The Boundaries of Reality

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]My mistake: for some reason, I thought you were a business executive.
The mistake is mine for lack of a concise delivery. In declaring myself a systematic theologian, I am merely describing my informing perspective. In my view, we are all theologians... some simply take their duties therein more seriously than others, is all.[/b]

Maybe I just applied the wrong "context" to your "text". 😉

Originally posted by no1marauder
How does this post possibly justify a refusal to even discuss the matter? If this were a thread on Roe v. Wade and I said "I won't discuss this issue with non-lawyers as they could not possibly comprehend the legal issues involved" that would simply be arrogant and rude (as well as incorrect).

Even worse, you don't claim expertise based on qua ...[text shortened]... So your last few posts stressing some kind of higher learning requirement is a red herring.

How does this post possibly justify a refusal to even discuss the matter?
I think you are confusing the level of refusal. At the onset, I inform you that the words of any passage must be interpreted with proper exegetical treatment. You balk and declare that a superficial reading will suffice, allowing me to go no further with such 'nonsense.'

When you push for the proper interpretation, I ask if you are a believer for a specific reason, and you once again balk at my inquiry, deeming it irrelevant.

In defense, I use an analogy of the higher learning required of technical fields as indication of the need for something other than an unsophisticated first-blush reading in order to either understand or appreciate the message conveyed.

By way of comparison, you use a discussion between one informed opinion and one uniformed opinion involving Roe v Wade as illustrative of similar thinking. Here, however, there is difference and distinction. The legalities (i.e., responses, replies, court actions, and etc.) of Roe v Wade ought not be discussed with a non-lawyer, whereas the salient concept can be discussed with any thoughtful adult.

The salient concept with respect to the Bible has nothing to do with a specific passage. Instead, it has to do with concepts that are beyond the fruits of even higher learning as man is able to undertake it. I refuse to discuss the specifics of the passage because you reject the very first concept, namely, that some things are beyond your ability to grasp by virtue of your state of unbelief. Discussion with you on particulars will be fruitless--- much like discussion with a non-lawyer on court actions would be without profit.

As has been discussed, there are three general forms of truth available from the Bible: general rules for societal behavior (believers and unbelievers), the Gospel (unbelievers only) and Bible doctrine (believers only). Until such time as an unbeliever becomes a believer, Bible doctrine and its vast wealth are virtually non-existent for them. No matter how eloquent or articulate a believer might be, they are powerless to reveal the truths within to an unbeliever.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]How does this post possibly justify a refusal to even discuss the matter?
I think you are confusing the level of refusal. At the onset, I inform you that the words of any passage must be interpreted with proper exegetical treatment. You balk and declare that a superficial reading will suffice, allowing me to go no further with such 'nonsense.'
...[text shortened]... ticulate a believer might be, they are powerless to reveal the truths within to an unbeliever.[/b]

Let's try this; what is the source of your Secret Decoder Ring theory of Scripture? If it is the Bible (somewhere), please specify what passages make you believe such drivel.

EDIT: Freaky: Discussion with you on particulars will be fruitless--- much like discussion with a non-lawyer on court actions would be without profit.

This is nonsense; it's part of every lawyer's job to explain the legal technicalities to his layman client in such a way that the client can understand them. A lawyer that acted in the manner you suggest wouldn't keep many clients (few people wish to be ignorant of things that directly affect them).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's try this; what is the source of your Secret Decoder Ring theory of Scripture? If it is the Bible (somewhere), please specify what passages make you believe such drivel.

EDIT: Freaky: Discussion with you on particulars will be fruitless--- much like discussion with a non-lawyer on court actions would be without profit.

This is nonsens ...[text shortened]... dn't keep many clients (few people wish to be ignorant of things that directly affect them).

This is nonsense; it's part of every lawyer's job to explain the legal technicalities to his layman client in such a way that the client can understand them. A lawyer that acted in the manner you suggest wouldn't keep many clients (few people wish to be ignorant of things that directly affect them).
As has been stated, I have already informed you of everything you are capable of understanding. Specifically, passages of Scripture must be understood and applied within the context of their intended audience, with a foundation of proper exegetical treatment. This applies to all of the Scripture, but is made more emphatic with respect to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As the unique Person of the universe living in the unique dispensation, the Lord Jesus Christ straddled two ages and spoke to all ages. If He was saying something specifically to those who live in, say, the Millennial age, would it make sense for someone in the Church age to try to apply His words to their situation?

This concept has been repeated to you, but you continue to reject it. Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, does nothing to change the reality: some things within the Bible cannot be apprehended by the mind. That is what prompted the question of your status as a believer.