The Supremacy of God

Silas

Well-Known Member
Messages
896
Reaction score
0
Points
0
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
THE SUPREMACY OF GOD



In one of his letters to Erasmus, Luther said, "Your thoughts of God are too human." Probably that renowned scholar resented such a rebuke, the more so, since it proceeded from a miner’s son; nevertheless, it was thoroughly deserved. We too, though having no standing among the religious leaders of this degenerate age, prefer the same charge against the majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept the teaching of others. The most dishonoring and degrading conceptions of the rule and reign of the Almighty are now held almost everywhere. To countless thousands, even among those professing to be Christians, the God of the Scriptures is quite unknown. Of old, God complained to an apostate Israel, Thou thoughtest that I was altogether as thyself. (Ps. 50:21). Such must now be His indictment against an apostate Christendom. Men imagine that the Most High is moved by sentiment, rather than actuated by principle. They suppose that His omnipotency is such an idle fiction that Satan is thwarting His designs on every side. They think that if He has formed any plan or purpose at all, then it must be like theirs, constantly subject to change. They openly declare that whatever power He possesses must be restricted, lest He invade the citadel of man’s "free will" and reduce him to a "machine." They lower the all efficacious Atonement, which has actually redeemed everyone for whom it was made, to a mere "remedy," which sin-sick souls may use if they feel disposed to; and they enervate the invincible work of the Holy Spirit to an "offer" of the Gospel which sinners may accept or reject as they please.


The "god" of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The "god" who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form "gods" out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a "god" out of their own carnal mind. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A "god" whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt. The supremacy of the true and living God might well be argued from the infinite distance which separates the mightiest creatures from the almighty Creator. He is the Potter, they are but the clay in His hands to be molded into vessels of honor, or to be dashed into pieces (Ps. 2-9) as He pleases. Were all the denizens of heaven and all the inhabitants of the earth to combine in revolt against Him, it would occasion Him no uneasiness, and would have less effect upon His eternal and unassailable Throne than has the spray of Mediterranean’s waves upon the towering rocks of Gibraltar. So puerile and powerless is the creature to affect the Most High, Scripture itself tells us that when the Gentile heads unite with apostate Israel to defy Jehovah and His Christ, "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh" (Ps. 2:4).

The absolute and universal supremacy of God is plainly and positively affirmed in many scriptures. "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory and the majesty: for all in the heaven and all in the earth is Thine; Thine is the Kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as Head above all. . . .And Thou reignest over all" (1 Chron. 29:11, 12)—note reignest now, not "will do so in the Millennium." "O Lord God of our fathers, art not Thou, God in heaven? and rulest not Thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in Thine hand is there not power and might, so that none (not even the Devil himself) is able to withstand Thee?" (2 Chron. 20:6). Before Him presidents and popes, kings and emperors, are less than grasshoppers. "But He is in one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth" (Job 23:13). Ah, my reader, the God of Scripture is no make-believe monarch, no mere imaginary sovereign, but King of kings, and Lord of lords. "I know that Thou canst do everything, and that no thought of Thine can be hindered" (Job 42:3, margin), or, as another translator, "no purpose of Thine can be frustrated." All that He has designed He does. All that He has decreed, He performs. "But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased" (Psa. 115.3); and why has He? Because "there is no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord" (Prov 21:30).

