ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[servent101]

1-Way

Please explain, thanks.

1-Way

I do not understand

Yes, I know you do not understand – and I suggest that as long as you think anything that is “Not in the Bible” is adding to the Bible – well you will not understand that your concept of a “closed Book” is not in the Bible, yet this is the basis of your understanding on all Spiritual matters – yet your closed book is not in the Bible – and because you and people like you have been instilled with an orthodox mindset – you can’t understand anything without chapter and verse beside it.

There is little hope I can help you understand that the Bible is not, and never was intended to stand as a closed book – the definitive source of all Apologetics concerning Christian Teachings, and a source by which other Scriptures form other cultures have to be “the same” and if they are not – they are considered as wrong.

Anyways – keep your nose in the Bible for all your answers, some day you may find that this does not work, possibly if you think or suspect there is something that is inconclusive you may look elsewhere for answers – but you already consider All other Scriptures as false and from the pits of hell ( most likely) – but have you ever considered that your adherence to the Bible and the Bible ONLY – is impossible because this was not the intent of the Authors – though YES, we are to adhere to Christ and He Himself said that He was here to save the Lost Tribe of Israel.

All in all the Bible is inconclusive as a book that contains All Spiritual Knowledge – and as long as one views it as the Definitive Source, as an orthodox precept –well they have obviously been brain washed because there is no such claim in the Book itself.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

 

[servent101]

Rolf Do you really think we are in complete agreement? I said this

the common orthodox held apologetics are in fact rejecting the idea that the prohibition against adding to or taking from God's Word.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by godrulz

I do not see James teaching faith + works/law for salvation. This is the Judaizer's heresy in Galatians. Even the Old Covenant did not teach faith + works. Paul in Romans makes this clear about Abraham. James would teach salvation is by faith in Christ alone, apart from works. Believer's baptism, OSAS, etc. are issues that are not necessarily resolved by Mid-Acts. Thank you for your thoughtful post. I still think it uses circular reasoning and begs the question (assume what try to prove). Did James, Peter, John eventually preach Paul's gospel in your view? When?

Is Mid-Acts the only resolution for the so-called discrepancy? I have never seen it in the literature as a solution (except "Plot" and TOL).

I suggested that faith is the root and works is the fruit (Eph. 2:8-10). Works are the outward evidence of genuine faith. They do not save us but can be evidence that our faith is more than mental assent like the devil has.

Bible Knowledge Commentary (after the fact):

James 1 Stand with confidance

James 2 Serve with compassion

James made it clear that true religion finds an outlet in service...

2:14-17 Expression of true faith

v. 14 rhetorical question...What good is it if a man claims to have faith (Romans) but has no deeds? The emphasis is not on the true nature of faith but on the false claim of faith. It is the spurious boast of faith that James condemned...it is worthless because it is all talk with no walk. Can such faith save him? A negative answer is anticipated in the Greek. Merely claiming to have faith is not enough. Genuine faith is EVIDENCED by works (it is not works salvation nor faith + works=saved...rulz).

vv. 15-16 The rhetorical question is followed by a hypothetical but realistic illustration.

v.17 The vain boast, faith by itself, or faith in and of itself with no evidence of action, is dead. Workless faith is worthless faith; it is unproductive, sterile, barren, dead (for service vs salvation...see Romans= saved by genuine faith apart from works- rulz). The false claims are silenced by the evidence (in sight of man vs justified in sight of God).

2:18-20 Evidence of true faith

2:18 This may be one of the most misunderstood sections of the entire epistle (is Mid-Acts template implicit or a screen to relegate James to Jewish believers only?- rulz). But SOMEONE will say you have faith; I have deeds. An imaginary respondent, 'someone' was introduced. (cf. phrases that the Corinthians said that were only half true that we wrongly attribute to being inspired words from Paul...Paul quoted the wrong Corinthians, then he shared his truth to correct their issues. Quotation marks are not in original Greek, but are understood from context...-rulz).
He did not object to James' conclusion. He agreed that faith without works is dead. But he wrongly disparages faith while stressing works.
NASB correctly marks second half of verse in quotes as respondent vs James' idea...the respondent is throwing down the challenge about faith vs works.

