Old Tom:Why do you think I'm not "cooled down"? Why do think I'm the one who's not understanding this? Why do you assume I'm not understanding the context?

Dave:Because your response seemed rather flamitory.

Tom:I think you mean "inflammatory." I didn't think it was. I didn't intend for it to be. Impersonal discourse is difficult, where clues like voice inflection and body language can make it difficult to rightly interpret things. I thought your comments towards Darius were unreasonable, but it was only my attention to draw your attention to this fact, not to annoy you in any way. If I chose my words poorly, I apologize.

Dave:I think you are the one not understanding because you said, "This doesn't make any sense." If it does not make sense, that means you do not understand something, and the most likely thing you do not understand is the context.

Tom:No, you're not understanding this phrase correctly. I didn't mean, "this doesn't make any sense" as in "this doesn't make any sense to me" or "I don't understand this." I meant it as is "this doesn't make any sense" or, synonymously, "this is illogical."

Old Tom:It's interesting that you suggest I pay attention to the context, and then misstate it. Here's what actually happened. Darius wrote this:

Dave:And in the interest of fairness, once again, the second paragraph of what Darius wrote was not present when I responded. It was edited in after I responded. I have never said that God wrote the Bible (excluding Exodus 20) - only that God was the source of the information. So, for Darius to make the statement he did, and direct it at me, it would imply that he sees no credit to be given to God.

Tom:If I commented on something which was different than what you actually wrote because it was edited after the fact, then I retract my comment. I was commenting on what I actually saw. If you saw what I saw was not an accurate representation of what you were responding to, then again, I retract my comment. One takes it on faith that what one sees in a situation like this is an accurate representation of what the posters are posting, but this isn't necessarily the case. If have miscast your remarks because things changed in between what you were responding to and what I saw, I'm sorry about that.


Dave: Actually, he did talk about credit: "Dave, God gets credit for creating the universe. What higher honor can He receive?" Here Darius says that get gets credit for the universe, but he does not say God gets credit for the Bible. This is the very point in witch the context becomes important.

Tom:No, this is *after* what you wrote. He *responded* to what YOU wrote. You're getting things out of order. HE wrote (at least what I saw) that God did not write the Bible, which is true. YOU wrote something like "ah, I see your problem; you're not giving God credit." THEN he responded to what YOU wrote. So no, Darius did not write about God taking credit; you did. (at least as far as what I saw).

quote:

---

I'm not sure if I'm repeating a lot of what you're saying or not. It doesn't seem so to me, but I hope you're right, as that would mean we are seeing things similarly, which would be cool.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning in saying the time's not ready. That not something I would say, but you may have a different meaning in mind. Usually when people say that Christ hasn't come because the time isn't right, they have in mind that God is sending Christ according to some preordained time table which hasn't arrived yet, so I assumed that's what you had in mind.

At any rate, I wrote a detailed response as to why I think Christ hasn't come, so you can see from that where I'm coming from, and see if you agree with the perspective I presented.

---

Tom: I don't see that you responded to this, which I'm more interested in than the other discussion regarding credit.

Regarding the baptism question (John's and Paul's), I haven't read the whole thread. I just gave my opinion without regard to what you and anyone else wrote. It doesn't surprise me that you would have written something similar to what I wrote because I think the position you and I are taking is a pretty easy one to see from the text.

Darius' comment is the natural way most people would understand what you wrote. I understood it the same way. If you have some underlying thought different than what you wrote appeared to communicate, please share it.

I think it is unfortunate that Dave changes the order of the conversation so that so much time has to be spent correcting those errors. In such a climate it is difficult to get to consensus because it seems that he is only interested in shaping events to suit his reality.

Flamitory is a word that corresponds to technical/electronic communication media. An email (or other forms of electronic messaging) that is sent in haste and considered to be rude or said in anger is a “flame” – therefore, something written in that mode is called flamitory, but lets not quibble about spelling and grammar; I am sure there is plenty of ammunition for all of us to use there, but it does not enhance the discussion of the topic at hand.

What does not make sense to you may make sense to others. Sense is a sense (go figure) and things based on senses are opinions – not facts. The logic is as structured as I can make it. Until Darius clears things up, I have him on record as avoiding the topic of God’s credit to the Bible and giving only one statement directed towards it.