God’s supremacy over the works of His hands is vividly depicted in Scripture. Inanimate matter, irrational creatures, all perform their Maker’s bidding. At His pleasure the Red Sea divided and its waters stood up as walls (Ex. 14); and the earth opened her mouth, and guilty rebels went down alive into the pit (Num. 14). When He so ordered, the sun stood still (Josh. 10); and on another occasion went backward ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz (Isa. 38:
icon_cool.gif
. To exemplify His supremacy, He made ravens carry food to Elijah (1 Kings 17), iron to swim on top of the waters (2 Kings 6:5), lions to be tame when Daniel was cast into their den, fire to burn not when the three Hebrews were flung into its flames. Thus "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places" (Psa. 135:6).
God’s supremacy is also demonstrated in His perfect rule over the wills of men. Let the reader ponder carefully Ex. 34:24. Three times in the year all the males of Israel were required to leave their homes and go up to Jerusalem. They lived in the midst of hostile people, who hated them for having appropriated their lands. What, then, was to hinder the Canaanites from seizing their opportunity, and, during the absence of the men, slaying the women and children and taking possession of their farms? If the hand of the Almighty was not upon the wills even of wicked men, how could He make this promise beforehand, that none should so much as "desire" their lands? Ah, "The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will" (Prov. 21:1).

But, it may be objected, do we not read again and again in Scripture how that men defied God, resisted His will, broke His commandments, disregarded His warnings, and turned a deaf ear to all His exhortations? Certainly we do. And does this nullify all that we have said above? If it does, then the Bible plainly contradicts itself. But that cannot be. What the objector refers to is simply the wickedness of man against the external word of God, whereas what we have mentioned above is what God has purposed in Himself.

The rule of conduct He has given us to walk by, is perfectly fulfilled by none of us; His own eternal "counsels" are accomplished to their minutest details.
The absolute and universal supremacy of God is affirmed with equal plainness and positiveness in the New Testament. There we are told that God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11)—the Greek for "worketh" means to work effectually. For this reason we read, "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36). Men may boast that they are free agents, with a will of their own, and are at liberty to do as they please, but Scripture says to those who boast "we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell...Ye ought to say, If the Lord will" (Jas. 4:13,15)! Here then is a sure resting-place for the heart. Our lives are neither the product of blind fate nor the result of capricious chance, but every detail of them was ordained from all eternity. and is now ordered by the living and reigning God. Not a hair of our heads can be touched without His permission. "A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps" (Prov. 16:9). What assurance, what strength, what comfort should this give the real Christian! "My times are in Thy hand" (Ps. 31:15). Then let me "Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him" (Ps. 37:7).
 
Silas,

One of the issues this type of tract has -- besides being in Christological rather than "abrahamic" language -- is that it makes the assumption that a particular sacred text of a particular group (and one that has repeatedly forced fundamentalist and literalist believers to leave the plain meaning of the text in order to justify viewing it as Divine in light of modern scholarship) somehow has access to Truth with a T, that is Universal Truth. Not withstanding the infinite possibillites of this reality, the fallacy lies in the conflicts it holds with all of the other Holy and Sacred Texts, beautiful illuminating works, some of which deny the existence of God entirely, or define him in a vary different way, or maintain a pantheon of god, each distinct. How do you know it's one text and not another? It's based on subective experience, and that's where you get truth with a small t. The only basis for believing in a literal (or rather, literal as "my group" chooses to interpret it) reading of the bible is faith in that particular belief.

Another problem with this tract is that it charges the people today of lazily accepting the teaching of others, essentially a straw man, and also just an adequate a representation of those who accept the bible as their group interprets it.

Now there's also the question of whether all this literalism adds up to creating an idol out of the bible. That's not one I or I think anyone can answer as like most things it's extremely subjective, but it is worth pointing out.

Dauer
 
Im curious how you can create an idol from the written word of God. I guess you would have to believe that He reveals Himself to us in it ... that Hes actually present within the pages.. Dauer.. I have to tell you that Ive had miracles happen from the bible. Its a living breathing thing that God teaches us through..
 
Faith,

Im curious how you can create an idol from the written word of God.

If it's not the written word of God, then it's potentially an idol, and there is no objective proof that it is the word of God. However, if the question is actually "How can you create an idol from something you believe is the written word of God?" There were also those who believed statues of stone were Divine, but that alone does not make it so.

However, this raises another issue. Is something really idolatry if we believe that it isn't? Is it idolatry to base my life around the meaning I find in interpreting the squares of a quilt, and consider this quilt somehow Godly, if the quilt is not godly?

