Stephen Quinlan finds Factnet

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Steve Quinlan (168.103.207.103)
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 12:03 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends,
I ran across this message board quite by accident today (although some may argue that in the providence of God there are no accidents). I have spent a few hours reading through some of the postings - many from old friends, many from people unknown to me. Setting aside the silliness (which, of course, also has its place), I must say that I am deeply moved by the heartbreaking struggles of so many precious souls who very obviously love God and one another, and who also obviously wish to be joyful, free and fruitful human beings.

I re-read tonight the lengthy CRI report so helpfully posted by Louise. I have had no direct (or indirect, for that matter) contact with anyone at GGWO (always just TBS to me) for twenty years or more, so I am very hesitant and most certainly unqualified to comment on any aspect of the current situation. Still, from reading the posts here, it seems to me that the analysis offered in Elliot Miller's CRI report may quite likely still apply.

Having said that, I want to say as well, that after twenty years I still grieve the loss of the church family that I knew at TBS from 1972 to 1981. I am willing to share what little insight I may have or offer what little comfort I may give to those that may be similarly grieving, or are perhaps trying to break free or recover the joy and wonder of Jesus Christ that drew them to TBS/GGWO in the first place.

From reading through some of the threads here, I just want to add a quick caveat. I will not rise to the bait of any insult (I have heard them all aready) nor will I engage in defending myself or my theological perspectives. I'm 51 years old and have been a pastor of Christian congregations all my adult life (you do the math!)and I am very much assured that I am on the path that is right for me. Since this message board has come my way (I definitely did not seek it out) I feel an obligation to engage in the conversation, so long as I think I may offer or enjoy any contribution toward wholeness and healing in Christ - mine or others'.

I'm sorry to sound so pompous in this posting, its not how I wish to be perceived.

By the way, I am currently the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Fort Morgan, Colorado.
Steve

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Steve,
You deserve your own thread.

[Cara (152.163.253.102)]

He most certainly does!

Steve, I was wondering about the process you went through to untwist the doctrines learned from Carl? Did you turn towards certain writers? Did you seek outside counsel? What was the emotional processing like? How did the discrediting and discarding by Carl and his loyalists affect you?

I have many friends and family all in a different part of the process of exiting. I have some friends that still attend and are suffering stress related illnesses but have not made the final step out the door. I have friends questioning the very existence of God because they are bewildered to find themselves so duped by a man. I have friends that are very angry at God (which I actually think is quite healthy.) I know mothers that despise the hypocrisy they now can clearly see but are unable to tell their young adult children for fear of them loosing their "faith" or in other cases, of being shunned by their own children.

Jack Leonard's posts have made a great impact on many of the dissidents in Baltimore. Without adding more pressure to you as a new postee, your insight will have the same impact.

Thankful to have you with us...
Cara

[nonotone (24.211.177.206)]

Steve,

Can we correspond? Your new life in the Reformed Faith holds much intrigue for me. I've been in GGWO for many years but am now seeking a more "proven ground" from which to establish my doctrinal convictions and Christian life upon.

Please EMAIL me at: nonotone@pobox.com

[Isabella (207.7.206.227)]

Welcome aboard Steve Quinlan. I remember you as one of the few 'pastors' who spoke in complete sentences and did not sound like you were making it up as you went along. So thanks for a few moments of sanity and thanks for taking the time.

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

Well, look whats happened while I was sleeping! Jack and I had dinner with a friend we hadn't seen or talked to in 20 yrs. What a joy to reconnect. It's also good to hear from you Steve. The Texan is right, you deserve your own thread!
We welcome the calm and steady voice.

[Anonymous (68.34.121.13)]

Welcome,
Steve Quisling....

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Don't know ya, Pastor Steve..

Isn't it funny, those welcoming you to the board here are those going against GGWO.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

So, Pastor Steve, tell us...do they ordain women in your denomination or do you agree that the office of pastor is solely for a man?

Just Curious

[muskyrose (151.203.154.159)]

Well Hello there Steve! What a long time it has been. Very nice to hear from an old timer.
Please give my love to your wife. I always thought she was such a great person.

>>>>>>>----Bonnie

[Anonymous (4.139.18.20)]

Though I haven't had the pleasure; I have read the CRI report. I'd like to "thank you" for standing up for what was truth so many years ago! Prayerfully, God will use you once again to facilitate healing and accountability.

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Greetings and welcome Steve! I remember your classes as being well-taught and motivating. I still am an avid reader of CS Lewis (as well as Ravi Zacharias now). Hope you are able to share some insights although your doctrine is probably somewhere in the tall crabgrass out in left field.

[Louise Connolly (151.121.50.1)]

It is far better to have doctrine than to be indoctrinated in a mind control cult.

[Sam I am (24.131.172.186)]

I agree.

It's also better than being a shrivelled soul bent on vengeance.

[Steve Quinlan (168.103.207.103)]

Sam
My colleagues are divided on this. About half consider me to be too far left and half too far right. So I suppose that puts me more in the crabgrass in centerfield.

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

I'd be willing to listen to the "opinions" of the far right and left field after being subjected to Carl Stevens' "opinions" for years.

[Sam (24.131.172.186)]

LOL, Steve.

I've got a lawnmower if you need it.

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

Steve, you still have that effect on TBS (now GGWO) members; They dont want to hear what you have to say since you "left the body"

LOL

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Now, now Anon 216.183....You really need to grow beyond those kinds of silly kneejerk assumptions. There is nothing more I'd like to do than to pick my ole prof's brains. I'm sure I could benefit enormously by his experience and scholarship.

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

Reread your post from 12:34 pm Sammy

You already have Steve labled as out in left field.

Why is that?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that he's no longer in "the body" ? LOL

[Sam (24.131.172.186)]

Ugghh...get over it, Anonny. According to Cordell, he follows Bultmanian theology, which, from where I stand, and presumably from where you stand (unless you've apostosized), can be accurately described as "left field."

Which, again (sigh) does not deny that "left fielders" might have some good things to say.

