the Bible as the word of God

[r***@yahoo.com]

Originally, I was responding to mark in another thread, but since this
is more about the bible and its trustworthiness than whether or not
Jesus is God, I thought it best to form a new thread.

The issue of the bible being the word of God is so important to
Christianity that I want to continue to take on issues surrounding its
trustworthiness.
Among these are:
What place does the claim to be the word of God have in a document that
is the word of God?
Circular logic
Supporting Evidence vs. absolute certainty

And to mark specifically, issues surrounding the problem of hearing
from God

Every pray about what you learn from the Bible?

As a matter of fact this is my habit every day. I come to work in the
morning, spend time reading and then pray over what I have read. The
amount of time can depend, sometimes only 15 minutes sometimes 30,
sometimes more, but yes I pray over what I read.

Also from Oct 30

To me, truth of God, comes only from God,

by definition, of course....

and there is no tangible, or logical evidence
that supports the Bible as the word of God.

What would be the criteria for any document to be considered "the
word of God"?
It would have to be accurate/truthful. But lots of documents can be
accurate without being considered the word of God.
What is that other elusive criteria? [I REALLY would like an answer to
this!]
Would it be that somehow it deals with the subject, or makes the claim
for itself.....

I hear the accusation of circular logic about this, and the argument
is:
The bible is the word of God. How do we know the bible is the word of
God?
The bible says it is the word of God. How can we trust the bible?
Because the bible is the word of God. How do we know the bible is word
of God?
[Repeat endlessly]

The argument here is WHY we should trust the bible, and if the answer
is purely "because it is says to", then the argument is circular
and therefore fallacious.
But we can see the documents historical value, their relative
legitimacy and primacy in telling the story. And reason through the
actions purported within. None of that counts as hard logical proof,
but such things are not to be had in this area at any rate, nor is it
reasonable to think we need logical proof. Mere evidence should
suffice. And when talking about the events of Jesus and the apostles,
the NT is the best we have.

If there is specific reason for doubting the veracity of the accounts,
then those should be weighed. But lacking objections they can be
treated as any other documents that verify events. While beyond the
scope of a NG post, I'm convinced they are valid given historical,
textual, and logical evidences: that is to say that they are
sufficiently rooted in history and support what we know about the time
and places, the textual transmission seems sound, and the accounts seem
consistent.
Now that is more than just "it's trustworthy because it says so".
Its acceptance is grounded in reason, not circular logic.

However, at some point one does begin to move beyond arguments and,
based on the track record, begins to accept certain things because the
bible says them even though specific supporting arguments may not be
known.
This is not a completely blind faith, it is grounded, but it is faith.

But more to the point of the documents being the word of God is what
those events sayings mean for our lives and how we respond to them.
One can accept that the history is more or less accurate, yet not
respond at all to the message.
This is true of any doc- you can read some call to clean up the
environment because of global warming, believe the book to be basically
accurate and yet not respond in any way. Or just because you believe
the book to be basically true, you wouldn't think it was directed by
God.

For me, I believe it records the events accurately. I have no real
reason to doubt that.
And IF those things really happened, then I accept that a man named
Jesus came according to ancient prophecies, was crucified, rose again
and his church spread by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So again, there are 2 issues- the matter of accurate record and then
acceptance of the record.
But if, given the nature of the events, the record is accurate, then I
feel compelled to respond in kind.

IMO, one learns what is His word, by asking Him, not
by reason, not by usenet :-) and not by logic or history, so right off,
I already know a great deal about how a number of folks here think, and
how they go about discerning the word of God. I respect those
positions, but I most certainly do not agree with them.

OK, but let's think this through: does anyone learn something by
asking? No.
You learn something by hearing. How does one "hear" God since God
is not a physical being that is speaking audibly?
It comes down to a mental sense. God communicates spiritually, but
using our thoughts.
The trick is that every human has thoughts. How do you discern what is
from God and what is not? It is not only possible that humans can
mistake their own thoughts for God, but necessarily true given 1) the
contradictory things that different individuals believe God to be
telling them, and 2) the fact that truth doesn't change.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The issue of the bible being the word of God is so important to
Christianity that I want to continue to take on issues surrounding its

B - I don't agree. Are we to worship the bible? a book? or are we to
worship God and the Christ? I would have known about the Christ and the
spirit of Christ without the bible just by watching people doing loving
things for one another...by acting from that Christ center personally.
Knowing about Jesus is a wonderful thing...what truth we can glean from
the Bible ..separating the chaff (what is egoic led writing) and the wheat
(what is God truth). Jesus's stories do teach us and this is good but the
spirit of Christ is in many many faiths out there and also even in the
athiests that do good and loving things for their fellow man. I think that
people have done what Jesus asked them not to do.....worshipping him and
not the message. The message...however and in whomever it comes...is the
Christ..that is what makes me a Christian...not a book.

I.M.O
Bren

[r***@yahoo.com]

What I'm hoping for is some people to actually comment on the issues.

Bren, sorry, it's pretty obvious you have no intention of giving any
real response to my posts. You won't give a reasonable argument and
you won't respond to reasonable argument. You are posting the same
assertions and not dealing with the root issues of why they are so
wrong in the first place. Then when I finally get to the point where we
can start saying something meaningful, you run away and post the same
drivel you started with last time on a different thread.

For shegeek: who wrote those NT accounts? Let's hear some reasoning
as to why you can assert that it WASN'T the traditional authors.

For any of you that want to really deal with the issue of hearing
independently from God, please respond to the last paragraph about
discernment, about the "spiritual" being transmitted through the
mental, and the distinction between human thoughts and god-derived
thoughts.

For those of you who may consider yourselves "spiritual but not
religious", what makes certain thoughts spiritual? Is it merely the
fact that your thoughts are about a no-material subject?
I am being told over and over by certain members here that they have
some insight into god but they don't credit the bible at all. Yet
they don't seem to have ANY coherent ideas about defining themselves
and the nature of such a relationship, other than they happen to think
a certain way.

I wrote on the circular argument problem and how that assumes a certain
premise....
I wrote on the accuracy of the recorded NT events.

People have opinions on these things so let's hear something
reasonable.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
What I'm hoping for is some people to actually comment on the issues.
Bren, sorry, it's pretty obvious you have no intention of giving any
real response to my posts. You won't give a reasonable argument and

B - I don't have a need to argue...sorry...so my not giving you a response
to your posts...is my response.
I'm not here to proselytize or sell anything except respecting others
opinions on God and not speaking for God.
If you want an answer to what you post...then please ask instead of
putting me down.

Blessings
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
What I'm hoping for is some people to actually comment on the issues.
Bren, sorry, it's pretty obvious you have no intention of giving any
real response to my posts. You won't give a reasonable argument and

B - I don't have a need to argue...sorry...so my not giving you a response
to your posts...is my response.
I'm not here to proselytize or sell anything except respecting others
opinions on God and not speaking for God.
If you want an answer to what you post...then please ask instead of
putting me down.

He did ask. And if you really think that is a "put down", you are far too
thin-skinned to know anything about truth.

Now this idea may surprise not only you, but many others in the NG, so I will
explain: to learn the truth, even just to approach it, takes effort. It is
difficult effort. And you _will_ be attacked by others. So if you are too
thin-skinned to survive the attacks, you cannot draw near.

In Brenda's case, it even sounds like she is using "putting me down" as an
excuse to avoid giving an honest answer to an honest question.

Post by B.G. Kent
Blessings
Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The issue of the bible being the word of God is so important to
Christianity that I want to continue to take on issues surrounding its

B - I don't agree. Are we to worship the bible? a book? or are we to
worship God and the Christ?

Out of the gate you start off with a false presupposition. You
presuppose
that "Word" and "Idea" are divisable when refering to God. He is His
word. His word is true as He is true. His word is "living" in that it
rises up out of He who has no beginning and no end, who does not
dwell in time. We worship God by means of His word. He and
His word are so indistinquishable that He reveals Himself as being
the Logos. The first word was The Word.

You are also wrong in your overstating of the facts. No one
"worships" the Bible. Rather, being the inSpired exegesis of
God and His will, we are in-Spired by it which naturally bares
the fruit of true worship. Apart from it there can be no true
worship for apart from it man is incapable of knowing God as
He is. Creation reveals that He is, but it does not reveal His
will and calling for us.

You present an either/or situation when in truth, it is a both/and
situation. This is why so many, including myself, have called
you on your Eastern pantheistic ideas. This removes you from
the believing remnant because you refuse to accept Him as He
has revealed Himself to be.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The issue of the bible being the word of God is so important to
Christianity that I want to continue to take on issues surrounding its

B - I don't agree. Are we to worship the bible? a book? or are we to
worship God and the Christ?

Out of the gate you start off with a false presupposition. You
presuppose
that "Word" and "Idea" are divisable when refering to God. He is His
word. His word is true as He is true. His word is "living" in that it
rises up out of He who has no beginning and no end, who does not
dwell in time. We worship God by means of His word. He and
His word are so indistinquishable that He reveals Himself as being
the Logos. The first word was The Word.

B - Oh I believe in Gods word. I have always believed in Gods word. I just
don't think that the Bible is all Gods word.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are also wrong in your overstating of the facts. No one
"worships" the Bible. Rather, being the inSpired exegesis of
God and His will, we are in-Spired by it which naturally bares
the fruit of true worship. Apart from it there can be no true
worship for apart from it man is incapable of knowing God as
He is. Creation reveals that He is, but it does not reveal His
will and calling for us.

B - Au contraire..I think a lot of people worship the Bible. They use it
far more than their own instincts it seems....even though the Bible was
written by fallible human beings I would reckon. As to your people not
knowing God without the Bible...that is a sad comment on your own
character. To have God contained within paper....paper that can dry and
crumble to dust in the wind....paper that can be changed with every new
interp...I don't agree with that.
I knew God...before I read the bible umpteen times. I still know God for
God is within me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You present an either/or situation when in truth, it is a both/and
situation. This is why so many, including myself, have called
you on your Eastern pantheistic ideas. This removes you from
the believing remnant because you refuse to accept Him as He
has revealed Himself to be.

B- No..not at all. I see it for what it is...worship of a book over God.
So many? hmmm...I believe it is maybe "two people" who have ever said
anything about Eastern Pantheistic....some of the others just don't like
my non-literal take on God. I accept God totallly....God reveals itself to
me constantly...not just in a book. Maybe someday you will notice this for
yourself too.


I.M.O
Blessings of the light,
Bren

[suneejan]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are also wrong in your overstating of the facts. No one
"worships" the Bible. Rather, being the inSpired exegesis of
God and His will, we are in-Spired by it which naturally bares

...

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Au contraire..I think a lot of people worship the Bible. They use it
far more than their own instincts it seems....even though the Bible was
written by fallible human beings I would reckon. As to your people not
knowing God without the Bible...that is a sad comment on your own

...

Christians do not worship the Holy Bible but read the scriptures and
adhere to their teachings. The scriptures points to the spiritual
truths. The scriptures is used for learning and instruction. By them,
one can see some peoople's mistakes and not follow their path. True ,
one can know God thru the scriptures but what is important isto have
Jesus in your heart and not just head knowledge.
God is notjust contained within the pages of the book but works thru
the book to make himself known and work in our lives.
How do you know that God is within you? How did you get to know God
before reading the bible umpteen times?

[B.G. Kent]

Post by suneejan
Christians do not worship the Holy Bible but read the scriptures and

B - SOME Christians if faced with God and the Bible ...would instead of
running into Gods arms...would first check their bibles to see if this is
truly God. I would run to Gods arms KNOWING that it is God by my feelings.
I worship God...not the Bible.
B - How do you know that God is in the book? without being told by another
human being?

How did I get to know God before the Bible? meditating...being
quiet...seeing the good in others...being kind to others...watching the
sunsets and sunrises....watching the world change seasons
...seeing good...seeing love.
I felt God before I had ever even heard of God.
I knew it was God...because I felt the prescense of something greater.

I.M.O
Blessings
Bren

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Christians do not worship the Holy Bible ....

B - How do you know that God is in the book?
without being told by another human being?

"ki higdalta 'al-kal-shimkha 'imratekha" tehilim 138:2b
"You have exalted your word above your name" Psalm 138:2b

"Jesus answered, It is written, man does not live by bread alone, but
on every word that comes from the mouth of God" "Jesus answered, it
is written...." "Jesus answered, it is written..." Matthew
4:4,7,10

"and the scripture cannot be broken" John 10

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the
Holy Spirit, who the Father will send in my name, will teach you all
things and remind you of everything I have said to you." John
14:25-26
"But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all
truth. He will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is
to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and
making it known to you. All that belongs to my father is mine, that is
why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to
you." John 15:13-15
"All scripture is God breathed" 2 Timothy 3:16

"You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you"
John 15:3
"If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you
wish, and it will be given to you" John 15:7
"If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love" John 15:10
"Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of scripture"
1 Timothy 4:13
"Preach the Word" 2 Timothy 4:2
"But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man
who hears the word and understands it" Matthew 13:23
"Jesus replied, if anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My
Father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with
him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you
hear are not my own, they belong to the Father who sent me" John
14:23-24

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Au contraire..I think a lot of people worship the Bible.

Your idea and my idea of worship are not the same.

Post by B.G. Kent
They use it
far more than their own instincts it seems....even though the Bible was
written by fallible human beings I would reckon.