What if the text was quite literally the most inciteful quotes excerpted from the speeches and writings of fascist dictators? Would it be idolatry if one truly believed it was the word of God, living one's life by it?

Dauer.. I have to tell you that Ive had miracles happen from the bible. Its a living breathing thing that God teaches us through..

And that is the subjective experience I'm talking about, vs objective. Certainly you cannot deny that the same is true for people of all faiths and their own books. I do agree with you that sacred texts are a living breathing thing that God teaches us through, but I would add for my own opinion, it is because we allow them to become that for us, myself included. And my own opinion, also, subjective. We form our opinions about these things based on our experiences in life, including both life events and those changes that take place within the mind as we read things or in other ways come across that type of knowledge and say "makes sense to me" or "doesn't make sense" or, if you don't work in those terms, "feels right to me" and "doesn't feel right."

I don't think it can be argued that what we hold to be a Truth is entirely untrue, because on some level, even if only that of our own mapping of reality, it is true, but I don't think that necessarily projects itself on Objective Reality, whatever that is. Or maybe Objective Reality is actually an interweaving of all of the subjective experiences, all of them entirely true because they have been experienced. I don't know. And I hope I never I never allow myself to believe I do.

Dauer
 
Im curious how you can create an idol from the written word of God.

Simple. By presuppossitions of what we precieve God to be. JWs, Mormons, Catholics, uneducations Cristians, etc., do it all the time. They go to church making sundays the greatest day of idolatry. The God of The Bible is so beautiful in all of His attributes. He should be represented they way He revealed Himself in scripture, and not made into what we thought God ought to be.
 
Silas,

what grants you the authority to determine that the sacred texts of JWs, Mormons, and/or Catholics are not the word of God? Why don't they have the same authority? Do they believe they have the same authority? What makes your belief in your authority better than their belief in theirs, if they presume it? Is your belief in your authority based on a specific interpretation of scripture that differs from many others, which you personally hold to be more true than all the others? Also, please see my response to Faith.

Dauer
 
what grants you the authority to determine that the sacred texts of JWs, Mormons, and/or Catholics are not the word of God?

The Bible.

Why don't they have the same authority?

Because they are still natural carnal men. They must be born again.

Do they believe they have the same authority?

Im sure.

What makes your belief in your authority better than their belief in theirs, if they presume it?

The object of my faith, namely, Jesus - the Real one from Scripture.

Is your belief in your authority based on a specific interpretation of scripture that differs from many others, which you personally hold to be more true than all the others? Also, please see my response to Faith.

I have no authority! I'm just saying what the Bible says, that God is God and what is in the article (written by A.W. Pink) is biblical. Dont mean to sound like a jerk (Im sure Im coming off as one), but Im rushing my answers cause I wanna go eat. Catch you later!
 
what grants you the authority to determine that the sacred texts of JWs, Mormons, and/or Catholics are not the word of God?

The Bible.

Their claim is that you have it wrong, and they also quote the Bible. Not only that, but Catholics for example have been around longer than you have, so one could argue that they would have more access to an authentic interpretation, not that I'm making that argument.

Why don't they have the same authority?

Because they are still natural carnal men. They must be born again.

Most forms of Christianity have baptism as a lifecycle event or part of conversion. As an outsider, it appears that you are unable to open up to the possibility that those with experiences different from your own may be having valid experiences.

What makes your belief in your authority better than their belief in theirs, if they presume it?

The object of my faith, namely, Jesus - the Real one from Scripture.

They believe the same thing. You disagree on the particulars. That claim is hardly validation of the ultimate supremacy of your beliefs for anyone but yourself and those who agree with you. But as you said, if I may quote,

We too, though having no standing among the religious leaders of this degenerate age, prefer the same charge against the majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept the teaching of others.

Can you truly say that you have shut out everything anyone on the outside was saying to you, any interpretations that went along with the text, any events in your life that may have led you in one direction or another, and simply studied the text without assumptions?

