how to avoid them. I hate theology that is at the cost of loving one another. And since there will be more than one way to understand what happens between death and the resurrection, I am happy for those who have come to peace because of their version (as a result of sola scripture — me and my Bible). But I hate the creation of a "this is the answer" when it has no bearing on love for one another — rather puts one more bullet in the gun of discord.

Once again this doesn't make sense. If I made a big issue of this why do I meet with this group? Why do I have my children go to the Catechism class? The level to which you and others appear to have lept to ugly conclusions is extremely offensive. I said I meet with a group, my children went to a Catechism class, they taught this, and I asked the person teaching the class privately for a verse reference. From that you jump to this idea that I am condemning others for teaching things different from my understanding. That is insulting.

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not say this concerning the core of the person of Christ and the core of salvation. Only concerning the periphery. And of all the things mentioned in scripture in any way, shape or form, what happens between death and the resurrection is one of the more unspecified items there is. I cringe at the very act of trying to "figure it out," especially to go to such lengths to defend the need to do so.

I do not believe that the need exists. Scripture itself, in its silence, seems to agree.

Figure it out for yourself if you want. Like your conclusions. Don't think they are "right" and others are "wrong." If it comforts you to go this route, then so be it. But to rejoin with others to defend the importance of the topic is to require a specific result which is to add one more cause for lack of unity in the body. One more new Christian denomination or splinter group.

You misread what I said about this being evidence that the LRC is blind, like Laodicea. I wasn't basing this on the fact that they teach that Christians don't go to heaven when they die. I do this because they mock and ridicule others for teaching that Christians go to heaven. There is a very big difference. This is why I asked "do you read the posts".