Fallible men, yes, but infallible inspiration. That is why the Bible
believing Christian does most certainly rely upon the Bible than his
own "instincts" as you call it. Mas was designed to be receptive to
God's revelation. The Bible is God's special revelation to man. It
along reveals the Redeemer and His offer of redemption. It alone is "a
guide unto my feet." Man was ruined at the fall of Adam and his
"receptor" aint work'n so good any more. Therefore one must first be
born again and second, he must then depend upon the revelation given
to him in the Scriptures. Aside from the Scriptures, there is no
sure/absolute means of verification to guard against error. You are an
illustration of that fact. You believe "god" to be other than He
reveals Himself in the Scriptures at many points. You like to resolve
it by quiping "my opinion." However, opinions are finite. There is
nothing transcendental about "opinions" whatsoever. And to base your
hope on an "opinion" is nothing short of foolish.

Post by B.G. Kent
As to your people not
knowing God without the Bible...that is a sad comment on your own
character.

How else can you know the Infinite? You would have sinful man
circumscribe God? You do just that when you put forth your "Love is
God" rhetoric. That is both unbiblical and nosensical even on a
philosophical level. The Bible makes this very clear:

Rom. 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God,
but not in accordance with knowledge.

"Knowledge" must be revealed as concerning who God is, what His
standards are, and most especially, how man can return to a right
relationship with him. Your view is that such high knowledge (what
greater knowledge is there than knowing God as He truly is) is able
to be reaped by some sort of osmosis. You really don't think this
out. You refuse to take your system of belief to fruition to see just
where it leaves you. You have an Eastern mysticism about your
interpretation of the Truth. You should read Os Guiness', "Dust of
Death," particularly the chapter titled, "The East, No Exit."

Small excerpt:

"In philosophy there is the question of whether or not there is a God
and, if so, whether he can speak. The East and the post-Xian West
converge in saying there are 2 alternatives, either "sheer silence" or
a "mere symbolism" of mysticism. It is perhaps surprising that the
concept of God lasted so long in the Western philosophy, for, although
many philosophers believed vaguely in a personal God or used the
concept in their philosophical arguments, very few had an adequate view
of revelation. The steps to the present position followed each other
quickly."

As I once posted before:

Paul Tillich was asked at the end of his life by a student at Santa
Barbara, "Sir, do you pray?" His reply was, "No, I meditate." The
reason is obvious. Liberal theology has no propositional content, no
verbal revelation; theological meaning is only what *man* means about
God. This view can only inspire meditation, not verbalized prayer. RD
Laing from his own experience of philosophy and psychology writes: "At
the point of non-being we are at the outer reaches of what language can
state. . . In using a word, a letter, a sound, OM, one cannot put a
sound to soundlessness, or name the unnameable." This leasds us to
where the East has always been, and if Hinduism is closer to liberal
theology's stress on "mere symbolism," then Buddhism is the parallel to
Wests atheistic stress on "sheer silence." Intellectually, both East
and post-Xian West have arrived at the silence of atheism or mysticism.
Without biblical historicity and veracity behind the Word of God, as
I've tried to stress over and over in my posts, theology can only grow
closer to Hinduism. This leads to a weak, unmediated, impersonal,
non-experiential knowledge of the True God. We can evidence that fact
for what often passes for religious experience is a communal emotion
felt in church services, in meetings, in singing or contrived
fellowship. However, it has been my experience, over and over, that
few "Christians" know God on their own.

Post by B.G. Kent
To have God contained within paper....paper that can dry and
crumble to dust in the wind....paper that can be changed with every new
interp...I don't agree with that.
I knew God...before I read the bible umpteen times. I still know God for
God is within me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You present an either/or situation when in truth, it is a both/and
situation. This is why so many, including myself, have called
you on your Eastern pantheistic ideas. This removes you from
the believing remnant because you refuse to accept Him as He
has revealed Himself to be.

B- No..not at all. I see it for what it is...worship of a book over God.

Again, you definition of worship is all out of wack. I don't know a
single
person, in my entire human experience, who ever worshipped the Book.
That is because it isn't the "book" it is the words of God which we pay
such devoted attention to. But you don't get this drift because it is
a love
letter addressed to believers. In that you don't believe, you are
reading
someone else's love letter and therefore just_dont_get_it. The
Scriptures
are nothing short of God speaking directly to you or me. Not
everything
is directly applicable, some being the historic account but all of it
does
have to do with His dealing with man and His revelation as to how man
is expected to act. And outward action cannot please Him unless the
inward man be first "born again."

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."


Notice that you cannot even perceive the Kingdom of God unless you
are first born again. In that you reject the Biblical account of Jesus
and
His uncompromising, exclusivity. I believe I have quoted this to you
before:

"Any attempt to marry the Vedanta to Christianity must take full
account of the fact that Christianity is a contentious faith which
requires an all - or -nothing [either/or] commitment . . . My previous
discussion did not take proper account of that whole aspect of
Christianity which is uncompromising, ornery, militant, rigourous,
imperious, and invincibly self-righteous." (Alan Watts)

Mr. Watts got it right. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept
Biblical
Christianity, therefore you yet remain " outside the camp." You really

need to read Jude. "The Faith" of verse 3 is the fundamental
doctrines.
Like those whom Jude is so harshly and unwaveringly condemning,
you sally forth an unbiblical view of God. The biblical historical
accounts of those who sought to define God other than He had
revealed Himself, record the wrath of God meeted out on them for
their self determined ways. This is your future unless you repent and
accept Him as He has revealed Himself. You have no avenue by which
to know, both experientially and inately, His will other than the
Scriptures.

Post by B.G. Kent
So many? hmmm...I believe it is maybe "two people" who have ever said
anything about Eastern Pantheistic....some of the others just don't like
my non-literal take on God. I accept God totallly....

No. You accept only your own idea of God. You do not accept God
or you would accept His special revelation. Jesus consistently used
the literal interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures. He submitted to
their
authority. In that He is the Archtype of our calling, then who are we
to act differently?

Post by B.G. Kent
God reveals itself to me constantly

But you have no means of verification.

2 Cor. 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers,
disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even
Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not
surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of
righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.

I have experienced and know others who have experienced
tremendous "spiritual" experiences. But only when weighed by
the knowledge granted to us in the Scriptures, did we come to
recognize them for what they were -demonic. At the time they
were truly "wonderous." But as in the passage quoted for you
above, one needs a Divine standard by which to judge all
things. What you think to be "God" revealing Himself to
you, apart from the Scriptures, is nothing short of demonic
intercourse. Again, this is exactly where this thing with Eastern
mysticism is at. I know a man who can accurately tell who
is about to die. Twice, in the few years I knew him, he told
me that he had seen the "aura" of death about someone and
before the next Monday rolled around, that person had died.
He was a medium -as was his mother and her mother before
him. Before he left the job, he confessed that his son was
now having "revelations from God."

No one is discounting the fact that you may be having
real spiritual experiences. What we are discounting, however,
is their source.

Post by B.G. Kent
...not just in a book. Maybe someday you will notice this for
yourself too.

I've been born again, Brenda. It aint just a book to me. It
is my Lover's words. Have you never had love letters
written to you when your love one is far away and no
immediate hope of being with them face-to-face? In an
era of cell phones, that is a lost grace. But I will tell you
by experience, those letters are thread bare from reading
them, pondering them, even smelling their sweet arroma
by the time we were reunited. And it is no different with
the Scriptures. It is they and they alone which speak to
me of His love for me. But I guess you can't grasp that
because you have never met my Lover.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Au contraire..I think a lot of people worship the Bible.

Your idea and my idea of worship are not the same.

Post by B.G. Kent
They use it
far more than their own instincts it seems....even though the Bible was
written by fallible human beings I would reckon.

Fallible men, yes, but infallible inspiration.

B - How do you know? How
do you know that the majority of them thought they were inspired but that
it may have been just a mix of inspiration and egoic wants and needs?

YOu say a lot of things....speak for others...speak as THE voice of
Christianity...but no..you are just one man...just one opinion as my words
are also.


Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Christians do not worship the Holy Bible ....

B - How do you know that God is in the book?
without being told by another human being?

hear are not my own, they belong to the Father who sent me" John
14:23-24

B - uh..yeah...nice quoting but it does not even remotely answer that
question.

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Fallible men, yes, but infallible inspiration.

B - How do you know? How
do you know that the majority of them thought they were inspired but that
it may have been just a mix of inspiration and egoic wants and needs?

I have the historical witness of Christ and the Apostles who
quote or use the OT as inspired and infallible. Basically, the NT
quotes the OT in various ways, but always as inspired and from
God. The Jewish Rabbincal schools (as did Jesus) grouped the OT in 3
divisions, the Mosaic Law, the Prophets and the writings (Psalms,
Proverbs, Eccl) . Because the Mosaic Law was more or less dictated,
they held that as the supreme infallible. The Prophets were viewed
slightly less authoritative than the Law but as being God's message
spoken through the mouths of men. The writings were the least
authoritative as being that of men who were "moved" by God.

In that Jesus rebuked the disciples on the Emmaus Road incident
(Lk 24:25-48), for not knowing that the *all* the prophets had spoken
of Him, He gathers the Law, the Prophets and the Writings under
one authoritative, that being God's infallible word.

We can certainly go into further detail about this, pulling up
numerous passages wherein the Scriptures are viewed as both
inspired of God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness."

In John, Christ reveals that the coming Comforter was to
use the Scriptures in convicting the world of sin and verifying
that Jesus was the Messiah.

Post by B.G. Kent
YOu say a lot of things....speak for others...speak as THE voice of
Christianity...but no..you are just one man...just one opinion as my words
are also.

It has nothing to do with me. To present the Gospel is all I
am called to do. That you or others refuse to believe, that is
your responsibility to which you will be held accountable. I
will only be held accountable as were the disciples on the
Emmaus Road, for knowing what Scripture teaches and
presenting accurately.

Christianity is all about faith and faith is always based upon
knowledge. In that you do not have an absolute knowledge
base, your faith wanders all over the map, even evolves.
Christianity is not such a faith.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about
our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing
that you contend earnestly for The Faith which was once for all
delivered to the saints.


"The Faith" is a distinct selection of inspired books and
the resulting doctrines.

"Delivered once and for all" means that there is no
addition nor subtraction. The doctrine taught by the
NT writers is final. It is not presented exhaustively
so there is always growth in comprehension as to
exactly what all the details are, but the basic doctrines
are set, not in stone, but something even more sure,
set in the Eternal Decree/Plan of God.

So how you respond to what has been presented to you
in no way causes and effect on the trustworthiness of
the Scriptures. It is you how will have to give an account
to God for why, when presented with the Truth, you
refused to believe it.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by B.G. Kent

Christians do not worship the Holy Bible ....

B - How do you know that God is in the book?
without being told by another human being?

Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the
truth, none will be given it.
If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be
convinced even if someone raises from the dead.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - uh..yeah...nice quoting but it does not even
remotely answer that question.

"Why do you insist that everyone bend down to you and answer as you
want?"
"You presuppose I am arguing or even trying to win an argument. I
don't work that way."
"perhaps you just don't understand what I am saying"

We played the flute for you and you did not dance, we sang a dirge and
you did not mourn.
You will be ever hearing, but never understanding, you will be ever
seeing but never perceiving, for this peoples heart has become
calloused; they hardly hear with their ears and they have closed their
eyes.
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but
to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.
We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is
from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is
what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught
by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man
without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually discerned.
I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for the
salvation of everyone who believes.
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life, yet there are
some of you who do not believe. Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear...

[B.G. Kent]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life, yet there are
some of you who do not believe. Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear...

B - Yes rtdavid...and don't YOU forget it.
Those with ears to hear...will. See how easy it is? we can all use
scripture to boost up our own beliefs..but this does not in the least mean
that either of us understand it. Ego just leads us to use it to make us
feel superior. ...rather sad. You think you have God in the Bible...I
think I have God in the Bible and within...difference is...I don't say "it
is". I'm very aware that as a human being I can make mistakes...you on the
other hand...well? Does screaming it make it more so? Does a larger crowd
make it more so? Does kings,politicians,the law of man protecting a
book...make it more likely to be literally true? No. The only one that can
say whether you or I speak truth that is objective...is God I would reckon
and neither you nor I are "there" yet.

blessings and love,
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Fallible men, yes, but infallible inspiration.

B - How do you know? How
do you know that the majority of them thought they were inspired but that
it may have been just a mix of inspiration and egoic wants and needs?

I have the historical witness of Christ and the Apostles who
quote or use the OT as inspired and infallible. Basically, the NT
quotes the OT in various ways, but always as inspired and from
God.

B - No..you have a book that you believe in...that's great..but not all
here believe the Bible is totally inspired by God and they consider
themselves Christian ..whereas you may not think they are....so unless you
do have proof...which no one does really...then I ask that you simply add
"in my opinion" or some such subjective parameter to your posts so that
all ways can be respected. Blankly stating "God said this" is ...in my
opinion, rude.

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Fallible men, yes, but infallible inspiration.

B - How do you know? How
do you know that the majority of them thought they were inspired but that
it may have been just a mix of inspiration and egoic wants and needs?

I have the historical witness of Christ and the Apostles who
quote or use the OT as inspired and infallible. Basically, the NT
quotes the OT in various ways, but always as inspired and from
God.