Is your belief in your authority based on a specific interpretation of scripture that differs from many others, which you personally hold to be more true than all the others? Also, please see my response to Faith.

I have no authority! I'm just saying what the Bible says, that God is God and what is in the article (written by A.W. Pink) is biblical.

So you are simply accepting the teachings of others. In this case an A.W. Pink, rather than representing the text for yourself based on your own independent research, free of the bias of preachers and scholars, or, if you'd rather, open to all of them for insight. It doesn't seem like you're saying what the bible says to me. It seems like you're saying what A.W. Pink says the bible says, which may very well be what you believe, and if so that's fine, but the language you're using is a bit of doublespeak. God is God, yes, but if a=a what is a? a? The situation you're giving is that a=a and this book here tells us all about a. The problem is that even if that could be proven, which it can't, everyone reads the book differently. If you say that a=a and the book says what a particular individual says it says, then that's not conclusively what the book says. It's what that individual says it says, in the face of much disagreement.

Dauer
 
Silas, one thing I've discovered is the value in Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. One of them is 'Seek first to understand, then to be understood'

Now rather than preach to you about anything. I'll ask, is your knowledge of Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons from personal experience, or from what other people have told you?

ie have you been to their churches, their meetings, and visited with them, asked them the questions you have issues with? Not setting them up with trick questions, but just clearly saying where you have problems. I think you'll find them all to be believers in Jesus and the bible.

Dauer's reference was you are posting on the Abrahamic board, which means since you are not proslytizing you are open to inquiry from Jews, Christians and Muslims, as to their comments on your thoughts (these are your thoughts yes, written by you, as you didn't credit others)
 
Silas,

Here's how to do a link: url inside these [ ] cut and past the web address here, then /url inside [ ].

It looks like this, only substitute the [ ] for { }:

{url}http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_05.htm{/url}

And you wind up with this link to the material you borrowed:

5. The Supremacy of God

Chris
 
Their claim is that you have it wrong, and they also quote the Bible. Not only that, but Catholics for example have been around longer than you have, so one could argue that they would have more access to an authentic interpretation, not that I'm making that argument.

No. Christians have been around longer than Catholics. They were just always in the background, being persecuted and killed. As for their claims and interpretation, you have a point. Maybe you should see what the Bible has to say for yourself and determine who has the right understanding of scripture, Cults, e.g., JWs, Mormons, etc., the Catholics, or the Prodestands?

Most forms of Christianity have baptism as a lifecycle event or part of conversion. As an outsider, it appears that you are unable to open up to the possibility that those with experiences different from your own may be having valid experiences.

I wasnt talking about being baptised, but instead the super natural occurance whereby God changes a person who use to hate Him into someone who loves Him and lives for Him. The "born again" experience scripture calls it. Unless a man is born agian, Jesus said, He cannot even "see" the kingdom of God. Moreover, spiritual truths will sound foolish and offensive to such people.

Can you truly say that you have shut out everything anyone on the outside was saying to you, any interpretations that went along with the text, any events in your life that may have led you in one direction or another, and simply studied the text without assumptions?

Dont understand your question.

So you are simply accepting the teachings of others. In this case an A.W. Pink, rather than representing the text for yourself based on your own independent research, free of the bias of preachers and scholars, or, if you'd rather, open to all of them for insight.

Actually no. I was introduced to Pink some time after my study in theology. Like myself, Pink has a Reformed view of scripture, the view I hold to be the truth as evident from scripture itself.
 
Now rather than preach to you about anything. I'll ask, is your knowledge of Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons from personal experience, or from what other people have told you?

I grew up Catholic. My friend Steve has a Father who is a huge in the JW cult, as well as his younger brother. I've had many convos with them concerning scripture. As for mormons, I had my runins with them when they came to witness at my house. I'd say I know each of their theology.

ie have you been to their churches, their meetings, and visited with them, asked them the questions you have issues with? Not setting them up with trick questions, but just clearly saying where you have problems. I think you'll find them all to be believers in Jesus and the bible.