Now, lighten up, wudja?

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

Sam Spade

Apostosized? Now there is a GGWO ism for anyone not lining up with Stevens teaching jot and tittle.

But I must say I think I saw you write that
"left fielders might have something good to say"
...a novel thought for a GGWO spokesman.
Thanks for at least being open to the possibilty that ex GGWO people may actually not be crazy as many are told.

[Anon68,10 (68.10.127.165)]

Steve Quinlan:
I guess I don't have to call you "Pastor" Quinlan anymore. It was a pleasant surprise to hear from you. I was one of your former students back in the Lenox days, but you probably wouldn't remember me since I was so well-hidden in the body. I left the ministry as discretely as possible in 1999 for "theological" reasons.
I have a question to ask: Are you familiar with Donald Bloesch? He is professor of systematic theology at Dubuque Theological Seminary (in Iowa). He is also the author of a comprehensive 7-volume systematic theology which I have been reading. He is not a committed Bartian, but he has great respect for the man and is obviously influenced by his theology. Bloesch regards himself as a "progressive evangelical" and believes in a theology of Word and Spirit. I'm just wondering if you know of him and what your opinion is of his theology. Again, it was good to hear from you, and I am anticipating that many will be comforted and encouraged by your pastor's heart. Thanks for contributing to this forum.
Anon68,10

[Sam (24.131.172.186)]

Yes, Steve....while we're at it...how about Berdyaev?

schnargley@yahoo.com

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

Ugh, Sam. Do you have to be so confrontational?

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

"According to Cordell, he follows Bultmanian theology, which, from where I stand, and presumably from where you stand (unless you've apostosized), can be accurately described as "left field."


I said Barth not Bultmann. But my impression is that he's grown a lot since that last chat with him.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

My impression also is that Steve (and I am sure if you take time to email him, he will tell you this himself) that his greatest concern is for people not concepts--his emphasis is more pastoral than doctrinal.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

"Isn't it funny, those welcoming you to the board here are those going against GGWO."

That is because there are so few people left in GG who've been around long enough to remember him.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.144.225)]

To Just Curious, Your question above seems to indicate that if Steve's denomination ordains women, then he agrees that they should. This isn't necessarily the case. Remember he's no longer in TBS, and may now be allowed to not line up. Let's not label him by the denomination in which he serves. Bob

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

karen...do you have to be so.....feminine? Yes, it's that thing again. If actually READ what I said, no confrontation was involved.

[Anon B (152.163.253.102)]

Sam, your inference that Karen is incapable of accuracy due to her gender lacks the civility that you complain is so lacking in the posts of others.

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Oh...puhlease! Karen and I have had a rapore regarding this issue where she and I agreed that men and women persceive things and dialogue differently which clears up some misunderstandings.

I say, Vive la diferance!

[Steve Quinlan (168.103.207.103)]

Friends,

Thanks to all for the very warm and generous greetings. And for those not feeling warm and generous towards me, thanks to you too. Through the years I have learned and grown as much from listening to those who disagreed with me as from those who affirmed me – maybe even more.

May I make a suggestion to you all? Your conversation might be much more fruitful if you did not concern yourselves with labeling or “pigeonholing” one another. Does anybody really imagine that all those who worship at a particular church (GGWO or 1st Presbyterian of Podunk or any other) can be lumped together into one generalized mass?

The moment we begin to classify somebody as “one of those people,” whomever we may think “those people” are, we have left off treating one another as individual human beings of inestimable value to God. Instead we begin to dehumanize each other and will consequently find it much easier to be abusive. Once we have “named” something or someone, we feel as though we have power over it/them. We have made them into an object. Then we can put them into their “slot” in our minds, pull them out, examine them, turn them around and over, and them put them back into their “slot,” or discard them as we choose. This is, of course, why the Jews of antiquity (and the orthodox today) would not dare to speak the name of God.

Do any of us really imagine that we know somebody because we can say that they have studied and appreciated a particular theologian? We say, “Oh, I know who she is or he is. She is a Barthian or a Tillichian.” Or we say, “I know what he’s like, he’s a follower of Rudolf Bultman or Carl Stevens.” These things tell us very little indeed about a person. Would we not be better off – and much closer to the way Jesus dealt with people – if we took each other “one person at a time,” and sought to love and learn from each other in that way?

I don’t really know any of you, but I believe that I can grow from getting to know you a little – and maybe you can from me. That is how I choose to enter this conversation, and if that is not agreeable to you, we may find it hard to meaningfully converse.

Steve

P.S. You may email me directly if you wish. Just click on my name.

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Thanks, Steve. I agree. I learn as much from those I agree with as those I disagree with.

The benefit of this forum is you can talk to a group of people, rather than answering a bunch of individual emails which might overwhelm your busy schedule.

I am sure you understood my point in bringing up Berdyaev -I thought his writing on Freedom and____? was marvellous. Possibly a point of common ground?

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

The lowest I've ever seen the Bible Speaks go was
when I heard a branch Pastor say in a message
that a certain leader lost his wife because he
left, obviously refering to Steve Quinlan.
That same Pastor left 4 years later and was
spoken bad of himself. That's when I realized
just how low and slimy they could get!
I just listened to some 1970's tapes I still
have of Steve preaching in Framingham, and it
sounds like a different ministry. They're
as good today as they were then. That church
in Colorado is fortunate to have him. TBS
loss was their gain! Thanks for the great
messages Steve. They helped a lot.

[SS (24.131.172.186)]

I agree 205.

[Anonymous (24.62.182.91)]

Isabella, your sentiments are mine exactly. It was a rarity for a "pastor" there to speak in complete sentences and not sound like they were making it up as they went along. I have relatives still there; on a visit a year or so ago my 13 yo daughter whispered to me "he's not making any sense - those aren't even real words - is he making them up?" haha I assured her that her observations were correct.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Isn't it interesting what stays with you after 23-24 years, which is about the amount of time Steve's been out of TBS?