2:19 ....The 'belief' in one God may not be 'trust' in that God. Unless it is 'trust', it is not true faith (Romans) and will not be evidenced in good works (not that works save you- rulz).

In other words, the respondent is saying "faith is not the key; what counts is works." Thus the respondent has gone too far. James DID NOT SAY (as Mid-Acts wrongly accuses him-rulz) that works are ESSENTIAL to faith, or that faith is unimportant. His argument was that works are EVIDENCE of faith (genuine saving vs devil's belief with no evidential deeds- rulz).

2:20 James did not launch into a lengthy refutation of the respondent....flimsy faith is dead; so are empty, faithless works. James' arguments are not pro-works/anti-faith or pro-faith/anti-works. He has simply said that genuine faith is accompanied by good works. Spiritual works are the evidence, not the energizer of sincere faith. (rulz- this is not a different gospel from Paul...Romans talks about justification by faith; James expands on this same concept in the context of service subsequent to salvation and shows how genuine faith will manifest in practical ways).

2:21-26 Examples of true faith

As a final proof of his thesis, he gives two examples of true faith. This does not contradict Romans 4:1-5. Paul, however, was arguing for the PRIORITY of faith. James was arguing for the PROOF of the same faith...works serve as a barometer of justification, while faith is the basis of justification. Faith and actions work together. Faith is the force behind the deed.. The deed is the finality of the faith. Faith finds fulfillment in action (Abraham= Paul and James quote the same passage to support their ideas Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). Paul said that Abraham was justified by faith, and James said that Abraham was justified by faith evidenced by what He did (both are correct; faith alone saves, but not a mere head faith that is alone/devil - rulz).

2:26 Faith and deeds are as essential to each other as the body and spirit...Apart from the evidence of works, faith may be deemed dead (thief on cross had faith without works, but something odd if a person professes faith with no transformation or service- rulz). It is not the real thing. True faith continually contributes to spiritual growth and development (vs one-time profession in past without transformation). To gain spiritual maturity (not to gain salvation- rulz), a believer must be what God wants him to be and do what God wants him to do (this is no different that Paul's teaching on practical Christian living- rulz).

Is this not plausible, rather than saying there were two gospels preached for a short period in church history? See Gal. 2:7 commentary previously (2 audiences/missions vs two gospels).

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--The last line of your post #1659 indicates that you believe there is a contradiction between what Paul and James say about salvation in regard to faith and works. Is that true? Do you believe they contradict one another?

Paul and James do not teach the same thing concerning salvation. To say they contradict is not accurate because of their context. What each of them taught was correct for their respective audiences.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--The last line of your post #1659 indicates that you believe there is a contradiction between what Paul and James say about salvation in regard to faith and works. Is that true? Do you believe they contradict one another?

Mid-Acts dispensationalism posits that Peter, James, and John preached a different gospel (faith + works= Jews) than Paul (grace/faith= Gentiles and later believers in church history, Jew or Gentile). This is not defensible, in my mind, based on exegesis of relevant passages and a careful examination of Acts history as the Spirit birthed the Church in transition from the Old Covenant to the New after the resurrection of Christ (see post 1683 for a non- MidActs explanation of the ALLEGED contradiction).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Paul and James do not teach the same thing concerning salvation. To say they contradict is not accurate because what each of them taught was correct for their respective audiences.

Resting in Him,
Clete

see Gal. 2:7 and James 2 alternate exegesis...posts 1672/1683.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--I agree with you. What can Clete say about Paul's statement regarding Abraham-- "...if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory--but not before God"

 

[Clete]

Well then here we are back once again to my original question...

If it is as you (both Rolf and godrulz) say, where was the need for Paul?