Actually, to be quite honest, they would all say they believe iin the Bible. Yet, all have opposing views that conflict with each other as well as the scriptures itself. Their Christology is way wrong as well as their Soteriology. After speaking with them, you quickly find out that their Jesus isnt the Jesus of scripture.

Dauer's reference was you are posting on the Abrahamic board, which means since you are not proslytizing you are open to inquiry from Jews, Christians and Muslims, as to their comments on your thoughts (these are your thoughts yes, written by you, as you didn't credit others)

I honestly didnt mean to post here. Can the mods move it to the Christian room, please!!
 
Silas,

Here's how to do a link: url inside these [ ] cut and past the web address here, then /url inside [ ].

It looks like this, only substitute the [ ] for { }:

{url}http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_05.htm{/url}

And you wind up with this link to the material you borrowed:

5. The Supremacy of God

Chris

Thanks Chris, but I'd rather paste it. I think the orignal pages have the fonts too small.
 
No. Christians have been around longer than Catholics. They were just always in the background, being persecuted and killed.

Catholics are Christians. Your argument is fallacious. In truth, there were originally many types of Christians, and they had many different beliefs about Jesus. For example, some believed Jesus was an angel. However, Born Again Christianity is a modern movement.

. Maybe you should see what the Bible has to say for yourself and determine who has the right understanding of scripture, Cults, e.g., JWs, Mormons, etc., the Catholics, or the Prodestands?

I do hope that's not an attempt to evangelize. I wouldn't appreciate that. And I am extremely offended that you are referring to your co-religionists as cultists. If you read the post I made to Faith, as I suggested, which you may have, then you should understand quite well why your proposition makes no sense to me.

but instead the super natural occurance whereby God changes a person who use to hate Him into someone who loves Him and lives for Him.

There are followers of Buddha and Krishna and Baha'ullah and many others who have gone from hate to love. Calling it supernatural is doublespeak. It occurs within nature and is something that is not limited to Christianity, nor to your specific form of Christianity. Your subjective experience is just that.

Moreover, spiritual truths will sound foolish and offensive to such people.

Or perhaps it is your own inability to think beyond your own subjectivity that forces you to take offense at so many more spiritual truths, including those that are most definitely not something you want, but are spiritual truths for some nonetheless.

Can you truly say that you have shut out everything anyone on the outside was saying to you, any interpretations that went along with the text, any events in your life that may have led you in one direction or another, and simply studied the text without assumptions?

Dont understand your question.

In order to study the text for yourself as you quoted is the correct way, you would have to do it in an unbiased way. That would mean either not listening to preachers (including those like the one who wrote the article) or examining to all of the views just as openly. The second would probably be more effective, given we all come to any given text with bias.

Actually no. I was introduced to Pink some time after my study in theology. Like myself, Pink has a Reformed view of scripture, the view I hold to be the truth as evident from scripture itself.

Now you are speaking more accurately. Before you said that what this person was saying is just the way the text reads, very plainly. But in this case you have said "Pink has a Reformed view of scripture, the view I hold to be the truth as evident from scripture itself." That's the subjective. You do then diminish the power of your admission by saying that it's evident in the scripture itself, but for you that is true, while it is also true that it is the view you hold to be the truth, just as others have very different views that they hold to be the truth, and to be evident from scripture itself, based also on study.

Actually, to be quite honest, they would all say they believe iin the Bible. Yet, all have opposing views that conflict with each other as well as the scriptures itself. Their Christology is way wrong as well as their Soteriology. After speaking with them, you quickly find out that their Jesus isnt the Jesus of scripture.

And I believe you would find them saying the same about you. Why do you only use the gospels you do? That was determined by the Catholics. There are many more gospels you could be adding to your bible. Many, many more. Why do you leave them out? Wouldn't they paint a different picture of Jesus? The ones you have have been shaped by a group I believe you've referred to as a cult.