[Anonymous (65.54.98.168)]

If I remember correctly, I was in your church in Wilmington back in the 80's. The messages were intellectually stimulating but you did not ever one time exude the character of Christ. The church was very clicky and you would only have certain people attend your special bible studies or meetings. I don't think that Christ is exclusive like you were. It was unfortunate but we continued to follow Christ not you. And by the way....God is faithful. The truth didn't come out til you left and took a bunch of people on the "mission field" to Indiana PA but you failed to tell them that you had no intention of building a church. You were on sabatical if you remember. Anyway we've all moved on so don't give so much credence to the famous Steve Quinlan

[Bob Brinton (141.154.146.79)]

Anon.65.54, I didn't really know Steve Quinlan personally. I was very impressed by his messages and classes and the thought and logic behind them. I was in Lenox. I also found him somewhat lacking in personal warmth, but considered that to be his personality and not a flaw. As I recall, during the time he was trying to deal with the delegated authority issue prior to his leaving, he became much more personal and loving in both his messages and his personal behavior. I was hearing bad stuff about him at the time and was a little confused. I wish I had believed more strongly what I felt in my heart. It's not like I actively worked against him in any way. But I didn't speak up for him or support him. I probably didn't even pray for him. That's kind of sick from my present perspective. I think his attempts to change the Bible Speaks were honorable. I wish I could have read the CRI Report back then; but it might not have done me much good. Other people had influence on me. Again, Steve, if you're reading this, forgive me. Love, Bob

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

I remember SQ not so much from what he preached but from whom he chose as a wife and his children. Jolie was a wonderful warm gracious hearted woman. Down to earth and quite accepting of others. I remember she seemed to have an ability to let her children's personality shine through. She never got rattled by much. To me, that was trusting God rather than contolling and molding them into what we would think they ought to be. It's something I've carried with me into motherhood. I hope I've said that well......its a gem I got from my time in TBS

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Jolie Quinlan was one of my best friends. Steve and Jolie chose to have me as one of their wedding party. When Jolie went to be with her Savior, I phoned Steve from Lenox to offer my condolences. Carl Stevens found out about the call and publicly berated me at a Fokine rap! I think those who remember Steve in the 70s and 80s will find him a man whose life has made him care more for people, made him empathetic with their hurts, and conscious of their individuality in Christ. I would encourage anyone interested to email him.

[Anonymous (68.34.67.195)]

To Anon 65:54: I worked on staff and never got so much as a "hello" from P. Scibelli. Does that make him ineffective for God as well? Just wondering?

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

hes arrogant ..know them by their fruits

[SJ (205.188.117.20)]

Pastor Scibelli is NOT arrogant, he is a man who trusts God for every step and is led by the Holy Spirit. If you have ever listened to any of his stories from Africa you would know how he lives his life. He had a stroke and cerebral malaria on the same part of his brain, and the top neurologist at Johns Hopkins told him he would never travel or do anything again. He had to relearn to dress and feed himself, and he forgot everything he ever knew about the Bible. Now he is back teaching, preaching, and going on missions trips....he is a walking testimony to the power of God. He loves God and lives for Him only.
He is not concerned with impressing anyone. That, however, is not arrogance. If he did not say hello to you, I am quite sure that it does not mean he is "ineffective for God"!!!! Did you say hello to him? Perhaps he did not even see you, the stroke also had quite an effect on his eyesight. But it has not slowed him down a bit!

[Anonymous (141.157.103.245)]

Amen, SJ...what you wrote is 100 percent true about Pastor Scibelli. At last, we agree. Have a great day.

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

i apologize to him and you all, the reason i thought he was arrogant because during some of his ''raps'' he came off that way, he was kinda boastful saying things like ''I don't care if you don't like me etc" ...

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

I do send my Prayer for his total healing

[Anonymous (68.34.67.195)]

SJ: I made that comment about P. Scibelli on Saturday regarding not receiving a "hello." I did not make it to accuse him of being "arrogant," rather I was just trying to challenge the previous poster who was trying to discredit P. Quinlan. My point was that we all know what a great evangelist P. Scibelli is, however, his personal demeanor never quite ministered Christ to me. I admire him, I think he is a man of God and one of the greatest evangelists ever. I used him as an example because he is so effective for the kingdom of God. God will use all sorts of personality types. So before we go discrediting people based upon their personality and our perception of them, let's see what God is doing with them and see them by their fruits. I hope this clarifies my point.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

69,
When he said things like that in raps it was in the context of having to speak the truth to people who might not like to hear it, in different situations. Sometimes people didn't like him for what he said.

[SJ (205.188.117.20)]

To 68, 1:07 pm,
I apologize for misunderstanding your post, I thought you were seriously discrediting him for not saying hello! Especially since the next post responded by saying he was arrogant. I didn't see the post about P.Quinlan relating to it, it was quite a ways up on the page. Sorry about that...I guess we do agree completely on P.Scibelli after all

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

ok sorry

[mike anair (68.38.195.85)]

hi steve quinlin, i remeber going to one of your classes. those days where filled with so much hope,love,friendship,trust, but as you can see so many people have left the church and so many new have jopined, there is no love but to only the ones who attend and outcast for those who do not fit in, i do hope jesus will find a way of help mike anair

[Anonymous (65.54.97.148)]

Obviously you all have not had alot of contact with Steve he always was a very cold pastor... we were in his church form 1978-80 when he left. It was Pastor Palmer that showed us the love of Christ

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

People change, 65.54, people change.

[Gabby (216.41.233.123)]

Pastor Steve Quinlan taught me in 1979 and into the early eighties, and I STILL call him Pastor, even though I have not had the privilege of hearing him for many years. I learned so much from this intelligent, well-spoken Man of God. He may not be the "gushy" type that some seem to need, but he was never "cold." I think he was shy or reserved, and these are personality traits. We are all who we are by the grace of God. When he left the Indiana, PA Church, many of us wept because we loved him and knew what a gem he was/is. But we knew we'd be fine because, after all, we were not following Pastor Quinlan but Jesus Christ.

[pop (80.74.209.29)]

Hi Stephen!
Why did you choose to join Presbyterian church?