B - No..you have a book that you believe in...that's great..but not all
here believe the Bible is totally inspired by God and they consider
themselves Christian

As I have already stated, to deny Scripture is to deny its Author. If
He is truly "God", capital "G", then He most assuredly can sovereignly
infuse that which He designed man to have in common with Himself,
to be conversive, communicative, verbal, -the written word, His will,
and then to providentially keep it pure. The Decalogue was written by
the hand of God directly. The Law was directly communicated to
Moses. The disciples were all, without exception, directly taught of
Christ and as promised, indwelt by the Spirit of God to call to mind
all that he taught them. This same Spirit not only led these men to
establish the Church but to defend it from error, from heretical,
humanistic ideas from "creeping in" to the Dogma of belief. The
Spirit then kept for Himself and protected this record, i.e. the NT.
It
is sure, it is infallible, it is exclusive in its teachings all because
it
is

Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any
two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and
spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and
intentions of the heart.

The Scriptures are not dead words of men. They are the living
Word of God.

Post by B.G. Kent
..whereas you may not think they are....so unless you
do have proof...which no one does really...

Like the Jewish religious leaders of His day, you require a "sign."
Christ rebuffed them then and today He rebuffs you. As with the
rich man, there is already sufficient testimony to bring you and the
world into accountability.

Rom. 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress TheTruth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is
evident_within_them; for God [has]made it evident to them. . . .
so that they are without excuse.

Post by B.G. Kent
then I ask that you simply add
"in my opinion" or some such subjective parameter to your posts so that
all ways can be respected. Blankly stating "God said this" is ...in my
opinion, rude.

The kergyma is not open to debate. It is not a matter of "opinion."

Driving down the mountain road, probably too fast, I round a corner
and find that a landslide has taken out an entire section of the road.
Driving too fast to stop, I but barely escape by jumping out of my
car. Standing on the edge, I draw a deep breath. The sun was out
and I had the top down and I thought that world was at my
disposal.

Turning eventually, heading back around the corner, is see another
car headed my way. Is it "my opinion" that they are about to
face certain death or is it a "sure thing?" When I wave my hands
and shout as the occupants of that car, I'm not expressing my
opinion. I crying out objective truth. The Scriptures are doing just
that to all "who will but believe."

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I have already stated, to deny Scripture is to deny its Author. If
He is truly "God", capital "G", then He most assuredly can sovereignly

B - A book is written....it is said to be infused or taken from God to the
authors hands. Some folks believe this.....convince people in power and
then eventually....get together with a group of folks to decide what is of
God and what is not. They then state that this is of God...and a holy
book and then push it on the public as truth. They are then told to force
those of the lay people to go to church...they then fight wars over
it...kill people over it...then eventually the rest of the world learns to
read and then gets to read it (thanks King Henry the 8th). Then the mold
has been set....it has been imprinted on our very way of life and culture.
Then eventually people are allowed to think as they want without fear of
being killed...but some are still irritated that they can do this...so
instead of killing....they threaten with an after-death-threat....and so
the world turns....

Now prove to me it is Gods word.

Happy Thanksgiving my friend,

Bren

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life, yet there are
some of you who do not believe. Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear...

B - Yes rtdavid...and don't YOU forget it.
Those with ears to hear...will. See how easy it is? we can all use
scripture to boost up our own beliefs.

Jesus wasn't using these statements as a put down or a flippant
response so he wouldn't have to deal with issues, he was quoting a
truth. When you turn around and say what you just did, it has all the
force of the schoolyard retort: Same to you and more of it!

Jesus said: "if you love me you will obey my commands. I will ask the
Father and he will give you another counselor to be with you forever:
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither
sees him nor knows him, but you know him for he lives in you and will
be in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who
loves me."

Let me break this down for you. Jesus states that he would give the
Holy Spirit to be with us. But not everyone has the Holy Spirit. He
specifically says the world CANNOT accept him. Jesus is saying there
are people that will not be able to get this, they can't see the
truth of it, they can't "know" it. Why is that? They don't see,
so they don't know.
This sounds like your insistence that knowledge be modus ponens type
proof. But Jesus said it for the kids to understand: I can't see it,
so I don't know it. People that insist on this type of knowledge
can't accept his words.
And that happens to be you by your own admission. Trying to flip these
comments around on me just doesn't work unless you don't understand
what you are talking about.

Jesus makes it clear who receives the spirit and who is able to
understand: those that obey his commands.
We find the words of Jesus in the Bible. Sure there are other sources,
but the relative legitimacy of the bible outweighs the other sources
and takes precedence. Even without accepting the bible as the "word
of God", one has to admit that the bible is the best we have. If one
is going to make a claim to following Jesus, it needs to be in
accordance with what the bible says.

Post by B.G. Kent
The only one that can say whether you or I speak truth
that is objective is God and neither you nor I are "there" yet.

Your message is: no one has knowledge of God, only opinion.
This must be a statement about our capacity for knowledge of God, not a
statement about God, because if it were about God it would be
self-refuting.

If God exists then there is an objective truth about him.
If we have individual experiences of God, then we can also know things
about him.
But given the nature of the experiences, and the fact that we can be
wrong about the attribution of such experiences, you seem to prefer
hedging over expressing certainty. Fair enough since it is a fact we
can be wrong. But nonetheless, if God exists and interacts with humans,
then there is an actual body of experiences that teach us something
objective about God.

Assuming God is not deceiving us, we should be able to piece together a
picture of who God is. The picture should be at least internally
consistent and it should ring true with what we know. These parameters
themselves need more qualification than I am going to give right now,
but to save space I'm not going to qualify them.
But just for a brief look: internal consistency is necessary but not
sufficient. A world view may be internally consistent yet not be actual
reality. It must also accurately assess reality. For example, the
bibles teaching on sin, seems demonstrably true to me. It is debated,
but so is nearly everything. To my mind, I can see the prophecies of
the bible and their fulfillments, so there is another ring of truth to
the experience.

I don't have any reason to doubt:
There is a God and therefore an objective truth about him
God interacts with us therefore we can know objective truths about him
My experiences of God are knowable as long as they are consistent with
an established context and they ring true.

I can deny that I "know" such things by setting the standard for
knowledge at 100% provable, but that doesn't seem fair enough either.
By doing so, I am not only ignoring many things that I do in fact
"know", but I'm actually being dishonest to my own senses. And
even skepticism presupposes that I have instances of knowledge to serve
as paradigm cases in which other particular instances somehow fall
short.

Let me take this out of the theoretical.
In your pantheistic worldview, individual approaches to communing with
god don't matter too much, and the important thing is to respect
others ideas. The individual's rights are actually the highest ideal
that needs to be respected.

But in the biblical worldview, God has created man, man is fallen and
under condemnation, and unless he is saved, he will go to hell. Under
that worldview, respecting all the various other ideas is going to be
disastrous. Not telling others about the way to salvation will mean
that many will go to hell. Jesus says, go and preach so they will be
saved. You say keep your ideas to yourself and don't tell. Can you at
least see how that would not be an approach we would want to take?
If we take our understanding seriously, then we have to tell. It is a
matter of life and death.
For you it is not, so you have a hard time understanding why we try to
convince others that what we believe is the truth. In your worldview it
not only doesn't matter, it's actually insulting. Whereas in our
worldview it matters a great deal, hence the different approaches.

If you want to discuss the merits of the opposing worldviews, then
cool. But just insisting we stop telling others what the bible says
isn't going to work. That's pantheism, not christianity.
And according to your own statements, you need to prove your worldview
before you tell us to stop speaking "it is".

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I have already stated, to deny Scripture is to deny its Author. If
He is truly "God", capital "G", then He most assuredly can sovereignly

B - A book is written....it is said to be infused or taken from God to the
authors hands. Some folks believe this.....convince people in power and
then eventually....get together with a group of folks to decide what is of
God and what is not. They then state that this is of God...and a holy
book and then push it on the public as truth. They are then told to force
those of the lay people to go to church...they then fight wars over
it...kill people over it...then eventually the rest of the world learns to
read and then gets to read it (thanks King Henry the 8th). Then the mold
has been set....it has been imprinted on our very way of life and culture.
Then eventually people are allowed to think as they want without fear of
being killed...but some are still irritated that they can do this...so
instead of killing....they threaten with an after-death-threat....and so
the world turns....

Now prove to me it is Gods word.

Happy Thanksgiving my friend,

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - A book is written....it is said to be infused or taken from God to the
authors hands.

SNIP SNIP

Post by B.G. Kent
Now prove to me it is Gods word.

A truly, born again, believer does not need empirical proof, though it
is there. You've already been provided with enough reasoning as to
why.

Rom 1 comes to mind. You have repeatedly dismissed the
revelation given to you. Persistant hardening of your heart on
this only produces retributive hardening of your heart by God's
decree to "give you over."

Your replies win Paul's assessment & condemnation in Rom 1:32.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Like the Jewish religious leaders of His day, you require a "sign."
Christ rebuffed them then and today He rebuffs you. As with the
rich man, there is already sufficient testimony to bring you and the
world into accountability.

B - *giggle* no....you only think this. I wish you would not confuse what
you believe with what Christ says or thinks. I don't at all require a
sign..I already believe in God...I simply ask you to stop speaking for all
Christians. This is soc.religion.christian....not soc.Isenders.christian
or even soc. bible.christian.
Your need to push your way as the only way for all Christians is rather
scarey...it speaks to me of extremism and a disrespect for the sensitive
and beautiful connection each of us have for and with God.

I.M.O
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life, yet there are
some of you who do not believe. Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear...

B - Yes rtdavid...and don't YOU forget it.
Those with ears to hear...will. See how easy it is? we can all use
scripture to boost up our own beliefs.

Jesus wasn't using these statements as a put down or a flippant
response so he wouldn't have to deal with issues, he was quoting a
truth. When you turn around and say what you just did, it has all the
force of the schoolyard retort: Same to you and more of it!

B - Oy veh..you still don't get it. I'm showing you that you are being
rather hypocritical in saying this to others but not looking at that log
in your own eye.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Jesus said: "if you love me you will obey my commands. I will ask the

B - Correction..you believe Jesus said this.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Your message is: no one has knowledge of God, only opinion. This must be
a statement about our capacity for knowledge of God, not a statement

B - NOt at all. My belief is that you cannot force your subjective truth
on anyone as objective truth. YOu may believe that you totally have THE
TRUTH...but to believe that another must believe it too is rather
egotistic and naive and disrespectful of their own connection to God. I
believe I have much knowledge of God..but to tell everyone that this is
the only way...and that they had better straighten up and fly right..is
ridiculous. I believe that there is always the chance that I may be wrong.
I believe this because I am not totally enlightened...I can't walk on
water without sinking because I am simply NOT THERE YET!. I don't know of
any other human being on this earth right now that is THERE YET either. My
ego is still there..as yours is. Being "right" is important to both of
us....hence an ego problem.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
There is a God and therefore an objective truth about him
God interacts with us therefore we can know objective truths about him
My experiences of God are knowable as long as they are consistent with
an established context and they ring true.

B - And this is subjective....because it comes from you whereas supposedly
Jesus's came from the "I AM"...or the God-self which did not distinguish
anymore between the watched and the watcher. His ego was not there...ours
still is I reckon and thus we are still subjectively speaking. I have no
problem with you saying the above to yourself...but if you say it as truth
for others...I think..personally ...that that is wrong and very
disrespectful of God.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
By doing so, I am not only ignoring many things that I do in fact
"know", but I'm actually being dishonest to my own senses. And
even skepticism presupposes that I have instances of knowledge to serve
as paradigm cases in which other particular instances somehow fall
short.

B - I KNOW That the snow is cold..and that rain is wet..however that is
because MY senses perceive of it that way...who is to say the majority of
the folks here have a perception problem and that 1% that feel it actually
dry (due to what we would perceive of them having a sensory problem) are
actually "correct" instead of the rest of us?Ofcourse that is just a
theoretical thing to say..but
as we are in the parade ourselves and not seeing it from a wholistic and
unified view of watching said parade from far above....we don't have the
whole picture. Jesus became the whole parade...the view...the
person...us...everything! He spoke from that view point.
That is my view..my opinion...only.
Believe in YOUR senses..but remember they are YOUR senses.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
others ideas. The individual's rights are actually the highest ideal
that needs to be respected.

B - No....the connection one has to God is an ideal that must be
respected.
I ask that you be totally sure of what I believe before you speak on my
view..and I will try and do the same.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
But in the biblical worldview, God has created man, man is fallen and
under condemnation, and unless he is saved, he will go to hell. Under
that worldview, respecting all the various other ideas is going to be
disastrous. Not telling others about the way to salvation will mean
that many will go to hell. Jesus says, go and preach so they will be

B - There is also a part on "if they do not receive you into their homes
then kick the dust from your sandals and go onwards" ...in other
words...don't cram it down others throats..and also do not "cast your
pearls before swine". You give to those that are open to it...fine...I
understand that...but I am not going to say "it is" I will only say" it
has been written...or I believe that Gods says to do this"..I will never
speak for God until I am speaking totally from the "I AM" and I believe
that is a ways off.

I also know that if a person constantly yells fire! in a theatre because
he firmly believes he sees it...but there is no fire....then he/she will
get others angered at him...or pitying him for his delusional behaviour.
I personally ,if constantly running to the exit, saw no fire and no sign
of fire ....
I'd be concerned for the fellow...wondering what exactly he sees....his
personal story...if he is seeing precognitive things...or if he actually
has mental problems....


Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - A book is written....it is said to be infused or taken from God to the
authors hands.

SNIP SNIP

Post by B.G. Kent
Now prove to me it is Gods word.

A truly, born again, believer does not need empirical proof, though it
is there. You've already been provided with enough reasoning as to
why.