Neither of you have even made an attempt to answer this question much less all the dozens of question that accompany it. It is a question that simply cannot be answered intelligibly if Acts 9 Dispensationalism is denied.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--what do you mean when you ask "where was the need for Paul?" The need for Paul did not consist in a different doctrine for Jew and Gentile. It consisted in the difference between the Jewish mind and the gentile mind. Paul was gifted to deal with those whose understood things from their persprctive, and Peter dealt with issues with which Jewish minds grappled.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--what do you mean when you ask "where was the need for Paul?" The need for Paul did not consist in a different doctrine for Jew and Gentile. It consisted in the difference between the Jewish mind and the gentile mind. Paul was gifted to deal with those whose understood things from their persprctive, and Peter dealt with issues with which Jewish minds grappled.

So Jesus screwed up then when He told the twelve to go unto the whole world a preach the Gospel? Is that what you are saying?

 

[1Way]

servent101,
You did not answer any of my requests that you explain yourself about what you said.

If you won't politely make yourself clear, then good luck getting others to deal with your thoughts because your posts can be very difficult to decipher.

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
The heat too hot?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Well then here we are back once again to my original question...

If it is as you (both Rolf and godrulz) say, where was the need for Paul?

Neither of you have even made an attempt to answer this question much less all the dozens of question that accompany it. It is a question that simply cannot be answered intelligibly if Acts 9 Dispensationalism is denied.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I do not see what you find problematic. I have stated that Paul had a unique preparation and calling to expand the Gospel to the Gentiles as the Jews rejected their Messiah and His kingdom message. Mid-Acts has some truth, but goes beyond the evidence (in my mind at this point). There was a shift from Jew to include Gentile. This was God's original intent that the whole world, not just Jews, would be blessed through Abraham's seed, the Messiah. The rejection by the Jews did lead to a change. Paul was raised up to go to Gentiles specifically, while the others continued the same or similar mission to the Jews. This is no different than some ministries targeting Africans, homeless, cults, Muslims, truckers, etc. One Gospel with different mission fields and ministers equipped and burdened for their unique place in the harvest field. The Gospel is the person and work of Christ, through faith. Faith + works is heretical, even for the Old Covenant.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

So Jesus screwed up then when He told the twelve to go unto the whole world a preach the Gospel? Is that what you are saying?

I agree with Rolf, and I also affirm your observations about a shift. I just do not go as far and see two gospels. I see one gospel with different nuance/emphasis for two different target groups. Is this academic? We preach the one gospel (Paul) to all men, Jew or Gentile today. James, Peter, John, Paul, etc. all preached Christ and Him crucified, risen from the dead after the resurrection/transition from John Baptist, Jesus, etc.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

godrulz,
The heat too hot?

I'm having fun. I like spicey food. It seems to me that the commentator's views on Gal. 2:7; James 2 (which I stated BEFORE I consulted them), provide a plausible exegesis apart from a Mid-Acts template.

If you mean I am not systematically answering your posts...I read them, but some are too long to get into. My ideas are usually suspect to you anyway. I do not think you think things are too hot when you ignore my hard work intended to help us all get to the root issues.

 

[Clete]

godrulz,

Okay, it seems we are definately at an impass with the Acts 9 issue. I'll stop harping on it with you for now. I would love it however, if you could give a response to post 1676. I have a feeling I know what your reaction to it is already, but it interests me so I'm curious.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

godrulz,

Okay, it seems we are definately at an impass with the Acts 9 issue. I'll stop harping on it with you for now. I would love it however, if you could give a response to post 1676. I have a feeling I know what your reaction to it is already, but it interests me so I'm curious.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I promise I will read "The Plot", the Book of Mormon (for Mustard Seed; King David), and the Koran (just because) before I die

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

You cannot hold to any of these without having a boat load of problem texts. I on the other hand can say with confidence that we cannot loose our salvation prior to the day of redemption, water baptism is an ordinance and is therefore not for the Body of Christ, and that miracles are earthly and were for Israel who had an earthly calling and are thus not for the Body of Christ who's calling is heavenly. And I can say all of this without having even a single problem text. There are plenty of texts which say things that are contrary to these positions but they are no more problems for me than Genesis is when it teaches that we must be circumcised. In spite of the teaching of Genesis, I do not teach that we should circumcise our kids or become circumcised ourselves and Genesis gives me no trouble at all and I don't have to explain it away; it says what it seems to say and means just that. The same is true with virtually the entire Bible (including the book of James). It is as straight forward as can be and easy to understand and very little effort needs to be expended in attempting to figure it out. Just read it, that's all.