[Steve Quinlan (12.45.124.246)]

I can answer that in one word here. Polity.
Email me and I'll tell you all about it.

[Anonymous (149.174.164.83)]

ahh Polity! Oh could GGWO use some of that now!

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

pray today

[Anonymous (62.121.45.91)]

Pray for?

[Pekka Lähteenoja (80.222.58.34)]

Hello,

I also happened to land on this site by "accident". I listened to your apologetics classes, Steve,in Lenox Chapel in 1979 and was very impressed and excited. Your mail now made me actually shed a tear as it brought back the wonderful fellowships I had while in Lenox. Nostalgia, perhaps, but also, I think, part of it is what CRI report was referring to as lost potential to become REALLY big, (inter)national christian influence. In my spirit I really feel loss of something precious that could have grown larger AND healthier.

Reading the CRI report now for the first time I must say that it rings so true. The superior mentality&seclusiveness, sensitiveness to criticism, confusing exegesis (private interpetation!) on the negative side, great enthusiasm, sincerety and love on the positive side. Also in Finland the GGWO has typically not been much involved with the rest of evangelical community.

I was involved with the Helsinki church from 1977 to about 1995. I had heard about the Martin report but never saw it. Instead I heard some heavy criticism of him. As I read the report now I pondered on the dynamics which Stevens' inability to face and discuss difficult issues (as mentioned by CRI) created downstream in branch ministries. It was manifested at least in my case in that when I raised a doctrinal issue, it was soon interpreted by a leading brother to be conspiracy. Probably also related to this avoidant attitude toward difficult personal issues is the peculiar reluctance in the GGWO (I speak of time 7-8 yrs ago) to accept the need of psychotherapy and many forms of counseling. I'm sure some were badly hurt because they did not have the freedom to seek psychological/psychiatrical help but were just advised to "receive the word" from the pulpet.

I felt I wanted to say something on these pages, perhaps only for the sake of clearing my own impressions on TBS/GGWO. 18yrs in a ministry is a long time, most of it was good for me, some bad. May God bless all who read this, especially those I learned to know in the TBS/GGWO.

Pekka Lähteenoja
psychiatrist
Espoo, Finland
Member of Majakka seurakunta (Lighthouse church) in Espoo

[Cara (64.12.117.20)]

Thank you Pekka,

Your words today speak volumes. It saddens me to realize the many great portions to the body of Christ that TBS/GGWO lost, yours being one of them. How much potential we had as a body of believers, how how many unique portions were never tapped.

Your observation of the need for outside professional counsel is a weighty subject. Many families would be together today if outside counsel had been encouraged by Carl. How many children would not have experienced the devastation of divorce if Carl's ego and need for undying acceptance had not taken precedence over all else.

Thank you for sharing with us your thoughts on this forum.

[Steve Quinlan (12.45.124.212)]

Pekka,
Thank you for posting here. You have clearly identified one of the great tragedies, not only of TBS/GGWO, but also of the Christian Church as a whole. That is, the tremendous difficulty we human beings seem to have respecting the giftedness and dignity of others, especially when these others represent a challenge to our positions of privilege or our carefully protected egos. Why, oh why are we so frightened by those who differ from us? Why do we feel threatened by them, and why do we so often wish their downfall if not their destruction?

I cannot help but believe that it is because we are so fundamentally insecure. Regardless of how loudly we speak about “eternal security” with respect to salvation, or “unconditional love” with respect to God’s nature, an unwillingness to accept or at least tolerate those who differ from us betrays a deep insecurity and sense of being unloved. I believe that the stronger and more impregnable we seek to make our theological and ecclesiological fortresses, the more we evidence our own fear and faithlessness.

What exactly is it that we fear when we become inflexibly doctrinaire? Are we afraid of being wrong? Well of course we are going to be wrong sometimes. What is so dreadful about that? Are we afraid that the TRUTH is on the line and will be corrupted? Isn’t that just absurd? As if we puny and fallible human beings could somehow corrupt that which is eternal and immutable. (Of course we should seek Truth, but God help us if we think we own it.) Or are we simply afraid that people will notice that we are human and therefore, sinful. How liberating it is to confess my sinfulness! How freeing to acknowledge that I have erred! What joy there is in being corrected! When we deny our humanity, our sinfulness, our errors, do we really think we are fooling anyone?

So much potential has been lost to the church over the ages because those in positions of leadership held the mistaken belief that their leadership would be weakened by a frank acknowledgement of their humanity. As I read my Bible, one characteristic of the great leaders of the faith stands out above others. They were all – to a man (or to a woman) flawed people who did not deny their humanity, but let God use it. As far as I can tell, God asks little more of us than this: to be and revel in being at once sinners and saints. Such a posture may yet allow us to both see and appreciate the value of those around us who are graced by God in ways different than ourselves. Pekka, Thanks again.

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

Thank you Pastor Quinlan. I needed to hear this tonight.

God bless you.

Roberta

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Yes, thank you.

[Nancy Curra (172.152.150.199)]

Thank you Pr Quinlan, I had heard so much about you over the years. Thank you for sharing here. It is a real blessing.

Hi Cara, thankyou for everything. please pray for me, I was supposed to get out yesterday but there has been a setback.

Hi Jack and Chris
thank you for everything.

[pop (80.74.209.236)]

Great to have you here Pekka!
More comments about counseling?

[Bob Brinton (70.17.137.192)]

Thank you Pastor Quinlan. I hope that all here carefully read and consider what you wrote above. We could well do with an increased degree of humility. None of us has all the eyes dotted and teas crossed.

[Anonymous (209.6.151.215)]

.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[David B. (64.211.41.114)]

I'd like to add my thanks here as well. Being fairly new to this site, I just read the CRI report this weekend. I was in TBS from 1976 to 1987 and was on staff till 1981 when all that stuff was going down. I really had no idea what was really happening, but now I'm overwhelmed with appreciation for what Pastor Quinlin and many others tried to do to straighten things out. As difficult as the whole thing has been for me, I can only begin to imagine how difficult this must have been for those who tried to make a positive change.