B - there you go...I agree with you...but a believer should not be forcing
his beliefs on others as the only way..and that is what you do. You judge
all that don't see the Bible as you do...as wrong or hell-bound or
disruptive ...
I could not care less what you personally believe....good for you!!! if
you want to worship a gumboot that is fine with me but please don't push
your way as the only way...that is not religion or spirit..that is bigotry
and intolerance and disrespect.

I.M.O

Bren

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Jesus wasn't using these statements as a put down or a flippant
response

B - Oy veh..you still don't get it.

I explained why Jesus made the statement. It is those asking for the
same kind of proof you are demanding that can't see. If you try and
turn it around then it is you that doesn't get it. Kind of acts as a
self-evidence......

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Jesus said: "if you love me you will obey my commands"

B - Correction..you believe Jesus said this.

The historical record says he said it.
If you have some reasonable objection, lets hear it.

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
There is a God and therefore an objective truth about him
God interacts with us therefore we can know objective truths about him
My experiences of God are knowable as long as they are consistent with
an established context and they ring true.

B - And this is subjective....

It's actually objective. It doesn't come 'from me' it comes in
a context.
The first 2 statements are givens. Perhaps I should need to add more
qualifiers to the third, but I think it should suffice. That's not to
deny that there is a subjective element to it: namely it is private to
me, but the experiences are nonetheless grounded in context and truth
which means they are more than merely subjective.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Like the Jewish religious leaders of His day, you require a "sign."
Christ rebuffed them then and today He rebuffs you. As with the
rich man, there is already sufficient testimony to bring you and the
world into accountability.

B - *giggle* no....you only think this. I wish you would not confuse what
you believe with what Christ says or thinks. I don't at all require a
sign..

But you do because you dismiss His Word. You have no means of
verification of what you believe let alone what others declare. This
is
counter to the biblical record.

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,
for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the
Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

You, by comparison, appear not to be very noble-minded.

Acts 18:4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and
trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

How did Paul "reason" with the Jews and the "faithful Greeks?" What
does it mean, "reasoned?" It means that he sought to verify his
gospel message by means of the scriptures.

Acts 18:5 . . . .Paul began devoting himself completely to the word,
solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

What was it that Paul requested while in Rome and in jail. His
cloak and "the parchments" or the scrolls, i.e. scriptures.

Post by B.G. Kent
I already believe in God...

as does Satan and the demons.

Post by B.G. Kent
I simply ask you to stop speaking for all Christians.

I speak for no one, not even myself. However I as have all
true Christians, have been charged to "content for The Faith."
The Faith is propositional truth, not some willy-nilly, feel
good warm fuzzy as you pretend. And where does such
propositional truth exist for the Church to decidedly
content for The Faith? Only the Scriptures.

You need to read further what Paul concluded when his
testimony to the Jews, substantiated by the scriptures
was rejected.

Acts 18:6 And when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his
garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads! I am
clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles."

Post by B.G. Kent
This is soc.religion.christian....not soc.Isenders.christian
or even soc. bible.christian.
Your need to push your way as the only way for all Christians is rather
scarey...it speaks to me of extremism and a disrespect for the sensitive
and beautiful connection each of us have for and with God.

That "beautiful connection" is not a "matter of one's own
interpretation". Peter admonishes his readership to "long
for the pure mile of the word, that they might grow thereby."

It is only by means of Scripture that there is a propositional
truth form by which we can declare/contend for "The Faith"
and by which we can "examine daily to see where these
things are so," that is, to verify ALL spiritual experiences.
What do you have? Only your opinion.

I wonder why you and Carol are so demonstrative on this
point? I am sure it is for the same reason that all those
before you have rejected it -though they pronounce those
who defend sola scriptura as condemned and self-serving,
it you yourself who stands condemned because you
will not have your freedom impugned. And certainly the
Word of God does just that. You will not bow the knee
to His Authority. You wish to remain the arbitrator on
what is and what isn't acceptable to you. You continue
to nibble on "the fruit of good and evil."

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - NOt at all. My belief is that you cannot force your subjective truth
on anyone as objective truth.

You can't even remain consistent with the proper definition of terms.
It is you and your "opinion" which is subjective and relative. The
scriptures are objective and propositional.

Again, I as, why are you here? You are NOT a Christian and
you refuse to submit to the authority of the Scriptures. You
would be better served to wander on over to some Eastern
religious NG. You are a blight on this NG with all your
relativistic pantheistic opinions.

Post by B.G. Kent
YOu may believe that you totally have THE TRUTH...

Again, you haven't a clue as to how faith operates.

Post by B.G. Kent
but to believe that another must believe it too is rather
egotistic and naive and disrespectful

We follow Christ's own directive:

"I am The Way, The Truth, and The Way. NO man comes
before the Father EXCEPT through Me."

You have dismissed this verse in the past and I'm sure
you will dismiss it again. But in so doing, it is you who
is "egotistic, naive and disrespective." Talk about the
queen walking around strutting her stuff with no clothes
on!

Post by B.G. Kent
of their own connection to God.

That connection is the propositional truth given to
sinful man in the Scriptures as reveal to him by the
Spirit of God. In that you dismiss this entire paradigm
you "are none of mine."

Post by B.G. Kent
I believe I have much knowledge of God.

based on what? You may believe that you're entitled
to that million dollar lottery but until you provide hard
evidence, you are counted just a fool with many words.

Post by B.G. Kent
.but to tell everyone that this is the only way..

Only quoting God's word.

Post by B.G. Kent
and that they had better straighten up and fly right..is
ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is you posting on this NG. You
and your "opinions" are not Christian because they do
not find evidence when held up to the light of Scripture.

Post by B.G. Kent
I believe that there is always the chance that I may be wrong.

No you do not! This is just rhetoric. You fool even
yourself with such proclamations. You have told this
lie so often that even you are now believing it
.

Post by B.G. Kent
I believe this because I am not totally enlightened...I can't walk on
water without sinking because I am simply NOT THERE YET!. I don't know of
any other human being on this earth right now that is THERE YET either. My
ego is still there..as yours is. Being "right" is important to both of
us....hence an ego problem.

Hence the reason why only the Scriptures provide a sure
witness of who God is and what He would have of His
creation. You've just stated the point of contention. You
have nothing within yourself on which to faithful stand. Like
all of us, you are a sinner. And in that you are a sinner like
the rest of us, your heart is deceitfully wicked and not to
be trusted, certainly not to be trusted in spiritual matters
of which the flesh has no means of knowing. Therefore it
is/was required of God to provide revelation of spiritual
truth. And because man is sinful and reconstructs all things
to his vain imaginings, the revelation must be written down
in black and white. i.e. the Christian Scriptures.

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
There is a God and therefore an objective truth about him
God interacts with us therefore we can know objective truths about him
My experiences of God are knowable as long as they are consistent with
an established context and they ring true.

B - And this is subjective....because it comes from you whereas supposedly
Jesus's came from the "I AM"...or the God-self which did not distinguish
anymore between the watched and the watcher. His ego was not there...ours
still is I reckon and thus we are still subjectively speaking. I have no
problem with you saying the above to yourself...but if you say it as truth
for others...I think..personally ...that that is wrong and very
disrespectful of God.

But you have no basis for objection except that you "feel" it to be
so. You have no objective, propositional forms available to you.
Truth
is NOT relative. It is immutable and as objective as the Source
from which it extends. It is not subjective in that what is true for
one isn't necessarily true for another, i.e. subjectivism. Truth is
Truth. They are the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions.
Your paradigm only allows for the latter of the two. Will you not
see this?

Post by B.G. Kent
B - I KNOW That the snow is cold..and that rain is wet..however that is
because MY senses perceive of it that way...

Are then confessing existentialism? Aparently you've never experienced
snow so cold that it actually burns the flesh! Now what does your
experientially based knowledge has to say about that contradiction?
BTW
its called "frost bite."

Post by B.G. Kent
who is to say the majority of
the folks here have a perception problem

The "majority" determines nothing. Even if everyone who ever lived
and who will ever live until the end of time perceived a thing to be
true, that does not raise such a perception into the transcendental
realm. In order to be an absolute, it must proceed out of the
infinite.
Therefore the majority means nothing. At best, all man can produce
in the arena of ethics is a sociological statistical average. It
cannot
produce a transcendental ethic. Therefore we require God to state
didactically what Truth is. That statement is found in the Scriptures.

Post by B.G. Kent
....we don't have the
whole picture. Jesus became the whole parade...the view...the
person...us...everything! He spoke from that view point.

The more you talk the more you end up supporting the Scriptural
position than your own. Yet you refuse your own conclusions
when brought to fruition.

Post by B.G. Kent
That is my view..my opinion...only.

Of course. That is all your "faith" has. It has no substantiating
proofs. It has no propositional truth. It has no means of
verification.
It is totally subjective and relativistic.

Post by B.G. Kent
Believe in YOUR senses..but remember they are YOUR senses.

Experiences can be falsified. Paul declares that Satan mascrades
about as an angel of light. How can you safeguard yourself against
any of his errors?

Post by B.G. Kent
I also know that if a person constantly yells fire! in a theatre because
he firmly believes he sees it...but there is no fire....t

Apart from the Scriptures, man is blind to spiritual fire. You
are totally blind because you refuse to accept the Word of God
as your guide. You are a blind guide.

[gilgames]

***@hotmail.com
<<
Your replies win Paul's assessment & condemnation in Rom 1:32.
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

What do you think is the blaspheme against the Holy Ghost?

[B.G. Kent]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Jesus wasn't using these statements as a put down or a flippant
response

B - Oy veh..you still don't get it.

I explained why Jesus made the statement. It is those asking for the
same kind of proof you are demanding that can't see. If you try and
turn it around then it is you that doesn't get it. Kind of acts as a
self-evidence......

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Jesus said: "if you love me you will obey my commands"

B - Correction..you believe Jesus said this.

The historical record says he said it.
If you have some reasonable objection, lets hear it.

B - that does not mean that he said it.

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
There is a God and therefore an objective truth about him
God interacts with us therefore we can know objective truths about him
My experiences of God are knowable as long as they are consistent with
an established context and they ring true.

B - And this is subjective....

It's actually objective. It doesn't come 'from me' it comes in
a context.

B - It is subjective that you believe there is a God. It is subjective
that you "yourself" believe in it.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The first 2 statements are givens. Perhaps I should need to add more
qualifiers to the third, but I think it should suffice. That's not to
deny that there is a subjective element to it: namely it is private to
me, but the experiences are nonetheless grounded in context and truth
which means they are more than merely subjective.

B - NO. Unless they can be proven as something more than the musings of
some people ...they are indeed subjective until then.


I.M.O
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - NOt at all. My belief is that you cannot force your subjective truth
on anyone as objective truth.

You can't even remain consistent with the proper definition of terms.
It is you and your "opinion" which is subjective and relative. The
scriptures are objective and propositional.

B - NO. The Scriptures (Bible) are there. That is an objective proof. Are
they written by way of God? that is subjective since we have no proof that
all can agree on.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, I as, why are you here? You are NOT a Christian and
you refuse to submit to the authority of the Scriptures. You

B - Why are YOU here Isenders? Ofcourse I don't generally ask that because
I don't decide what a Christian is...I leave that up to God. I refuse to
submit to bigotry...God? I'll continually submit to God until there is no
"ME" left.

So stop being rude and calling people names and I won't call you a big
cookie. Let's just get on with speaking of our personal
connection with God okay? If you don't like what I say...oh well.

Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But you do because you dismiss His Word. You have no means of

B - Please prove that 1. I dismiss Gods word

and

2. that what you say is Gods word..is in fact Gods word.

thanks. I'll await your proof.

Blessings
Bren

[Catherine Hampton]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
<<
Your replies win Paul's assessment & condemnation in Rom 1:32.
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
What do you think is the blaspheme against the Holy Ghost?

I think you need to consider the context. Look at Mark 3:20-29:

20 Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not
so much as eat bread. 21 But when His own people heard about
this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, He
is out of His mind.
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, He has
Beelzebub, and, By the ruler of the demons He casts out
demons.
23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables:
How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided
against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house
is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And
if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he
cannot stand, but has an end. 27 No one can enter a strong
man s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds
the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.
28 Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons
of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who
blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but
is subject to eternal condemnation 30 because they said,
He has an unclean spirit.

Clearer? :)

If you pay attention to the context of that passage instead of just
reading verses 28 and 29, you see that Christ's warning about
"blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" came in response to accusations that
He was performing miracles and casting out demons by the spirit of
Satan rather than the Spirit of God. As I read this passage, Christ
is warning those who are blessed to see the direct work of the Holy
Spirit in person, in front of their own eyes, against attributing
that work to the devil.

That either is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, or is dangerously close
to it. I tend to think the second because, if it was blasphemy of
the Holy Spirit, they were already past redemption and a warning
would have been pointless. But perhaps Christ was warning, not
those who accused Him of being possessed by the devil, but those who
witnessed the accusations, against this sin.

In either case, I can't imagine that someone could blaspheme the
Holy Spirit by mistake, or unintentionally. This isn't a "gotcha"
that the Lord strewed in our paths.


Under the mercy,

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
<<
Your replies win Paul's assessment & condemnation in Rom 1:32.
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
What do you think is the blaspheme against the Holy Ghost?

Mark 3:28-30 specifically connects the sin against the Holy Spirit with
scribes' accusation that Jesus had an unclean spirit. That is, they
were attributing to an unclean spirit what was actually the work
of the Holy Spirit.