Especially the ceremonial law? Are you kidding? Doesn't Paul explicitly say that if you obey the law in one point, you are a debtor to keep the WHOLE LAW? The Law is an all or nothing deal. If you keep any of it, you must keep it all. If you break it is one respect you are a law breaker and guilty of it all. You cannot have it both ways.


No sir! You are holy NOW!
If you don't want to take my word for it, allow me to quote a few folks, some of which you might trust more than me.

• Evan H. Hopkins: "The trouble of the believer who knows Christ as his justification is not sin as to its guilt, but sin as to its ruling power. In other words, it is not from sin as a load, or an offence, that he seeks to be freed—for he sees that God has completely acquitted him from the charge and penalty of sin—but it is from sin as a master. To know God’s way of deliverance from sin as a master he must apprehend the truth contained in the sixth chapter of Romans. There we see what God has done, not with our sins—that question the Apostle dealt with in the preceding chapters—but with ourselves, the agents and slaves of sin. He has put our old man—our original self—where He put our sins, namely, on the cross with Christ. ‘Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him’ (Rom. 6:6). The believer there sees not only that Christ died for him—substitution—but that he died with Christ—identification" (Thoughts on Life and Godliness, p. 50).
  
  Andrew Murray: "Like Christ, the believer too has died to sin; he is one with Christ, in the likeness of His death (Rom. 6:5). And as the knowledge that Christ died for sin as our atonement is indispensable to our justification; so the knowledge that Christ and we with Him in the likeness of His death, are dead to sin, is indispensable to our sanctification" (Like Christ, p. 176).
  
  J. Hudson Taylor: "Since Christ has thus dwelt in my heart by faith, how happy I have been! I am dead and buried with Christ—ay, and risen too! And now Christ lives in me, and ‘the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me’ [Gal. 2:20]. Nor should we look upon this experience, these truths, as for the few. They are the birthright of every child of God, and no one can dispense with them without dishonoring our Lord" (Spiritual Secret, p. 116).
  
  William R. Newell: "To those who refuse or neglect to reckon themselves dead to sin as God commands, we press the question, How are you able to believe that Christ really bare the guilt of your sins and that you will not meet them at the judgment day? It is only God’s Word that tells you Christ bare your sins in His own body on the tree. And it is that same Word that tells you that you, as connected with Adam, died with Christ, that your old man was crucified, that since you are in Christ you shared His death unto sin, and are thus to reckon your present relation to sin in Christ—as one who is dead to it, and alive unto God" (Romans, Verse by Verse, p. 227).
  
  Lewis Sperry Chafer: "The theme under consideration is concerned with the death of Christ as that death is related to the divine judgments of the sin nature in the child of God. The necessity for such judgments and the sublime revelation that these judgments are now fully accomplished for us is unfolded in Romans 6:1-10. This passage is the foundation as well as the key to the possibility of a ‘walk in the Spirit’" (He That Is Spiritual, p. 154).
  
  Ruth Paxson: "The old ‘I’ in you and me was judicially crucified with Christ. ‘Ye died’ and your death dates from the death of Christ. ‘The old man,’ the old ‘Self’ in God’s reckoning was taken to the Cross with Christ and crucified and taken into the tomb with Christ and buried… Assurance of deliverance from the sphere of the ‘flesh’ and of the dethronement of ‘the old man’ rests upon the apprehension and acceptance of this fact of co-crucifixion" (Life on the Highest Plane, Vol. II, pp. 78,79).
  