It disturbs me that I never knew of your efforts to save the church until now, over 20 years later. It's difficult not to have renewed resentment toward CHS and his enablers. I thought I already forgave and forgot. While it's all becoming so much clearer, what happened, I'm just now learning the depth of the tragedy of TBS. Now I have to experience this again, only there's a whole lot more to forgive than before.

Well anyway, I do want to thank you again Steve, for what your preaching meant to me back then, and all your efforts to save TBS from CHS.

And thankyou for posting on this site as who you are. I would post my last name, but I have loved ones still in GGWO and fear repercussions.

[Anonymous (141.154.162.119)]

David B. ; If you click on Steve's name to the left, you can email him. You don't need to fear any repercussions from him. A friend

[David B. (64.211.41.114)]

Yes 141.154, I should do that. Thanks.

[Pekka Lähteenoja (80.222.58.34)]

Pop asked comments about counseling. In case of GGWO I see several doctrinal issues which contribute to people not being able get help they need.

1) the teaching about "new creation" 2Cor 5:17. The verse says "old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new". This is taught to mean that if you believe in it your old traumas become nonexistant and you are free. That's why you don't need counseling, just build yourself up in the truth of this verse and it becomes true. If this for soe reason do not work that way, people are led to think that they lack faith and are send on a guilt trip. Also if you confess your problems after "hearing the word" for some time, you are led to believe that you live in the flesh. In consequense people keep problems to themselves and are entangled in their quilt about their inability to "live in the new creation". Actually this teaching is close to that of Christian Science which denies the existence of illnesses. M.Baker Eddy's doctrine was idealist which denied the existance of matter and all manifestations thereof. The same tendency shows in GGWO in not accepting peoples' humanity, their frailness and need of many kinds of help in addition to spiritual help.

2) The view of outside world as being almost in all aspects anti-christian, even demonic. This creates fear of being manipulated by non-christian therapists. The fear is of course not altogether ungrounded, but as strong general attitude it effectively closes people outside the secular helping professions.

3) I would add here also belief in the verbal insipiration of the Bible which is the hallmark of fundamentalist christianity (as in ALL fundamentalist religion!). I have only recently realised how impossible this view of the Bible is and see fruits of it in the rigidness of mind, self-righteousness and judgementality in attitude and peculiar kind of rationalistic theology (which is also called biblicism) which claims to have more answers than it really has (because of the false fear that it HAS to have an answer to all questions, OTHERWISE IT BECOMES SUSPECT OF NOT BEING OF GOD!).

This rationalistic, system making attitude (which again is the hallmark of the western culture as a whole) is especially there in the dispensationalist theology. How it concerns the issue of counseling is that in these rationalistic theological schemes counseling is not even mentioned! It has no place. That's why by implication it is not important. God must not consider it important!

The traditional denomination such as catholicism, orthodox church, lutheranism etc., even though their theology is partly formed from secular sources (Platonism, Aristotelianism), do not claim such inclusiveness of all human life. There are areas of life which must be defined in extrabiblical terms (for instance psychology). These terms need not contradict the Bible at all but in stead complement it. In this kind of doctrinal context counseling is a natural part of church life.

Well, I'll stop for now and return to some more practical aspects of christian counseling later.

Pekka

P.S. I have an hunch who you are pop but am not sure. I anybody wants to email me I would be glad to receive a message.

[pop (62.121.45.91)]

Hi Pekka,
Thank you for your comments.
God bless!

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

" I would add here also belief in the verbal insipiration of the Bible which is the hallmark of fundamentalist christianity (as in ALL fundamentalist religion!). I have only recently realised how impossible this view of the Bible is ..... "

Pekka, you seem to have left not only Greater Grace, but Christianity in general if you do not even believe the Bible is inspired. EVERY Word of God is inspired, if I may reveal my "rigidness of mind" here. How can you speak of Christian counseling when you don't even believe a basic truth like that. I believe there is a place for true Christian counseling based on the Word of God. Christians do often need help beyond what they receive in messages and need one on one counseling. But they don't have to go to secular counselors to get it, there are plenty of qualified Spirit-filled counselors .
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly (Psalm 1:1)

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Pekka,

I have seldom read the argument of the rigidity of the literalist/fundamentalist view and the damage it can cause so well defined.

Nic, I came to believe that the word of God need not be believed in literally to believe God, for the reasons Pekka has stated. The damage done by this view of literalism/biblicalism has been well documented throught centuries. It sets up a false paradigm as Pekka has noted.

I am not about to argue with you again about the issue, I respect your beliefs are what they are...I am just remarking that her explanation is clearer than any I have offered.

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Roberta,
Please explain what you mean by "literalism" and "biblicalism". Of course there are 'types' of things in the Bible, and a book such as Revelation cannot be taken literally. But inspiration is another issue. The quote I used from Pekka's post clearly states that she does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible. If you don't believe that, then you may as well give up on Christianity because you don't have a basis for anything you believe.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2Tim 3:16)

[Anon Brief (205.188.117.20)]

"...then you may as well give up on Christianity..."

So if one does not believe in the exact same manner as you they should cease to pursue expanding their relationship with God through Christ? I suppose you were born believing as you do now? Did anyone ever tell you to "give up" on Christianity?

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

What I said, Anon Brief, is if you do not believe the Word of God is inspired you might as well give up on Christianity. Were any of us around when Jesus was alive on earth? Or the apostles? Our entire faith is based on what is recorded in the Word of God. It is not a question of believing in the exact same manner as I do. It is a question of believing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, because without that premise what do you base your Christianity on? If you can explain Christianity apart from the Word of God, please feel free to post that explanation

[Anon Brief (205.188.117.20)]

What I cannot explain is the depth of my disagreement with anyone who would direct others AWAY from faith in Christ rather than educate, share or dialogue with them. Beating someone over the head with The Book is more likely aversion therapy than soul-winning. Speak the truth IN LOVE.