This suggests that the sin is to deny that the Holy Spirit is at work
in situations where he actually is. Because of Jesus' general emphasis
on forgiveness, it seems reasonable to presume that an unforgiveable
sin results not from making an ordinary mistaken judgement (surely
there are situations where one can make an honest mistake about
whether God is at work or not), but from a more radical rejection of
the way the Holy Spirit works.

In particular, Jesus and the scribes had a basic disagreement about
how God worked, with the scribes emphasizing legalism and Jesus God's
grace. So the scribes' sin would ultimately be self-righteousness. It
is unforgiveable because someone who insists on being judged by works
rather than grace will never make the grade.

Thus the broadest reading of the eternal sin is self-righteousness
and legalism.

However I also think the more literal reading is worth considering.
Whenever someone denies that the Holy Spirit is at work among some
part of the Church, they need to consider whether they are involved in
this sin. There are certainly people whose actions do not reflect the
Holy Spirit -- I'm not saying that we should accept everything.
However when evaluating others one needs to at least consider whether
that evaluation is based on legalism and the associated rejection of
God's grace. I am particularly sceptical of Christians who persecute
other Christians or condone such persection. Only God can judge what
is in their heart, but I consider that persecution of Christians
establishes a presumption that the people involved have rejected the
Holy Spirit's activity for their own standards of righteousness.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Post by gilgames
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
What do you think is the blaspheme against the Holy Ghost?

This suggests that the sin is to deny that the Holy Spirit is at work
in situations where he actually is. Because of Jesus' general emphasis
on forgiveness, it seems reasonable to presume that an unforgiveable
sin results not from making an ordinary mistaken judgement (surely
there are situations where one can make an honest mistake about
whether God is at work or not), but from a more radical rejection of
the way the Holy Spirit works.

Blasphemy of the HS was only characteristic of those who were
present when Christ performed miracles. It cannot occur today.
Blasphemy of the HS was a once and for all condemnation. There
was no reprieve. Today, the only none reprieveable sin is to
refuse to believe in the Gospel. It is similar to the blasphemy of
the HS, but only that. In that it is the Spirit who enlightens, to
reject that enlightenment is to be left in your sin. Rom 1 teaches
that there comes a time when willful rejection on mans part
crosses over a line where it becomes a judicial rejection on
God's part in "giving over."

Beyond all this, I don't see how the "blasphemy of the HS"
was linked to what I said concerning Rom 1:32.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
It
is unforgiveable because someone who insists on being judged by works
rather than grace will never make the grade.

I don't see this. I don't see it as an issue dealing directly with
salvation. The sin of blasphemy of the HS had to do with a more
base character of not granting God His due. It wasn't a rejection
of grace vs works, it was a rejection of the Written Word brought
to fruition by the Living Word.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Thus the broadest reading of the eternal sin is self-righteousness
and legalism.

I still don't see that being the issue involved. Of course, it goes
without saying that this historical blasphemy was borne of a
fallen nature which placed self as the supreme adjudicator. The
condemnation which Christ Himself stated was that they should
have known better being teachers of the Law.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
However I also think the more literal reading is worth considering.
Whenever someone denies that the Holy Spirit is at work among some
part of the Church, they need to consider whether they are involved in
this sin.

The ONLY unpardonable sin today is unbelief. The "blasphemy
of the HS" had a context that is unrepeatable today. Christ isn't
bodily present performing works which are only attributable to God.
It's exactly like the "impossible to renew them" of Heb 6:6. There
is a definitive context. It is simply wrong to draw these incidents
out of their context to buttress a doctrine of losing one's
salvation.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
There are certainly people whose actions do not reflect the
Holy Spirit -- I'm not saying that we should accept everything.
However when evaluating others one needs to at least consider whether
that evaluation is based on legalism and the associated rejection of
God's grace.

The ONLY people about to correctly discern whether something is
from God (or specifically, the HS) or not are born again, Spirit
indwelt Christians. This being the case, there can be NO suppositional
thought of having to do with loss of salvation.

Also, the elders of the Church, as studied from the whole teaching
of the Scriptures, OT & NT alike, is that evalution isn't based upon
some inward "warm fuzzy," but on the didactic teaching of
Scripture. Only Scripture provides a "more sure word" by which to
discern truth. The idiom is:

No means of verification
No guard against error

Remove the Scriptures from the "Spirit" and all you are left
with is a really nice house built upon sand.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I am particularly sceptical of Christians who persecute
other Christians or condone such persection. Only God can judge what
is in their heart, but I consider that persecution of Christians
establishes a presumption that the people involved have rejected the
Holy Spirit's activity for their own standards of righteousness.

The problem lies in distinquishing between "professing
christians" and "confessing" Christians. As speaks of the "gospel"
which is no gospel at all, so to with those who only
profess their faith. Is this not the underlying point of Christ's
warning in Mt 7:21? Is this not why Paul exhorts the Corinthians
to test themselves in 2 Cor 13:5?

Elders are most certainly called to challenge strenuously those
who call themselves Christians but prove not true evidence of
the fact. Jude exhorts his readers to "struggle", to "contend
earnestly" for "The Faith." Point is, even if it is against our
so called "brother", we are to press how ever hard we must
to keep The Faith pure. "Persecution" speaks of something
totally separate from this. There should be absolutely no
such thing attributable to any true believer. That there once
arose inquisitions and crusades which more or less physically
demanded "conform or die" is anti-Biblical and therefore something
totally separate from the will of God. It was a work of the flesh
and a thing in and of itself to be condemned.

Today, "persecution" as such, is more an attitudinal thing,
not a physical thing. Christian's are indeed still physically
persecuted for their faith, but I see little evidence today for
one denomination physically persecuting another. However,
that sort of thing is going to return once the Antichrist
comes to power and the Restrainer is removed.

[gilgames]

Catherine Hampton wrote

<<
I think you need to consider the context. Look at Mark 3:20-29:
...
In either case, I can't imagine that someone could blaspheme the
Holy Spirit by mistake, or unintentionally.
Unfortunately it is not so easy. Luke put the same saying into a
different context, where the endurance in the persecution and the help
of the Holy Spirit is the topic:

Luke 12 8: Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men,
him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels
of God.
10: And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall
be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost
it shall not be forgiven.
11: And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates,
and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or
what ye shall say:
12: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought
to say.

[gilgames]

<<
Thus the broadest reading of the eternal sin is self-righteousness
and legalism.
How do you interpret Luke's context to the same saying:

Luke 12 8: Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men,
him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels
of God.
10: And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall
be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost
it shall not be forgiven.
11: And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates,
and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or
what ye shall say:
12: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought
to say.

---

[Luke has a number of sayings together without individual contexts,
though I note from Luke 11:53 ff that the overall context is still
controversy about legalism. I think Mark is a more useful place to
start in understanding this specific saying. --clh]

[Jani]

"B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message news:qM5bh.17115$***@trnddc06...

[]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - there you go...I agree with you...but a believer should not be forcing
his beliefs on others as the only way..and that is what you do. You judge
all that don't see the Bible as you do...as wrong or hell-bound or
disruptive ...
I could not care less what you personally believe....good for you!!! if
you want to worship a gumboot that is fine with me but please don't push
your way as the only way...that is not religion or spirit..that is bigotry
and intolerance and disrespect.
I.M.O

It doesn't matter how many times you add "IMO" to your posts, it's equally
intolerant, bigoted and disrespectful to demand that people who hold the
Biblical scriptures as authorative accept *your* version of Christianity as
a valid alternative. Just as it's intolerant, bigoted and disrespectful to
insist that anyone who is tolerant and loving *must* be a Christian, even if
they don't realise it yet. Certainly, you can group together "people who are
loving and tolerant", or even "people who love God and their neighbour and
are loving and tolerant", but that, on its own, doesn't = Christian.

Jani

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Jani
It doesn't matter how many times you add "IMO" to your posts, it's equally
intolerant, bigoted and disrespectful to demand that people who hold the
Biblical scriptures as authorative accept *your* version of Christianity as
a valid alternative. Just as it's intolerant, bigoted and disrespectful to

B - but I don't Jani dear. I don't care if they accept my way or
not...what I don't like is them speaking for every Christian out there.

thanks for your input though doll.

Bren

[Jani]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Jani
It doesn't matter how many times you add "IMO" to your posts, it's
equally
intolerant, bigoted and disrespectful to demand that people who hold the
Biblical scriptures as authorative accept *your* version of Christianity
as
a valid alternative. Just as it's intolerant, bigoted and disrespectful
to

B - but I don't Jani dear. I don't care if they accept my way or
not...what I don't like is them speaking for every Christian out there.

Clearly you *do* care, or you wouldn't be so determined to force others into
your (current) way of thinking. There is no point promoting "diversity" and
then telling people that their particular form of "diversity" is not
permitted. The Christians who subscribe to the scriptures as absolute
authority say as much, and present a rational argument for that view; you
make a vague general argument that "everyone's view should be accepted", and
then dismiss the ones that you, personally, dislike. I suspect your
promotion of a liberal christian/neopagan crossover might be better received
if you were not quite so consistently dismissive of anything but the
experiential aspect of both.

Post by B.G. Kent
thanks for your input though doll.

You're welcome, but if you actually want to understand the issues
surrounding inerrancy, there is plenty of material available which is of far
more use than anything I might post. I think there were several texts
recommended to you, by a Christian theologian, on one of the forums you
posted to as a Wiccan priestess? Or you could try reading what people such
as rtdavide post here, and actually entering into discussion with them,
rather than rejecting their arguments as "speaking for all".

Jani

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani

Post by B.G. Kent
thanks for your input though doll.

You're welcome, but if you actually want to understand the issues
surrounding inerrancy, there is plenty of material available which is of far
more use than anything I might post.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/50d49e121982d05c/827aae99aad87c84?lnk=gst&q=inerrancy&rnum=31&hl=en#827aae99aad87c84

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/147ac8690235c607/a1ccad7834086314?lnk=gst&q=inerrancy&rnum=62&hl=en#a1ccad7834086314

A couple of old postings. Perhaps they will help.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani

Post by B.G. Kent
thanks for your input though doll.

You're welcome, but if you actually want to understand the issues
surrounding inerrancy, there is plenty of material available which is of far
more use than anything I might post.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/50d49e121982d05c/827aae99aad87c84?lnk=gst&q=inerrancy&rnum=31&hl=en#827aae99aad87c84

You are not doing anyone a favor by including this link. For once the authors
makes the drastic mis-step of saying "nerrancy is the point of the
theopneustia", he never recovers. And it is hard to recover from such a colossal
error.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/50d49e121982d05c/827aae99aad87c84?lnk=gst&q=inerrancy&rnum=31&hl=en#827aae99aad87c84

You are not doing anyone a favor by including this link. For once the authors
makes the drastic mis-step of saying "nerrancy is the point of the
theopneustia", he never recovers. And it is hard to recover from such a colossal
error.

You only prove your ignorance and hard heartedness. Also, for those of
you who
don't know, "theopneustia" means, "God breathed".

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed
and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but
wholly upon God..., the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be
received, because it is the Word of God... yet, notwithstanding, our
full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine
authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing
witness by and with the Word in our hearts.



Note that the Confession adds something very important. Because of the
limitation of the human heart and mind to fully grasp the Scriptures
and their authority, the Holy Spirit must work within the child of God
for such conviction. This in no way reduces inspiration and inerrancy
down to a doctrine that must require a mystical confirmation. The
Scriptures are indeed inspired and infallible whether we (you in this
case) accept them as such or not.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
You are not doing anyone a favor by including this link. For once the authors
makes the drastic mis-step of saying "nerrancy is the point of the
theopneustia", he never recovers. And it is hard to recover from such a colossal
error.

Gaussen's classic "Theopneustia" which has been republished under
the title, "Divine Inspiration of the Bible" and Engelder's classic,
"Scripture Cannot Be Broken" reveal you to be little reflective. The
latter of the two was subtitled "Six Objections to Verbal Inspiration
Examined in the Light of Scripture." He reveals "that it should be
impossible for (the Christian) to speak of, and think of, errors in the
Bible." And for you to continue to maintain such a viewpoint
necessarily impeaches the authority of our Lord Jesus who quoted it and
refered to its teaching as inerrant and to be read and interpreted by
means of the grammatic/historic hermeneutic.

Engelder also points out how preposterous is the charge that the
post-Reformation theologians invented the concept of verbal plenary
inspiration.while defending verbal inspiration from the charge of
setting up a "legalistic authority of the letter." Verbal
inspiration is shown to be a "holy bondage" for the Christian. The
alternatives are fearful: slavery to human concepts (your "traditions"
which you bring along side of the scriptures as being equal in
authority) and the latest findings of the scholars, or to evolution or
some other current ideology, or the works-righteousness which the
rationalists of our day engage in without realizing what they are
doing. Rather, as slaves of God, we are His freed men and women, sure
in what we believe and what we have put our trust in unto everlasting
life.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by l***@hotmail.com
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/50d49e121982d05c/827aae99aad87c84?lnk=gst&q=inerrancy&rnum=31&hl=en#827aae99aad87c84

You are not doing anyone a favor by including this link. For once the authors
makes the drastic mis-step of saying "nerrancy is the point of the
theopneustia", he never recovers. And it is hard to recover from such a colossal
error.

You only prove your ignorance and hard heartedness.

How ironic you should fling this accusation at others in the very post that
proves you the guilty one.