  Watchman Nee: "The Blood can wash away my sins, but it cannot wash away my ‘old man.’ It needs the cross to crucify me … the sinner… Our sins are dealt with by the Blood, but we ourselves are dealt with by the Cross. The Blood procures our pardon; … the Cross procures our deliverance from what we are" (The Normal Christian Life, pp. 31,32).
  
  L.E. Maxwell: "Believers in Christ were joined to Him at the cross, united to Him in death and resurrection. We died with Christ. He died for us, and we died with Him. This is a great fact, true of all believers" (Christian Victory, p. 11).
  
  Norman B. Harrison: "This is the distinctive mark of the Christian—the experience of the cross. Not merely that Christ died for us, but that we died with Him. ‘Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him’ (Rom. 6:6)" (His Side Versus Our Side, p. 40).
  
  F.J. Huegel: "If the great Luther, with his stirring message of justification by faith, had with Paul moved on from Romans 5 to Romans 6 with its amazing declarations concerning the now justified sinner’s position of identification with his crucified Lord, would not a stifled Protestantism be on higher ground today? Might it not be free from its ulcerous fleshiness?" (The Cross of Christ, p. 84).
  
  Alexander R. Hay: "The believer has been united with Christ in His death. In this union with Christ, the flesh, ‘the body of sin’—the entire fallen, sin-ruined being with its intelligence, will and desires—is judged and crucified. By faith, the believer reckons (counts) himself ‘dead unto sin’ (Rom. 6:3-14)" (1V.T. Order for Church & Missionary, p. 310).
  
  T. Austin-Sparks: "The first phase of our spiritual experience may be a great and overflowing joy, with a marvelous sense of emancipation. In this phase extravagant things are often said as to total deliverance and final victory. Then there may, and often does, come a phase of which inward conflict is the chief feature. It may be very much of a Romans seven experience. This will lead, under the Lord’s hand, to the fuller knowledge of the meaning of identification with Christ, as in Romans six. Happy the man who has been instructed in this from the beginning" (What Is Man? p. 61).
  
  J. Penn-Lewis: "If the difference between ‘Christ dying for us,’ and ‘our dying with Him,’ has not been recognized, acknowledged, and applied, it may safely be affirmed that the self is still the dominating factor in the life" (Memoir, p. 26).
  
  William Culbertson: "Who died on the cross? Of course, our blessed Lord died on the cross; but who else died there? ‘Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him’ (Rom. 6:6-8)" (God’s Provision for Holy Living, p. 46).
  
  Reginald Wallis: "God says in effect, ‘My child, as you reckoned on the substitutionary work of the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation, now go a step farther and reckon on His representative work for your victory day by day.’ You believe the Lord Jesus died for your sins because God said so. Now take the next step. Accept by faith the further fact that you died with Him, i.e., that your ‘old man was crucified with Him’" (The New Life, p. 51).
  
  James R. McConkey: "Because He died ‘death hath no more dominion over Him,’ and because of our union with Him ‘sin shall not have dominion over you,’ even though it is present in you. Our ‘reckoning’ ourselves dead to sin in Jesus Christ does not make it a fact—it is already a fact through our union with Him. Our reckoning it to be true only makes us begin to realize the fact in experience" (The Way of Victory, p. 16).

I quoted several because it is so totally vital that you get this. This is the whole reason I keep bringing this topic up with you. We cannot become holy by following the law. We cannot gain victory in our Christian walk by following the law. We cannot be better than we are by following the law. WE ARE NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW, PERIOD!

Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

I understand that you have a passion for good works. You think it is a good thing to help old ladies across the street and to be an asset to your friends and neighbors rather than a burden, and of course you are right to think that. But if you think that it is doing those things that makes you good or that you are better because you have done them or you do them because you believe that you are constrained or commanded to do so, then you are fooling yourself and Christ will profit you nothing because you have placed yourself under law. What you must come to understand is that you are already as good as you will ever be or could ever be. You have been declared holy, righteous and blameless by virtue of the price paid by Christ at Calvary. It is only by resting in this Biblical fact, reckoning it to be so in spite of appearances to the contrary that God can begin to work into your character that which yields true Spiritual fruit. As emohaslove pointed out to you yesterday on another thread, a tomato plant does not toil to produce its fruit; it doesn't try or put forth any effort, it simply sits there and by virtue of the fact that it is a tomato plant it produces tomatoes. It is the same with the Christian. If we abide in the Vine, which is the very source of our life (Gal. 2:20), good fruit will be the result, not by effort but by nature.