[Nic (149.174.164.83)]

What I cannot explain is what you are referring to as directing others AWAY from faith in Christ. I defended the Bible being inspired. Is that "beating someone over the head with The Book"? I guess God was beating us all over the head when He wrote that it was inspired in 2 Tim 3:16. How is that not speaking the truth IN LOVE? Does Love only agree with you or tell you what you want to hear?
It is getting so old how people accuse anyone who stands behind the Bible as being legalistic, or unloving, or "beating them over the head". On a message board where Christians post you would think that it would not be a negative thing to uphold the Word of God. You would think.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Nic

Here's the thing. The Bible does not have to be taken so legalisticly to be loved and followed, revered and used as a way to commune and learn of God. What Anon the B means,I think, is the dogmatic almost angry way people demand that it be believed literally turns people away from God. To say that this literalism is the only way God can be known or learned of is harmful and untrue. It sets up a dangerous dynamic where manipulation techniques can be easily used to make people feel afraid, guilty, hopeless and limited, thus making the Christian fundamentalist as harmful and negative as a heavy handed bully. This has been done throughout history to no good end. Just like at GGWO.

If you were content to practice Christianity the way that blesses you and brings you closer to Him while not belittling others who commune and are close to God differently than you no one would have a problem.

The fact is more Christians forget to draw people slowly, to love people where they are at first, to befriend the friendless on purpose just to love them. If your heart is right with God your life of loving people who need loving speaks louder than dogma, rules, exegesis and apologetics. If that is what they want they will seek it once they understand by your love that God loves them. Hurting souls need love and understanding first, not chapter and verse.

Worshiping God's words is not loving God's people if you demand of them something they can chose for themselves. God's love through us is key...then sharing with them slowly, letting their own hunger and thirst for the word draw them to thier own walk, with no one but God making the demands of them in a personal communion.

Strident doctrinal discussion is great for those proficient in that way of understanding Him, and God bless you that your command of the Bible is great. But not everyone is called to be a biblical scholar, and thus may see thing a bit differently.

It is okay if they see things differently. God is not diminished or enhanced by our beliefs so much as we are changed by his love of us. He is bigger and more inclusive than that...He's have to be to love us at all, Nic.

At a time when the turmoil in the church is great is a time to come together as brothers andd sister, lifting each other up, letting the differences be put aside while people ar coming out of a culy. Let them get themselves quiet, so that slowly they can get rid of the lies and be rested again. Then comes the time to slowly spoon feed if necessary, like you would a wounded bird you wished to help heal. You don't start barking the same kind of strident dogma they just left...if you do you will lose them.

I say this because it happened to someone I love. And I fear they will never again ever believe any fundamantalist/literalist/leagalistic anything again as long as he lives. They did more damage in one hour than Carl Stevens did in 10 years. I was stupifiied at their stupidity in the NAME OF GOD. But everything you have said on this topic makes you sound just like them. Wounded people need to hear less dogma and more love or they will tell you to go away...and they reject God because of your bible worship( "your" meant in a collective sense here)

People are fragile and need to be loved gently at times. Beating them over the head with anything, just isn't a good approach for most.

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Roberta,
I do not like the constant implication on this board that being biblical and being loving are two different things. You can live by the Word and not be legalistic or unloving. All I said here tonight is that the Bible is inspired. It has nothing to do with literalism, exegesis, apologetics, or 'strident doctrinal discussions'.

I will take it as a compliment that you think my command of the Bible is great. I would not put it that way. I am actually just an average Christian who has been taught the Word in services and bible school. Anything I have been taught is mainly from Greater Grace and it was there that I learned to love the Word, not worship it as you say, but to love it. I am far from a biblical scholar, I am not even in the same league as many people here. I just believe what the Word says and to me that is wisdom, not legalism. And it is does NOT have to be opposed to loving people.

[Anon Brief (205.188.117.20)]

First, Nic, your belief is admirable.

I am neither disagreeing with your beliefs nor debating theology with you. I have not done that here, nor will I. No one is implying that being biblical is being unloving. What were we told to do by Jesus?

Confrontational evangelism is the issue. It is generally unloving and usually ineffective.

Those of us who have seen firsthand the extent of its damage are those who react to it most strongly. We believe that it is spiritually dangerous.

[Tom (151.196.179.79)]

If my people who are called by My Name will humble themselves and pray. If they seek My Face and turn from their sins I will heal, I will forgive and I will heal their land.

We must lift up the Lord Jesus Christ ONLY, not ourselves, not our boards and not our leaders, Jesus Christ ONLY.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Isn't Pekka a guy?

If you cannot see the inspiration (God-breathed nature) of the scriptures why should you trust the Christ revealed in them, indeed what part have you with the Holy Spirit whose work it was to "speak by the prophets?" The Scriptures are not for cutting out what you don't like and keeping what you do, like the members of the Jesus Seminar--nor are they for those who treat it like a theological salad bar. You may as well invent your own god, as many indeed are so inclined to do. The scriptures are the unveiling of the only God there is by the only God there is and there is not another way in all the world to know him.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

To which standard will you appeal for correction in the conduct of others if you reject the one standard by which we will all be judged?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

As far as 'literalism' is concerned, we should interpret the Bible as it is given--those parts which are to be taken literally should be, others are not to be taken literally because of the genre of literature in which they are given. Trees do not have hands to clap. Sometimes hyperbolic language is used. Are we reading apocalyptic, poetry, history, narrative, doctrine, epistle? We should interpret the scriptures by the scriptures, using those parts which are clear to interpret those more obscure portions.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.159.236)]

Jim and Nic; I'm curious about what you think about translations such as the Amplified and Wuest's Expanded translation of the New Testament. I've been reading a book written by a couple of Baptists called 'Grasping God's Word'. They call the Amplified a paraphrase and suggest people go elsewhere. I prefer it myself.