The reason I made the statement about credit is because Darius talked about elevating the Bible to places it does not belong. Since the only elevation I give it is that God was the source of all information in it, the place Darius could think I should not elevate it to is where I already have it. Again, I have yet to seem him set the record straight, so I must assume, until he does so, that is the true intent of his post. His response, although being partly true, still avoids weather God is the source of the information in the Bible or gets any credit for the Bible.

I’m not going to comment on what make the time right for the Second Advent. Such things are of little value. What is of value? Doing the job we were commissioned with and always being ready for that advent to happen.

I am not trying to change the order, and I don’t believe I have. I have never said God penned the Bible, but Darius says I man elevating it to a place it does not belong. Where is that, since all the elevation I give it is God giving men things to write? This is important when we look at texts like this:

quote:

---

Most of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in the Scriptures ever comes from the prophet's own interpretation. No prophecy ever came from what a person wanted to say, but people led by the Holy Spirit spoke words from God.
2 Peter 1:20 - 21 NCV

---

If there is some misconception about Darius' statement, he would probably be wiser to clear them up than to try and play word games. I find it most telling that he has not said anything against God getting no credit for the Bible. His response is telling because he does not say anything about credit for the Bible – and he has still not done so.

Now, back to the real topic.

quote:

---

John was not asked to baptize. He was asked to baptize in a particular mode. This shows that people were accustomed to being baptized in other modes.

---

Could you please provide some scriptural or historical evidence to prove that John “was asked to baptize in a particular mode” rather than baptize in general? Could you please provide some scriptural or historical evidence to prove “that people were accustomed to being baptized in other modes?”

Could we get some evidence to support the statement, “this (baptism) was a social custom when one joined a select group?”

Please remember:

quote:

---

words are cheap

---

So we must have evidence!

Tom, it's too bad what has happened to this thread, isn't it? Going back to your last post to me I'd like to say - Yeah, I like how you see what baptism represents, that is, it means believing in Jesus to the point of being like Jesus (John 14:12), and understanding the SDA message and lifestyle and consenting to adhere to it.

Dave and Darius, Jesus required baptism as a prerequisite for salvation. Baptized in the water and baptized in the Spirit. See John 3:1-10. Without both we are at war with Jesus.

And have you seen anything I have written disagreeing with that MM?

In fact, I have quoted scripture four times supporting that view.

Dave, you made some interesting points regarding peace and Christ's Second Coming which I responded to in a long post. I'd like to know your opinion regarding the perspective I presented.

I'll give you a short reply now and a more detailed one this weekend, when I have more time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Everlasting peace comes when all know the truth about God, and Christ will come when the truth regarding God's character fills the earth with glory.

---

I do not agree with this statement entirely. From an Adventist understanding of prophecy, peace does not come until the New Jerusalem. This is because Satin is still plotting - he has 1,000 years to think things over.

I am not sure where you are going with that last statement. I read, in 2 Peter, that the last days will be filled with scoffers. In 1 Timothy 4, we are told that people will depart from the faith.

Sorry I do not have any more time today, I've got to get ready for church tomorrow.

Thanks for your quick reply. I look forward to your more detailed response.

quote:

---

I do not agree with this statement entirely. From an Adventist understanding of prophecy, peace does not come until the New Jerusalem. This is because Satin is still plotting - he has 1,000 years to think things over.

---

The timing of this, New Jerusualem vs. coming of Christ, is a minor issue compared to the major issue, which is the reason for dischord. Once we identify the reason for dischord, we can know what it is that brings peace, since peace is the absence of strife. I'm suggesting that it is holding a wrong view of God's character which brings dischord, and that the solution, which brings peace, is to know God in truth.

quote:

---

I am not sure where you are going with that last statement. I read, in 2 Peter, that the last days will be filled with scoffers. In 1 Timothy 4, we are told that people will depart from the faith.

---

If you re-read my post, you should be able to see where I'm going with this. I quoted the last chapter of Christ's Object Lessons, which was what gave impetus to my comments. I was just reiterating, as I understood it, what EGW wrote in that final chapter.

To state things simply and succinctly, I believe rebellion begins where one holds to lies regarding God's character, and ends when one holds the truth. To know God is eternal life.

Happy Sabbath