Dauer
 
Catholics are Christians. Your argument is fallacious. In truth, there were originally many types of Christians, and they had many different beliefs about Jesus. For example, some believed Jesus was an angel. However, Born Again Christianity is a modern movement.

Your understanding of Christanity is wrong. You should study church history and learn essentials vs nonessentials and what we must believe to be considered a Biblical Christian. Unity does not mean uniformity therefore, we all dont all look a like or believe every thing alike. However, under the banner of the essentials of the faith - namely the doctrines of Salvation and Christ, we must agree, else you are not a Christian, no matter what you call yourself.

I do hope that's not an attempt to evangelize. I wouldn't appreciate that. And I am extremely offended that you are referring to your co-religionists as cultists. If you read the post I made to Faith, as I suggested, which you may have, then you should understand quite well why your proposition makes no sense to me.

Im certian that nothing I say makes any sense to you. 1 Corinthians 2:14 comes to mind. But even with that, 1 Corinthains 1:18-25 promises that God's means by which He will wake certian people up, will always work. You might be one of those people - hopefully!

There are followers of Buddha and Krishna and Baha'ullah and many others who have gone from hate to love. Calling it supernatural is doublespeak. It occurs within nature and is something that is not limited to Christianity, nor to your specific form of Christianity. Your subjective experience is just that.

Yes, you are all moral people who do good to man and who's goodness before God is liken to dirty rags. (Isa. 64:6) - From your scriptures.

Or perhaps it is your own inability to think beyond your own subjectivity that forces you to take offense at so many more spiritual truths, including those that are most definitely not something you want, but are spiritual truths for some nonetheless.

You could be spiritual without being born again. And thats the problem. I used to be as such, so I know the differences between knowing of God and knowing Him thorugh adoption in Yeshu'a.

In order to study the text for yourself as you quoted is the correct way, you would have to do it in an unbiased way. That would mean either not listening to preachers (including those like the one who wrote the article) or examining to all of the views just as openly. The second would probably be more effective, given we all come to any given text with bias.

Dude, no one is born a Christian. Im only a three year old Christian. I've lived most of my life examining all relgions except the truth, because I knew the truth deep down and I didnt want to submit. Seriously, who wants to be a diciple of Christ in their natural state? It means a life of selflessness, humility, pain, sorrow, trials, tribulation, Joy and Peace with God, hate and strife with the world, yet still denying self and following Jesus daily. Any world religion is better than that to the natural man who is man-centered as apposed to God-Centered.

Now you are speaking more accurately. Before you said that what this person was saying is just the way the text reads, very plainly. But in this case you have said "Pink has a Reformed view of scripture, the view I hold to be the truth as evident from scripture itself." That's the subjective. You do then diminish the power of your admission by saying that it's evident in the scripture itself, but for you that is true, while it is also true that it is the view you hold to be the truth, just as others have very different views that they hold to be the truth, and to be evident from scripture itself, based also on study.

The Reformed view is the view of the early Christians before Christianity was "religionized" by the Roman Empire and changed from a monergestic gospel to a synergistic and heretical religion. The Reformers of the Mid ages only bought Christianity back to what it was in the 1 century.

And I believe you would find them saying the same about you.

Sure. No doubt!


Why do you only use the gospels you do?

Because they fit the criteria that was to be considered for the cannon - namely, they were Apostolic, said the same things as the OT, written by people as well as students of people in the NT, etc.

That was determined by the Catholics.

Probably?


There are many more gospels you could be adding to your bible. Many, many more. Why do you leave them out?

Cause they didnt fit the criteria.

Wouldn't they paint a different picture of Jesus?

Yes!

The ones you have have been shaped by a group I believe you've referred to as a cult.

My understanding of Jesus comes from the Sovereign Almight Yahweh, who is able to make sure His words are communicated the exact way He wants it to be communicated (Proverbs 16:33, 16:1, etc.).
 