No, Loren, the ignorance and hard-heartedness is ALL yours. You show ignorance
by claiming that "Inerrancy is the point of the theopneustia" (it isn't) and
hard heartedness by repeating the claim with no evidence, but adding only
groundless accusations.

But what is even worse is that you show the same two faults even more clearly
with your nonsense about spiral arms and angular 'motion' in other posts
appearing today.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, for those of
you who
don't know, "theopneustia" means, "God breathed".

And it is not an Englsih words. Both you and the sources you quote are simply
being pretentious by using the word 'theopneustia'.

But I have noticed this is one of your favorite fallacies: proof by pretension.
I don't know what you hope to achieve by quoting the WCF, since you already know
that I know it is a heretical document.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
I don't know what you hope to achieve by quoting the WCF, since you already know
that I know it is a heretical document.

And why would you presume that I am directly answering you
and care about your personal objections as opposed to providing
answers to the objection itself so that others might judge for
themselves? But it's always about you, isn't it! No. That's not
a question. It is a long observed observation. Presuppositions
reveal so much.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
But what is even worse is that you show the same two faults even more clearly
with your nonsense about spiral arms and angular 'motion' in other posts
appearing today.

funny. I didn't see you offering any answer to the contradiction
to a physical law. And your non-acceptance of a literally
interpretation
of the Genesis record puts you exactly where secular evolutionist
stand themselves -unable to debate scientifically, the proofs for
creationism and a young earth.

This only goes to show that you really have a very poor
appreciation of scripture for you not only place your
traditions as presuppositional rules over its interpretation,
but you also place secular science over it as well. Just
what exactly is your object of faith? If Christ held to a
literal interpretation, then it must not be Christ of the
bible, otherwise you would defer to His interpretation.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson
You are not doing anyone a favor by including this link. For once
the authors makes the drastic mis-step of saying "nerrancy is the
point of the theopneustia", he never recovers. And it is hard to
recover from such a colossal error.

Gaussen's classic "Theopneustia" which has been republished under the
title, "Divine Inspiration of the Bible" and Engelder's classic,
"Scripture Cannot Be Broken" reveal you to be little reflective.

'Reflective'. Do you know what this word means, Loren? Or are you
playing your old game of using pretentious sounding words w/o having a
clue what they mean?

The latter of the two was subtitled "Six Objections to Verbal
Inspiration Examined in the Light of Scripture." He reveals "that it
should be impossible for (the Christian) to speak of, and think of,
errors in the Bible."

And true to form, when the source agrees with you, you exalt his
agreement with words like 'reveals', even though citing this source
has added NO substance to your claim. It has neither clarified the
meaning of your claim nor added credibility ot it.

And for you to continue to maintain such a viewpoint
necessarily impeaches the authority of our Lord Jesus who quoted it
and refered to its teaching as inerrant and to be read and
interpreted by means of the grammatic/historic hermeneutic.

No, it does no such thing. When did He ever "refer to its teaching as
inerrant"? You are engaging in fanciful intepretation here. It is
grossly illegitimate to claim that He implied inerrancy just because
He quoted it. Lots of people quote authorities without implying
inerrancy.

Engelder also points out how preposterous is the charge that the
post-Reformation theologians invented the concept of verbal plenary
inspiration.

Why are you even bringing this up? Who made this claim in this thread?

while defending verbal inspiration from the charge of setting up a
"legalistic authority of the letter." Verbal inspiration is shown to
be a "holy bondage" for the Christian.

Engelder may have _said_ it is a "holy bondage", but he did not _show_
it. No one can 'show' what is not even true.
No, you (and Engelder) are simply returning to one of your favorite
fallacies: the 'false alternative'.

Face it, Loren. You have not shown evidence that you even know what
the alternatives even ARE. You simply keep repeating the same list,
giving as 'evidence' only slanderous accusations against the entire
Catholic Church.

The real alternative to the false notion of 'inerrancy' you insist on
is to understand the image in the Church of the human and divine
natures of Christ. And this also implies understanding the image of
the human and divine natures in Scripture itself, too. Your false
notion of 'inerrancy' is denying the human aspect.

slavery to human concepts (your "traditions" which you
bring along side of the scriptures as being equal in authority) and
the latest findings of the scholars, or to evolution or some other
current ideology, or the works-righteousness which the rationalists
of our day engage in without realizing what they are doing.

Oh, the irony! you calls belief in "the latest findings of scholars"
"slavery", when you yourself are in obvious slavery to the "latest
finding of NON-scholars" of the so-called Institute for Creation
Research!

Rather, as slaves of God, we are His freed men and women, sure in
what we believe and what we have put our trust in unto everlasting
life.

As often, so here: being "sure in what you believe" does you no good,
when "what you believe" isn't even true.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
But what is even worse is that you show the same two faults even more clearly
with your nonsense about spiral arms and angular 'motion' in other posts
appearing today.

funny. I didn't see you offering any answer to the contradiction
to a physical law.

Then you cannot READ. The answer was there: it was that despite your ignorant
claim, there is NO contradiction of a physical law.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And your non-acceptance of a literally
interpretation
of the Genesis record puts you exactly where secular evolutionist
stand themselves -unable to debate scientifically, the proofs for
creationism and a young earth.

No, there ARE no such 'proofs'. They are all pseudo-science. Besides: it is YOU
who failed to respond to my rebuttal of the ridiculous RATE claims about helium
and the decay of uranium in crystals.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This only goes to show that you really have a very poor
appreciation of scripture

No, it shows no such thing. On the contrary: as I have pointed out many times
now, your _insistence_on this hyper-literalism shows your own failure to
appreciate the inspiration of Scripture as having reflections of both human and
divine natures of Christ.


[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
I don't know what you hope to achieve by quoting the WCF, since you already know
that I know it is a heretical document.

And why would you presume that I am directly answering you
and care about your personal objections as opposed to providing
answers to the objection itself so that others might judge for
themselves?

Because you wrote it in a post directly answering my post. That _is_ the normal
assumption under such circumstances. Look at the other posts in this and other
NGs to see this for yourself.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it's always about you, isn't it!

Hardly. Your jump to this conclusion reveals a lot about yourself. About your
love of bitterness, for example.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No. That's not
a question. It is a long observed observation.

A WRONG "long observed observation".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Presuppositions
reveal so much.

Why, yes, they do. In your case, they reveal you are a bitter man who loves
angry diatribes, even when they have not a _shred_ of grounds.

[suneejan]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
OK, but let's think this through: does anyone learn something by
asking? No.
You learn something by hearing. How does one "hear" God since God
is not a physical being that is speaking audibly?
It comes down to a mental sense. God communicates spiritually, but
using our thoughts.
The trick is that every human has thoughts. How do you discern what is
from God and what is not? It is not only possible that humans can
mistake their own thoughts for God, but necessarily true given 1) the
contradictory things that different individuals believe God to be
telling them, and 2) the fact that truth doesn't change.

Some people hear God by their thoughts. Thoughts are of 3 sources: a
person's own thoughts, some thoughts from Satan and some thoughts by
God. A person can tests these thoughts to know which ones are from
God by asking...do you believe in Jesus is the son of God who came to
die for my sins. This is called testing the spirits. Also can
distinguish if the thought is true to the scriptures.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by suneejan

Post by r***@yahoo.com
OK, but let's think this through: does anyone learn something by
asking? No.

B - Yes. I have learnt much by asking.

Post by suneejan
Some people hear God by their thoughts. Thoughts are of 3 sources: a
person's own thoughts, some thoughts from Satan and some thoughts by
God.

B - Prove please.


A person can tests these thoughts to know which ones are from

Post by suneejan
God by asking...do you believe in Jesus is the son of God who came to
die for my sins. This is called testing the spirits.

B - And this "
Satan" that you speak of can say he does believe in Jesus etc. because he
can lie. How naive to believe that that would trap "him".

Also can

Post by suneejan
distinguish if the thought is true to the scriptures.

B - Then that is making the Scripture "God" instead of God "God".
What if Gods word to you was contrary to the scriptures? what would you
do? not believe God?

Bren

[suneejan]

Post by B.G. Kent
What if Gods word to you was contrary to the scriptures? what would you
do? not believe God?
Bren

God's word will not be in disagreement with the scriptures.
The scriptures is God's word which one can depend upon.

If a thought comes and it does not align up with the scriptures then I
would dismiss it.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - And this "
Satan" that you speak of can say he does believe in Jesus etc. because he
can lie. How naive to believe that that would trap "him".

This reveals two things to me. It reveals, one, you don't know the
biblical
record and two, you have no experience in these things. You utterly
fail to comprehend the sovereign nature of God and all its implications.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by suneejan

Post by B.G. Kent
What if Gods word to you was contrary to the scriptures? what would you
do? not believe God?
Bren

God's word will not be in disagreement with the scriptures.
The scriptures is God's word which one can depend upon.

B - how do you know?

Post by suneejan
If a thought comes and it does not align up with the scriptures then I
would dismiss it.

B - That's really scary to me....God itself coming "down" here...talking
to your face...looking in your eyes and instead of listening..you research
a book...
sounds like idolatry to me.

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - And this "
Satan" that you speak of can say he does believe in Jesus etc. because he
can lie. How naive to believe that that would trap "him".

This reveals two things to me. It reveals, one, you don't know the
biblical
record and two, you have no experience in these things. You utterly

B - Nonsense. You assume a lot my friend.

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - And this "
Satan" that you speak of can say he does believe in Jesus etc. because he
can lie. How naive to believe that that would trap "him".

This reveals two things to me. It reveals, one, you don't know the
biblical
record and two, you have no experience in these things. You utterly

B - Nonsense. You assume a lot my friend.

As they say, "actions speak louder than words." Your words do not
reveal that you have any active understanding as to spiritual things.
This
only attests to your "having come close" but not having "entered into"
the things of God.

1 Cor. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to
us by God,
1 Cor. 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit
of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually appraised.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by suneejan
If a thought comes and it does not align up with the scriptures then I
would dismiss it.

B - That's really scary to me....God itself coming "down" here...talking
to your face...looking in your eyes and instead of listening..you research
a book...
sounds like idolatry to me.

Heb. 1:1, 2 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets
in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to
us in His Son. . .

The next time God "comes down" it will not be to talk, it will be to
meet out His wrath against those who would not accept His Son.

You are the "rich man."

Luke 16:19 =B6 "Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually
dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day.
Luke 16:20 "And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate,
covered with sores,
Luke 16:21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling
from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and
licking his sores.
Luke 16:22-31 "Now it came about that the poor man died and he was
carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also
died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in
torment, and *saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he
cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my
tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child,
remember that during your life you received your good things, and
likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and
you are in agony. 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a
great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here
to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
And he said, 'Then I beg you, Father, that you send him to my father's
house-- for I have five brothers-- that he may warn them, lest they
also come to this place of torment.' But Abraham *said, 'They have
Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, Father
Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
But he said to him, 'If they_do_not_listen_to_Moses_and_the_Prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'"

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As they say, "actions speak louder than words." Your words do not
reveal that you have any active understanding as to spiritual things.
This
only attests to your "having come close" but not having "entered into"
the things of God.

B - sputter..... LOL.....No dear...I just don't think the same way you
do..and you would like me to. That is what it comes down to. I'm right
with God...I have no problems there. May you feel as certain.

Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 ***@hotmail.com wrote:

a lot of stuff that did not make sense in what we were conversing about.
He then called me "the rich man"....upon which upon reading made
absolutely no sense whatsoever to what I had ever said or
believed...assuring me once again that Isender is very far off the mark in
his summation of yours truly. Now this is sad...but *sniff* I'll get over
it.


You have your way Isender...and all I ask is that people stop talking
about God as if they have the only way and everyone else is wrong. My
belief in God is very strong as is my love....it's sad that he cannot see
this through prejudiced eyes.

Blessings
Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As they say, "actions speak louder than words." Your words do not
reveal that you have any active understanding as to spiritual things.
This
only attests to your "having come close" but not having "entered into"
the things of God.

B - sputter..... LOL.....No dear...I just don't think the same way you
do..and you would like me to. That is what it comes down to. I'm right
with God...I have no problems there. May you feel as certain.

I am not laughing because salvation is no laughing matter. The NT
is quite clear as to the fate of those who believing in God other than
He has revealed Himself to be in the Jewish scriptures, in the Gospels
and in the Apostlic writings. You cannot deviate from that revelation
without placing your eternal destiny in peril. Again, read Jude with
an understanding. Having an image of God which stands in contrast
to the Scriptures is nothing short of idolatry. Idolatry is mentally
projecting a heretical view of God. In that your representation of
God and His Gospel is not in accord with the Scriptures, you are at
best, a heretic and therefore contended by those of The Faith (Jude 3),
at worst, yet in your sin and on your way to certain judgment.

Acts 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be
saved, you and your household."


"Believe" has content. Faith has an objective object. It is based
upon notitia, on the kyrgma, the dogma of the Gospel. To error in
the fundamentals is to believe in the Lie. The dogma of the Gospel
is not an opinion. It objective and absolute Truth which cannot be
watered down or colored. It is elemental. There is nothing to
subtract from it, only add to it. What you add is Eastern mysticism
which has no place in The Faith.

I do not contend with you to win some stupid argument.
I do not contend with you to build myself up.
I contend with you because I don't want you to come before
the throne naked and in want of being clothed in the only
clothing offered -the blood sacrifice of Christ in its strict
God oriented sense.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
a lot of stuff that did not make sense in what we were conversing about.
He then called me "the rich man"....upon which upon reading made
absolutely no sense whatsoever to what I had ever said or
believed...assuring me once again that Isender is very far off the mark in
his summation of yours truly. Now this is sad...but *sniff* I'll get over
it.