I'm also interested in what you might think about the Canon of Scripture itself. It was not set in cement until long after all the original apostles were gone. Revelation, in particular, almost didn't make it; according to what I've read. That's where it says the bit about 'not adding to this book'; which I've always taken to mean not adding to the book of Revelation, rather than the whole Bible. If God speaks to you today, is that not the Word of God? Does He not speak new things to us through His Spirit? Are we not to live by every word proceeding from God's mouth?

I do think that as believers we need to have the Bible as our standard; that whatever comes to us for our personal or collective walk should be in accord with what has been written. We might see it differently; but psychological text books or human philosophy are not substitutes for the living Word of God. How we communicate with unbelievers or other believers should be Word based; but in sensitivity to the Spirit, it needn't necessarily be literally expressed on the surface. It may be that the ground needs some preparation for the direct seeds. Not everyone is ready to hear the same things. The enemies are driven out little by little.

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

"If God speaks to you today, is that not the Word of God? Does He not speak new things to us through His Spirit? Are we not to live by every word proceeding from God's mouth?"

Bob, I think that God will never speak anything to us that contradicts His Word. The scriptures should be what we test everything by. So many people say God spoke to them, or God told them this or that. That could be their own subjective thoughts, or it could even be demonic. How many times have you heard of murderers saying God told them to do it, or they heard voices. Even the terrorists of 9-11 thought they were carrying out the will of God. That is why the Word of God has to be our touchstone, and God will never speak any "new things" to us that go against it.
As far as what books made it into the Bible, I think that God would not leave something as important as that to random chance. What is there is what God wanted to be there. If you start questioning that, then you're back to questioning whether the Bible is inspired, and then everything is left open to question.

[Izziesoul (172.131.102.188)]

Jim and Nic: I would also like to ask about the translations in certain Bibles. I have been reading Rick Warrens book, which was given to me by my Aunt.
He uses many differnt Bibles that I myself have never even heard or never mind read. He does list the Bibles he has used and I go back to my Bible and check the scripture and some of it doesn't seem to "jive" with the translation of the older Bibles. `This is just one example Mathew 16:25" For whosoever will save his llife shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."
Rick Warrent took his text from a Bible called "The Message" and this is it's translation:
"Self Help is no help at all. Self-sacrfice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self."

Although I agree that self help is not help I am not quite seeing the corralation here. I really am leary of any Bible that changes scripture so much.
I think is purpose of this book is certainly admirable.
And it probable is just me, but could either of you or any of you tell me is this possible that Bibles are out there that simply slide so far from the text? And also, let me know if that translation is accurate as you see it.

Thanks

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

I once participated in a bible study activity which was divided into four groups. Each group was given a list of questions related to a certain passage of Scripture and a different version of the Bible. We were asked to study the passage, discuss it, then as a group answer the questions and form a position on the text. Next, the entire group convened to discuss/debate the text from the perspective of their group. Probably one of the most enlightening exercises that I have been involved in.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.149.184)]

Nic; I agree that the written Word as we have it is what we need to measure other things we get by. I'm not looking for license to sin or for heretical doctrines. I'm just not sure that the 'early church' got everything right. I'm not saying that they didn't. Convince me.

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

Bob, I don't know what you mean about the early church getting everything right. I'm not sure what you want me to convince you of. The things I am convinced of are that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and the books in it are the ones God wanted in it.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Bob,
If you will read Luke 24, you will see that long before Christ was born, the Hebrew Canon existed much as it is now, though perhaps not in the order we have them in our Bibles. Canonicity is determined by the recognition of the Holy Spirit's inspiration what is written. The Church recognizes the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but the word creates and determines the existence of the church because of course the word preceded the church. New Testament teaching is apostolic--either written by or influenced by the apostles. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would bring back into their memories everything that Christ had taught them. This work is complete, and needs no additional material. What we have is the Holy Spirit dwelling in us to illuminate the word of God and to show us Christ in the scriptures which contain all that we need to know concerning what we are to believe concerning God and what God requires of us in the Law and the Gospel.

[Pekka (80.222.58.34)]

About literal interpretation. My eye-opener in the matter was the following line of reasoning:

Septuagint (LXX)was completed 200 years before Christ. LXX reads differently from the hebrew Masoretic received text (MT) in several places and is clearly influenced by platonic philosophy.

Now Jesus is seen quoting LXX in the NT (though in reality he didn't because he spoke aramaic and quoted verses either in aramaic or hebrew). But then Jesus read Isaiah 53 from hebrew bible in synagogue in Nazareth.

Which one is now the "literally inspired" text, the LXX or the MT? The (hypothetical) greek original autographs of the NT quote LXX and Jesus read in Nazareth synagogue MT (or, which is even worse, the aramaic paraphrase). Here you have two "literally" true Old Testaments. I see no other solution than to give up literality.

Pekka (guy)

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Pekka, please join Dave in the "what is the real name of God--Jehovah or Yahweh" corral. The septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew into the Greek by seventy scholars. Of course it is going to read differently. Literality and inerrancy and inspiration are not all the same animal.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

"Literality and inerrancy and inspiration are not all the same animal."

True. Please give your definition of each as it relates to your usage? Thanks.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

I note that the MEANING is not affected by TRANSLATION. If we are required to make disciples of all nations then TRANSLATIONS are absolutely necessary, hence the VULGATE into Latin. We have enough biblical literature to assure us of the meaning and intent of the autographs--in fact there is more literature to confirm the Bible than there is to confirm the existence of a 'literal' Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle. Literality can be used as an epithet, but if we read the genre of poetry, apocalyptic, epistle, history etc. in the nature of the intent of the writer then we are applying a historical and grammatical hermeneutic. We take the Bible as the authors intended it in the genre it is given--being 'literal' when required and understanding idiom, usage and syntax in every place. Inerrancy addresses the truth of scripture, that it is true as Christ proclaimed to be the Truth, the Life and the Way. Inspiration concerns the source of the scripture as being from the Holy Spirit--who is to be trusted as God--who 'spoke by the prophets.'

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Yes, that is what I expected you meant.