I actually thought I put it there. I didnt realize it was the wrong room until someone said something. I asked for the Mods to move it.
 
Your understanding of Christanity is wrong. You should study church history and learn essentials vs nonessentials and what we must believe to be considered a Biblical Christian.

That is the understanding of your group of Christians, which you are, naturally, trying to push. However Christianity is more than just what you believe it to be.

Im certian that nothing I say makes any sense to you. 1 Corinthians 2:14 comes to mind. But even with that, 1 Corinthains 1:18-25 promises that God's means by which He will wake certian people up, will always work. You might be one of those people - hopefully!

This is a warning. Do not attempt this one more time outside of the Christianity board or I will report every attempt you've made directly to Brian. This is not a forum for you to seek converts, and it is not welcome here.

As I said before, read my post to Faith. If you wish to ask about the beliefs I stated there directly, fine. But do not belch up quotes from a text I hold no belief in as an attempt to sway me. The only thing that gives a sacred text authority is one's faith in it, and I'd rather be condemned to your hell than hold a belief that condemns all others to hell. Nevermind I'm quite happy with my own relationship with God.

Yes, you are all moral people who do good to man and who's goodness before God is liken to dirty rags. (Isa. 64:6) - From your scriptures.

Er, no. A translation from Isaiah 64:6 in our scriptures reads "6. And no one calls in Your name, arouses himself to cling to You, when You hid Your countenance from us, and You caused us to wander through our iniquities." You were quoting from your scriptures, whose numbering is sometimes different from ours. I will also point out that the "servant" of Isaiah is Israel and none other. If you don't believe me, read Isaiah from beginning to end, and see how many times the servant is called Israel. If you read it differently, then clearly you're not taking the literal meaning.

You could be spiritual without being born again. And thats the problem. I used to be as such, so I know the differences between knowing of God and knowing Him thorugh adoption in Yeshu'a.

Firstly, please don't refer to Jesus by a Hebrew name in an attempt to gain simpathy. It's extremely offensive to me. Second, our current spiritual awakening always feels superior to previous ones.

Dude, no one is born a Christian. Im only a three year old Christian. I've lived most of my life examining all relgions except the truth,

Then why do you come across as so ignorant of others' beliefs?

The Reformed view is the view of the early Christians before Christianity was "religionized" by the Roman Empire and changed from a monergestic gospel to a synergistic and heretical religion. The Reformers of the Mid ages only bought Christianity back to what it was in the 1 century.

Those are your beliefs based on faith, but not on history. Even the gospels that you believe in are laced with pagan myth. Dying gods who were born again were not uncommon once upon a time. The Reformists most certainly were attempting to "get back to the roots" but making such an attempt is not equal to being successful. The problem that arises in such movements is that they develop in a different age (a) and they are also far removed from the original ideas they're trying to connect with (b.)

Because they fit the criteria that was to be considered for the cannon - namely, they were Apostolic, said the same things as the OT, written by people as well as students of people in the NT, etc.

They don't say the same thing as the OT, unless the OT is read according to the NT instead of vice versa. How do you know they were Apostolic and the others weren't? How do you know the others weren't written by people as well as students of people in the NT? How can you trust anything that was developed and put together by the Catholics, who you believe to be a cult? They have had control of the canon.

My understanding of Jesus comes from the Sovereign Almight Yahweh, who is able to make sure His words are communicated the exact way He wants it to be communicated (Proverbs 16:33, 16:1, etc.).

The Mormons could make the exact same argument and in this way include their texts.

Dauer
 
Silas is quite welcome at CR, but he came in to preach and convert us with "God loves Me, but not You" - so let him stand by his words and allow frank discussion of them.

Perhaps then he may yet learn to respect the diversity here, and that there is a difference between having an opinion, sharing an opinion, discussing an opinion, and arguing an opinion - compared to simply trying to force an opinion.
 
Back
Top