Then once again, you have for yourself the illustration that you are
not
Spiritually minded but rather yet in your natural state. You have made
no exclusive, even degrading comments about the "Bible," i.e. the
very word of God. What was the final witness, the final condemnation
given to the rich man? It was that the Jewish Scriptures were enough.
No further revelation was needed. The Scriptures were reliable, not
the product of men, but the "power of God unto salvation."

Post by B.G. Kent
You have your way Isender...and all I ask is that people stop talking
about God as if they have the only way and everyone else is wrong. My
belief in God is very strong as is my love....it's sad that he cannot see
this through prejudiced eyes.

You speak of relativism. I speak of God who is Absolute. His truth is
not relative. His revelation of the Truth is not open for debate.
There is
ONLY ONE WAY. In that you will not accept even the Biblical testimony
of this fact, in that you continue to espouse this "all roads lead to
Rome"
soteriological myth, your preach a gospel that is no gospel. Again, I
refer you to Jude's account of those who have "crept in". You have
"crept in" to this NG with your unbiblical, pantheistic, humanistic
utopian religious system. It is religious as opposed to Christian for
it
involves man being the final adjudicator. God is the final
adjudicator.
And this God has revealed Himself objectively in His word. In that
you deny the Word, you deny its Author which places you "outside
the camp."

[Carol]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Scriptures were reliable, not
the product of men, but the "power of God unto salvation."

BTW, that passage speaks not of the scriptures, but of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and
also to the Greek.

That power is not contained within the scriptures, as Jesus Himself
said, but within Christ Himself, the Word of God.

John 5:39-40
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and
they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life.

I don't say these things to be contrary, but because many men are led
into that fundamental error because that is what they are taught. If
you truly read the scriptures with an open heart and mind, you will
see they give ample witness of living relationships between God and
every man that is saved and those are not based on books (even
divinely inspired ones), but on knowing the Spirit of God through
Christ. From the prophets to Apostle Paul, Jesus Christ was revealed
in the spirituals to all that walk with God.

For example (and this is not the only time):
1 Kings 12:22
But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

as well as the many times the Spirit of God came over a man and he
prophecied.

I know that people will accuse one another of private interpretations
- but, without hearing, ALL interpretations are private, are made by
the minds of men and not the Spirit of God. It is essential that we
know God if we are to know what is written in the bible truthfully.
The bible is a wonderful, God inspired book. It is a witness to many
of the things God has done in and through His people over many
centuries and is needful to verify that revelation is of Him and not
of evil spirits. However... Abraham walked with God without
scriptures. Moses did too. The prophets did. All the things written in
the scriptures that happened to those people happened because they had
a relationship with the living God. He has not changed. :)

~ Carol

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I am not laughing because salvation is no laughing matter. The NT
is quite clear as to the fate of those who believing in God other than
He has revealed Himself to be in the Jewish scriptures, in the Gospels

B - I'm not laughing about salvation...I'm laughing at someone pushing
something to me as fact but unable to prove it. Sorry but I will not
believe in something because of fear...that is an insincere belief. I
believe in God because I love God...period.

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You speak of relativism. I speak of God who is Absolute. His truth is
not relative. His revelation of the Truth is not open for debate.

B - NO..you speak of the Bible..which you believe is absolute. I totally
believe in Gods truth and for you to go and try the old red herring
technique is beyond you no?

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Carol

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Scriptures were reliable, not
the product of men, but the "power of God unto salvation."

BTW, that passage speaks not of the scriptures, but of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ.

What are the Epistles, Carol? Are they not the defense of the Gospel?
What is the OT? Is it not the foretelling of Christ which is an aspect
of
the Gospel? Also, what does Paul later declare in Roman's but that
faith in the Gospel comes from hearing the Word of God. It is the
Word of God which is powerful.

Post by Carol
That power is not contained within the scriptures, as Jesus Himself
said, but within Christ Himself, the Word of God.

"Living & sharper than a two edged sword, pierce to the marrow of the
bone." Does that ring a bell. Also, how do you come to know the
true Christ apart from the Scriptures? You appear to be minimizing the
only true source of verification against error that the Church has.

Post by Carol
John 5:39-40
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and
they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life.
I don't say these things to be contrary, but because many men are led
into that fundamental error because that is what they are taught. If
you truly read the scriptures with an open heart and mind, you will
see they give ample witness of living relationships between God and
every man that is saved and those are not based on books (even
divinely inspired ones), but on knowing the Spirit of God through
Christ. From the prophets to Apostle Paul, Jesus Christ was revealed
in the spirituals to all that walk with God.

Well yes and no. Yes in that one can become a triva professional.
Yes, in that like the Pharasees, they used the Word of God as
a manipulative tool for the masses but never took the time to apply
its truths to their own lives.

No, in that apart from the Scriptures, we have no "sure prophecy"
of truth. There are too many "christs" out there. How are we to
dogmatically declare the True One? No, in that God's words are
living and when read into our lives by the ministry of the Spirit to
both enlighten and to "will and to do God's good pleasure", they
produce in us strength and hope.

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

"Profitable for teaching" - here in lies the basis for what is right
"for reproof" - herein lies the verification as to what is incorrect
"for correction" -herein lies the source as to how to get it right
"for training in righteousness" - herein lies the source to remain
right.

The Spirit does not speak of Himself. He uses the Scriptures to
impart God's truth and His will to us. There is no other absolute
source left to us. Apart from the Scriptures, man wallows in the
sea of relativity.

Post by Carol
I know that people will accuse one another of private interpretations
- but, without hearing, ALL interpretations are private, are made by
the minds of men and not the Spirit of God.

You have an unbiblical view of the "image" of God that is part of man.
Yes, he is fallen and his inclination has been irrepairably ruined.
God
does not seek to patch up the old man but by means of regeneration,
create a new man, a new inclination which desires to please God.
However, as illustrated in Rom 7 by Paul, apart from the Spirit, even
this new man is powerless and doubly cursed. Power comes and
growth comes only from the Spirit and the Spirit feeds the believer
on the food of scripture. Apart from the Scriptures, there is no
imperisable food for Truth.

Post by Carol
It is essential that we
know God if we are to know what is written in the bible truthfully.

No, you've got the cart before the horse.

Rom. 3:11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for
God;
Rom. 3:12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good, There is not even one. "

One does never comes to God rightly unless he first recognizes his
need, as a sinner, for salvation. There is that which is within man
that
yet testifies of God's presence and of man's true moral guilt. But
the question is never, "Do you have guilt", rather it is, "What do you
do with your guilt?" Everyone has guilt and everyone, to some degree,
recognizes the fact of true individual moral guilt. However, it is
only
by means of the Scriptures that we are provided with an "unruined"
perspective of both man and his guilt. Only by means of the Word
of God left to us do we have a source for true understanding, a
perspective untainted by sin. Only in Scripture do we have an adequate
witness that Jesus is God and that He is the One Mediator. It is
only by means of His substitutionary death that man has a way open
to him. It is only Scripture which reveals the way and how to be
freely granted an everlasting and secure pass into God's righteous
kingdom.

Post by Carol
The bible is a wonderful, God inspired book. It is a witness to many
of the things God has done in and through His people over many
centuries and is needful to verify that revelation is of Him and not
of evil spirits. However... Abraham walked with God without
scriptures.

No He didn't. You are confused as to what the Word of God is. You
are also minimizing the fact that revelation was progressive. (Heb
1:1-2).
Today we have the written word of God. In Abraham's day, he had
the promises of God given to him by an "Angel." There is no real
difference except now we have it in black and white. Now we look
back at the fulfillment of the Promise whereas those of the OT looked
forward. Effectual faith is always in the Promise of God. Today,
we do not have angels speaking to us nor God Himself walking with us
in the cool of the night. By His sovereign providence He has left this
blessed generation with His written revelation.

Post by Carol
Moses did too. The prophets did. All the things written in
the scriptures that happened to those people happened because they had
a relationship with the living God. He has not changed. :)

No, you are right, God hasn't changed. However, His economies
change. Again,

Heb. 1:1-2 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets
in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us
in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He
made the world.

God no longer directly reveals new revelation to us in dreams, visions
or
verbal communiqu=E9's. That is an old methodology. Today, He does not
speak to us apart from the Scriptures. In the Scriptures we has his
full
and true testimony as to the plan and the will of God.

In this post, you have stated what you think not to be true but you
have not reported your presupposition as to why this is. Are you
advocating "tongues" or some sort of mystical experience and
validation apart from the Scriptures? Why not just come right out
and declare yourself instead of "creaping" in here "unnoticed"?

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I am not laughing because salvation is no laughing matter. The NT
is quite clear as to the fate of those who believing in God other than
He has revealed Himself to be in the Jewish scriptures, in the Gospels

B - I'm not laughing about salvation...I'm laughing at someone pushing
something to me as fact but unable to prove it. Sorry but I will not
believe in something because of fear...that is an insincere belief. I
believe in God because I love God...period.

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You speak of relativism. I speak of God who is Absolute. His truth is
not relative. His revelation of the Truth is not open for debate.

B - NO..you speak of the Bible..which you believe is absolute. I totally
believe in Gods truth and for you to go and try the old red herring
technique is beyond you no?

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I am not laughing because salvation is no laughing matter. The NT
is quite clear as to the fate of those who believing in God other than
He has revealed Himself to be in the Jewish scriptures, in the Gospels

B - I'm not laughing about salvation...I'm laughing at someone pushing
something to me as fact but unable to prove it. Sorry but I will not
believe in something because of fear...that is an insincere belief. I
believe in God because I love God...period.

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

You are like Cain. You seek to bring your own offering before His
bar. But like Cain, you will only receive condemnation because of
it.

Jude 1:22 And have mercy on some, who are doubting;
Jude 1:23 save others, snatching them out of the fire;
and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by
the flesh.

"mercy with fear" is equally rendered, "terror." A number of us
have replied to you kindly, seeking to pursuade you away
from your false perception of God and His Truth. But as Jude
writes above, there comes a time when "terror" is the last
line of defense. You are traversing the path of Cain.

Jude 1:17 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were
spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,

This you refuse to do because you refuse the written word, as
if it is necessarily tainted and something else is not. You
present vaguaries as surity when it is the written word which
only presents propositional truth. Why do you think those
credit card contracts are so wordy and always in writing?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You speak of relativism. I speak of God who is Absolute. His truth is
not relative. His revelation of the Truth is not open for debate.

B - NO..you speak of the Bible..which you believe is absolute. I totally
believe in Gods truth and for you to go and try the old red herring
technique is beyond you no?

Quote: "I totally believe in God's truth." Really? Now just
what is that "truth"? You are Barry Manilow singing, "Feelings,
nothing more than feelings" when it comes to propositional
truth. Again, you cannot wiggle yourself out of the accusation
of relativism. It is not a red herring. It is point of which you
apparently don't comprehend but even if you did, you would
still have no defense against. You have NO absolute truth.
You either accept God's declaration that His Truth given to
men is found in the Scriptures, or you reject it. And in that
you have rejected it, you have rejected Him. God and His
word are indivisible.

Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass
away.

Christ quoted the Scriptures.
The apostles quoted the Scriptures.
The Scriptures quote the Scriptures.
ALL quoting authoritatively as being the true Word of God.

[Carol]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In Abraham's day, he had
the promises of God given to him by an "Angel."

All true life IS the promises of God given to us in His Spirit.
Period. Either Abraham is the father of our faith - in other words we
live as he did, following the living God through revelation - or we
don't know God at all, just words.

Rom 8:14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons
of God.

I say - AMEN - I know this by experience.

I say that when the bible says, "For the word of God is quick, and
powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and
is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " that a
bookd doesn't discern anything, Jesus Christ discerns the thoughts and
intents of the heart and He is alive and He knows judgment. To say
that a book discerns anything doesn't even make sense. That verse
speaks directly against your arguments, not for them.

Also, Jesus Christ IS the living Gospel, the "good news" from above.
If you believe a book has salvation in its pages, you believe in a
dead god that can be shaped by men's hands, as the bible has been
touched by men. I desire a Gospel that is alive and has the power of
the living God, that Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ,
resurrected TODAY - alive at the right hand of God and found within
the flesh of men today, living, speaking, shaping the hearts of His
followers.

I don't know the God that you speak of. It is not my God.