The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:

• "To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
  
  "To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
  
  "To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
  
  "To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…

Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:

• "To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
  
  "To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
  
  "To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
  
  "To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
  
  "The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
  
  "To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure."

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Everything in this post that is indented was taken from Principles of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford

Post 1676 This merits a discussion paper. I have had Standford's "Green Letters" books for 25 years but never got around to reading the series. I agree with many of the principles in the post.

The authors would have divergent views on the exact nature of sanctification and the Christian life. We all talk about being dead to sin and having the life of Christ, but may understand different nuances about these concepts/realities. Pulling quotes out of context to support a particular view does not represent their entire teaching which would conflict in some areas. I would not quibble with any of the quotes that sound good on the surface.

The issues of OSAS, water baptism, charismata, etc. stand on their own evidence. Fitting them into a preconceived system might seem consistent on the surface (even as JW, Mormon, Calvinism can be internally consistent, yet completely wrong), but may not stand up to scrutiny.

Paul's point about the law is true when it comes to our universal condemnation and justification by faith alone. It does not negate his other teaching elsewhere that exhorts us to right and holy living because we are 'in Him' and not in order to get saved to be in Him (including the principles consistent with the eternal moral law of God...e.g. idol worship, immorality, stealing, anger, etc.).

This is not an adequate response to the post, but it is the gist of my observations (see other posts around it).

I would be interested in your take (pretending Mid-Acts does not exist as a template) on the plausibility or probability of the commentator's views on Gal. 2:7 and James 2. If you did not see Mid-Acts personally, would they be a reasonable exegesis?

 

[servent101]

One Way

You did not answer any of my requests that you explain yourself about what you said.

If you won't politely make yourself clear, then good luck getting others to deal with your thoughts because your posts can be very difficult to decipher.

I do try to politely make myself clear - and it is a problem I know, and I do try my best to share what the "problem is".

As long as you have to twist your theology and hermanutics around the closed canon ONLY - you will be most likely never able to come to grips with the Closed Canon - as it does not stand by itself - and was never intended to stand by itself... too many issues are simply not conclusive - and the instilling of the orthodox mindset just encourages you to preach the Closed Canon ONLY - and with the insanity of the doctrine - Literal hell for one, literal No one comes to the Father but through Jesus (ONLY) the effort is to instill people with the orthodox mindset - which is not there in the Bible, but once the "energy feed" is established the only thing one is able to understand is the necessity to use literal remedial skills, and to not lean on their intellignece, - which is why you are not able to understand what I post - you simply have trained yourself to not understand anything except chapter and verse from your closed canon as being significant, and worth your contemplation.

This could be considered as Scripture by you - possibly, but think on this for a moment

God reserves the right to reveal Himself to whom He wants, when He wants and how He wants

Your concept that God only revealed Himself - Herself to the Abraham and his offspring - have no basis in logical reasoning and no basis in what you consider your Scriptures.

With Christ's LOve

Servent101

 

[1Way]

Servent101,

I am not "one way", I am "1Way", although you did get it close! :thumb:

An agnostic, and atheist, an evolutionist, a politician, a poster at TOL, and a toddler can make claims all day long. Who cares! Present "why" you believe someone or something is right or wrong and then people can understand things better.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to feel that the view that the bible is a closed cannon is a bad view. I don't know if you believe what the bible teaches or if you are not a Christian for that matter, so please explain these things.

Would you please give me a reference supporting your view that the scriptures are not closed.

As to you saying

Your concept that God only revealed Himself - Herself to the Abraham and his offspring - have no basis in logical reasoning and no basis in what you consider your Scriptures.

I never said nor implied any such thing. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.