~ Carol

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Carol
I say that when the bible says, "For the word of God is quick, and
powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and
is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " that a
bookd doesn't discern anything,

Speak as if it were a dead thing when the very verse which you quote
states exactly the opposite. What is translated "quick" in your
version
is in the Greek, zoe, or as the NASB translates it, "living." It is
also
of import that the writer of Hebrews made it the very first word in the
sentence. It is the prominent point. In Kittle's Greek dictionary, it
is
defined as denoting "in Greek the physical vitality of organic beings.
. .
Life is understood, not as a thing, but as vitality, at the nature or
manner which characterises all living creatures as such." As to the
NT use of the word and specifically to Paul's use of the word, it is
noted:

Life present in the Word and in faith. This presence of zoe is to be
understood neither in the idealistic sense of Stocism as though it
consisted in the timeless validity of bios kat hareten, nor in the
sense of Gnosticism as though it were a mysterious substance
guaranteeing haftharsia, a possession of the believer rising to
consciousness in isolated moments which interrupt the stream of life,
nor in the sense of Philo who combines these two possibilities. The
view of Paul is differentiated from that of the Stoics (and Philo) by
the fact that the "pneuma" is not the "nous" in the philosphical sense
but the supernatural power of God which is not proper to man as such
and which cannot be developed, like the nous, through the bios. It
differs again from that of the Gnostics in the fact that, although
formally the pneuma is represented in Gnostic fashion as a mysterious
substance or fluid, materially it is understood very differently. The
presupposition of reception of pneuma and zoe is on the one side the
preached Word, which proclaims, not timeless truths in the garb of
myth, but a historical event, and which as such is not the simple
mediation of what is knowable, so that it can be readily detached from
it as proclamation, but which itself belongs to the saving event,
continualy allotting to the individual the grace of God active in the
event. Hence the presense of life can be seen in this preched Word as
a historical happening. It dispenses life (2 C. 2:16; 3:6-18; 5:18-20)
it is the dunamis theou eis swterian (R. 1:16), it is the logos zoes
(Phil 2:16), so that it can be said in the sense of Paul that the
Gospel destroys death and manifests life (2 Tim 1:10; cf Tt 1:2f). The
presupposition of the reception of life is on the other hand faith,
which grasps the act of God and the order of salvation established
thereby (-stauros) as obedience (-pistis). As death is seen to be the
consequence of sin, so the presupposition of zoe is the forgiveness of
sin, the dikaiosune (ek) theou, which comes to man in the Word of
proclamation (-kerugma). As, then, the ultimate meaning of the act of
salvation is forgiveness, so the zoe present in the pnuema implies a
presence of remission with all the possibilities thereby given to
believers. Hence the pnuema is not a possession of man in either the
Stoic or the Gnostic sense. On the contrary, the pnuema implies that
man cannot possibly live by himself or by what he himself possesses,
but only by the act of God, his -dikaiosune bing the dikaiosune theou.
It is for this reason that Paul can say that the life which he now has
is not his own, but that Christ lives in him (Gl 2:19f,, R. 8:10), that
His zoe is in us (2 C 4:10)or that we live in Christ (R 6:11) that we
shall live in Him (2 C. 13:4) and that in Christ is our life (R. 8:2).
Nor does this refer to a Christ myth. It refers to the fact that we
have life only in relation to the divine act of salvation accomplished
in Christ.

End quote. [TDNT. vol 2, p 867-8] This but one paragraph out of 42
pages of commentary.

It is interesting to note that that the exact form of this root word,
zoe, is used to describe the four "living" (zoon) creatures, the
cherubim who never leave the presence of God's throne.

So all of this not only contradicts your understanding, it obliterates
it. God and His Word are
inseparable. And in that God is infallible, so too is His Word in
which He has placed "zoe" or life.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Carol

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In Abraham's day, he had
the promises of God given to him by an "Angel."

All true life IS the promises of God given to us in His Spirit.
Period. Either Abraham is the father of our faith - in other words we
live as he did, following the living God through revelation - or we
don't know God at all, just words.
Rom 8:14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons
of God.
I say - AMEN - I know this by experience.

Let me answer you in a more complete way.

1) The writers of the Bible asserted that the Scriptures would endure,
being God's authoritative word to man, which certification has proved
true in the supernatural preservation of these "Oracles of God" (Rom
3:2) .

2) The Bible, since it incorporates the gospel, is "the power of God
unto salvation" (Rom 1:18), and, as too often unobserved, the gospel
is addressed to man as an imperial edict. It is something to be
*obeyed* (Acts 5:32; Rom 2:8; 10:16; 2 Tim 1:8; Heb 5:9; 1 Pet 4:17).
It not only conveys the divine offers of salvation to men but
penetrates into the very heart with illuminating, transforming power.
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom
10:17). "For the word of God is quick [alive, living], and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb 4:12). The
Word of God is to be preached and not the word of men, and wherever the
Word of God is preached it justifies its own claim to be "the power
of God unto salvation."

3) The Bible's authority is asserted and demonstrated in the fact
that it has sanctifying power. The Lord prayed, "Sanctify them
through thy truth: thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17). Israel will yet be
sanctified by the Scriptures of truth. Jehovah's covenant declares,
"I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer
31:33); unmeasured blessings are provided for those in whom the Word of
God dwells "richly in all wisdom" (Col 3:16); and by taking "the
sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph 6:17), the armor
of God, by which the enemy may be defeated, is completed. The lives of
countless saints have proved the Bible to be a sanctifying power.

4) The Bible asserts and vindicates its authority in its claim to be a
revelation to men. All authoritative information of things celestial
or mundane, of time or eternity, of right or wrong, is derived from the
Oracles of God. At every point and by every test that man has been
able to apply to this vast disclosure of erudition it has proven to be
no less than the "wisdom of God" revealed to man.

5) The Bible's authority is demonstrated, also, in that it is
accurate to the degree of infinity in matters of history and prophecy.
Historical data set forth in the original writings are inerrant, and
prophecy not only discloses the oncoming events of the future, but
provides unfailing assurance that all that is predicted will be
executed by the sovereign and therefore irresistible competency of God.
Thus has the divine authority of the Scriptures been demonstrated in
the grand array of predictions already fulfilled [at least 1/4 of all
prophecies have been fullfilled literally and acturately] , and thus it
will be demonstrated in the *plenary* realization of all that is yet
unfulfilled. "The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

6) The Bible proves its authority by the way it prevails over human
activities. It's dominion began with a small and despised people in a
restricted locality. It divided its task with no other agency. Like
the breaking of a dam it gushed forth submerging the world. In doing
this, it conquered empires though unanticipated, hated, and derided.
It's advocates were massacred yet without a counter blow being
inflicted. Entrenched depravity could not stay its victorious onward
movement. Like the building of the temple whereon the sound of no tool
was heard, so this mighty edifice of God has advanced. It is not
implied that the Bible has transformed the world; but Jehovah's Word
has been and will be fulfilled which announced, "It shall accomplish
that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent
it" (Isa 55:11). Men, indeed, have not been blind to the fact that
this authoritative Book ascribes all its qualities and effectiveness to
God alone. No theory that feverish brains could advance can account
for the Bible's irresistible authority. Speaking of His own Word,
Jehovah said, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my
ways your ways, saith the LORD" (Isa 55:8).

7) The Bible demonstrates its authority by proposing a divine program
which God alone could complete. To a considerable degree this program
has been executed. Apart from such an all-comprehensive plan, how could
Jehovah's everlasting and all-inclusive covenants with Abraham,
David, Israel, and the Church,-in which He assumes a determining
direction over all generations of human life-be interpreted? Apart
from an irresistible divine purpose, how else could the statement,
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world"
(Acts 15:18), be understood? The transcendent authority by which
Jehovah will complete His undertaking is equaled in every respect by
the authority of His Word which reveals His purpose to men.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Carol
Also, Jesus Christ IS the living Gospel, the "good news" from above.
If you believe a book has salvation in its pages, you believe in a
dead god that can be shaped by men's hands, as the bible has been
touched by men. I desire a Gospel that is alive and has the power of
the living God, that Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ,
resurrected TODAY - alive at the right hand of God and found within
the flesh of men today, living, speaking, shaping the hearts of His
followers.

You cannot have Christ apart from His word.

Post by Carol
I don't know the God that you speak of. It is not my God.

Then you yet remain in your sin and already stand condemned unto
eternal wrath. Don't argue the point. It is here in black and white
and
will be presented at your sentencing (there is no future trial) UNLESS
you repent. The Life of Christ is the Zoe of the Word. You cannot
separate or distinquish them.

You need to read and digest what is written about the written word
in Jere. 36. In verse 27 it is written, "Then the word of the Lord
came to Jeremiah after the king had burned the scroll and the words
which Baruch had written at the dictation of Jeremiah.."

You are related to Baruch. You do not literally destroy the
written Word by burning it, but you do seek to deny its
unquestionable authority. Read the entire chapter and then
apply it to your thesis.

Matt. 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, ' Man shall not
live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth
of God.'"

Here Christ places His stamp of Authority on the all authoritative
**written** Word.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This you refuse to do because you refuse the written word, as
if it is necessarily tainted and something else is not. You
present vaguaries as surity when it is the written word which
only presents propositional truth. Why do you think those
credit card contracts are so wordy and always in writing?

B - No. INcorrect. I don't present vaguaries as surity at all Isender and
you know that. I simply read the Bible with what I believe is the gift of
discernment and only some of what I read is of God. AS I have said in
almost all of my posts...that is opinion..not Surity. You have to learn
how to actually read anothers post and don't approach each post as a war
ready to happen so much that you gloss over what a person says in pursuit
of trying to shoot them down.

Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
of relativism. It is not a red herring. It is point of which you
apparently don't comprehend but even if you did, you would

B - It is a red herring when you refuse to understand that it is not at
all about me refuting the "word of God" and try to make it seem that way
to others. I believe in the word of God with all my heart and soul...I
just don't believe that the Bible is totally the word of God period.

You simply have a hard time understanding the concept of a personal
connection to God.

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This you refuse to do because you refuse the written word, as
if it is necessarily tainted and something else is not. You
present vaguaries as surity when it is the written word which
only presents propositional truth. Why do you think those
credit card contracts are so wordy and always in writing?

B - No. INcorrect. I don't present vaguaries as surity at all Isender and
you know that. I simply read the Bible with what I believe is the gift of
discernment and only some of what I read is of God. AS I have said in
almost all of my posts...that is opinion..not Surity.

No, because you make the didactic proposition that the
Scriptures are not infallible. That is a "surity." But you remove
the surity of Scripture by means of a vaguary.

Post by B.G. Kent
how to actually read anothers post and don't approach each post as a war
ready to happen so much that you gloss over what a person says in pursuit
of trying to shoot them down.

Doctrine divides. Right cannot tollerate wrong. You cannot
tollerate absolutes. You therefore reject the Christ of the Bible
because
you reject His word even though you have been presented more
than enough Scriptural evidences to vanquish your resolve.

But here's another proof text. Rev 5 and the seven sealed scroll.
This is a "deed" scroll which has the contents both written on the
outside and the inside. It is sealed seven times to illustrate the
fact that the contract will absolutely be brought to fruition. It is
written because it is a "seper", the Greek word used for "book"
which speaks of a legal dossier. It is held in the Father's right
hand, a safe place for a redeemed land forfeiture that has been
paid in full. God doesn't mess around with His Word. He doesn't
mix truth with untruth. His Word, the written scriptures, are
True, not because of man/men, but because of the providential
work of God. The Scriptures also are sealed as noted at the
last verses of Rev. The covers are as inspired and as trustworthy
as the contents within.

As a book mark I have from the US Archieves in Washington
DC has etched on it, "The Written Word Endures." Even our
government comprehends that it is only in the written word
that we can have sustained propositional truth.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, because you make the didactic proposition that the
Scriptures are not infallible. That is a "surity." But you remove
the surity of Scripture by means of a vaguary.

B - No. I put I.M.O or what I believe..or what I think. I have never said
"the scriptures are not infallible". I have said "I believe that".....

big difference.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Doctrine divides. Right cannot tollerate wrong. You cannot

B - doesn't have to. There are many flowers in the garden...and it is One
garden..unified in its diversity. No one is divided but sees that their
roots are deep in the same soil.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
you reject His word even though you have been presented more
than enough Scriptural evidences to vanquish your resolve.

B - No...again I do not. I reject that the Bible is infallible.

Blessings
Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No. I put I.M.O or what I believe..or what I think. I have never said
"the scriptures are not infallible". I have said "I believe that".....

SNIP

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No...again I do not. I reject that the Bible is infallible.

I think Deep Purple said it best, "Where is the sanity?"

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No. I put I.M.O or what I believe..or what I think. I have never said
"the scriptures are not infallible". I have said "I believe that".....

SNIP

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No...again I do not. I reject that the Bible is infallible.

I think Deep Purple said it best, "Where is the sanity?"

B - I don't believe that the Bible is infallible. I've never said that I
believe the Bible is infallible. Sheesh..you know what I mean ...as if
you've never mixed up your message before or gave a typo...

those who never make a mistake throw the first stone.

It's like the word *inflammable* and *flammable* many people get those two
mixed up. For what it is worth...and redundant at that...I think the Bible
can be fallible.

Bren

[Jani]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No. I put I.M.O or what I believe..or what I think. I have never
said
"the scriptures are not infallible". I have said "I believe that".....

SNIP

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No...again I do not. I reject that the Bible is infallible.

I think Deep Purple said it best, "Where is the sanity?"

B - I don't believe that the Bible is infallible. I've never said that I
believe the Bible is infallible. Sheesh..you know what I mean ...as if
you've never mixed up your message before or gave a typo...

It's a bit much to say that people should "know what you mean", when you so
frequently tell them you speak non-literally, in "parable and koan", in
"untruths", and so on, and that this a deliberate practice on your part.

Post by B.G. Kent
those who never make a mistake throw the first stone.

Well, it's not really a matter of making mistakes, it's a matter of whether
or not one values, and practises, clear communication.

Post by B.G. Kent
It's like the word *inflammable* and *flammable* many people get those two
mixed up.

Flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing. (*Non* flammable, on
the other hand, is the opposite of both.)

Post by B.G. Kent
For what it is worth...and redundant at that...I think the Bible
can be fallible.

Good. Now that's clear and unambiguous, and allows others to move on with
the discussion. Asking you to provide examples of this fallibility, your
reasons for holding that opinion, how you might distinguish here between
"can be" and "is", etc.

Jani