[Steve Quinlan (168.103.207.103)]

Oh my goodness. Don't you grow weary of this debate? It seems to me that discussions of the nature of biblical inspiration are mostly red herrings. No definitive conclusion can be reached, since all arguments in this matter are essentially circular. To quote a bible passage that declares that the Bible is inspired begs the question, since prior assumptions regarding the nature of the text must have already been made. It is the “all men are liars” conundrum. (Clearly the only person who might reasonably be believed when making that statement would be a woman, most of whom know without a doubt that it is true.)

More germane than endless and essentially unanswerable questions about the nature of biblical inspiration is the question of function or use – i.e. how is the bible used in the church or how does it function for the community of faith? Belief in one process of inspiration or another does not assure that the Bible will be used wisely or humanely. I would recommend a couple of interesting works in this regard. George A. Lindbeck, "The Nature of Doctrine, Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age," Westminster Press, 1984; and more significantly, David H. Kelsey, "The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology," Fortress Press, 1975. These are both a little dated, but do get at the issues. But don't mind me, by all means debate on.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

" Belief in one process of inspiration or another does not assure that the Bible will be used wisely or humanely"

Amen, Pastor Quinlan. I will check out the books you recommend. Thanks!

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

The thing that wearies me more than anything is the separation of Scripture from Christ. The only point is using Scripture at all is to know the Christ who is revealed in it. We ought to hold the Scriptures in no higher or lower regard than Christ himself, Who is God and can only make the circularly reasoned statement, "This is true because I say so."

Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things."

While I am not interested in seeing God in his underpants, or being overly curious into the workings of God's mind which He has chosen NOT to reveal to us (lapsarianism etc.) but if the scriptures address the subject, and they do, then God had a reason for it and we ought to discuss it. Otherwise why should we trust the Bible any more than the J.C. Penney catalog?

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

"if we read the genre of poetry, apocalyptic, epistle, history etc. in the nature of the intent of the writer then we are applying a historical and grammatical hermeneutic."

Historical hermeneutics, intent of the writer...this is what I said as applied to Paul's words in regard to women speaking in church, Jim.

I think Pastor Quinlan is right in that it "No definitive conclusion can be reached, since all arguments in this matter are essentially circular." It seems to depend upon who is deciding the right and wrongs of things when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. Arguments, biblical arguments can be found for both sides of the issues.

Peronally for me the bible in it's entirty is beuatiful, edifying and in the right hands, freeing. In the wrong hands, used to manipulate and drive wedges between believers it becomes another thing used to hurt people.

Now, please... I don't want to re-start another dreary, wearing argument with you or anyone else, Jim. Seriously. I wish only that we might entreat Pastor Quinlan to speak more on any subject at all. I never heard him preach sorry to say...and am interested in his approach (even if he also disagrees with me).

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

This is That, by Douglas Wilson (http://www.credenda.org/issues/14-1presbyterion.php)

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Ever the literalist, eh, Jim? But even that need brakes.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.149.184)]

Nic; What I meant by 'the early church' getting everything right was did the church in the time following the death of all the original apostles get the canon of Scripture exactly right? Is there a possibility they muffed something? Jim obviously thinks not; but that's by faith. The Bible itself says nothing of it, because it happened after the whole Bible was written. Logically, this leaves us uncertain; though we can take it by faith. Did those making these decisions all unanimously agree? I don't think so. Personally, I'm willing to take the Scripture as it stands; but I don't think it's beyond question.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.149.184)]

Sorry Cordell, I'm just trying to be intellectually honest.

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

I have something further to say. It is not easy to take a stand against the dominant voices in Christianity who feel they have the authority to say who is or isn’t one of God’s own. It’s not unlike those in our country who take it upon themselves to decide who is a real American and who is not. I am both a Christian and an American—even if my ideas differ from yours.

I realize that what I am about to share will provoke anger, but that is not my intent. Of course, you are free to disagree with my ideas and to voice that disagreement, but I will not argue with anyone. I am speaking merely to give voice to others who may find truth in what I say.

Jim, I have excerpted a passage from our personal correspondence—not something I normally would do. However, you have made similar comments on this forum and made reference to something I wrote to you in an e-mail, so I am assuming you would not fault me for doing this. If this is not the case, I earnestly apologize. BTW, Jim, I have tremendous respect for your integrity, intelligence, knowledge and zeal. It’s just that we see things very differently.

Contrary to what some may think, I do not abandon the Bible. I accept most of its teachings—especially those about sin, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and sanctification. However, my focus is radically different; the vantage point or lense, if you will, through which I see God is the Spirit first, and the Word is subordinate. I believe the Bible is inspired, but not inerrant. I am aware that this view discredits me with fundamentalist Christians and even causes them to question my salvation. But it is not an arbitrary stance I’ve adopted to avoid accountability; it is a revolutionary shift in paradigm that I believe is of God’s own doing.

All the years I submitted to the Bible as a good fundamentalist were a constant struggle. I found significant contradictions between what the Bible appeared to say and what God was speaking to my heart—which is what Christians claim is impossible. The more I came under the Bible’s authority, the more I felt separated from Him.

Some assert that I have created an "other" Jesus. But isn’t that exactly what the Jews must have concluded when they compared the Living Jesus to the scriptural witness about the messiah? How could they have been so off base? They had the Bible—the Word of God--and still they did not recognize Him when He came. I don’t think it is only that God blinded their eyes; they did not know His nature. The Bible can go only so far in revealing the Living God without the Spirit.

A case in point: In John 8, the "scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery [to Jesus], and having set her in the midst, they said to Him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?’"

Of course, we know that Jesus did not tell them to act in accordance with the Scriptures; instead, He revealed the nature of God through His merciful response. Some would say Jesus responded this way to show the difference between the old and new covenants. But I see more in this story.

How many fundamentalist Christians would have responded exactly as did the religious men of Jesus’ time and are in fact, doing the very same thing today? I have noticed how so many love to speak about the final judgment—when God separates the wheat and tares, sheep and goats—casting unbelievers into the lake of fire. How many do you think would be appalled if God in His sovereign will managed to save everyone? Do you think they’d rejoice or feel cheated? They are looking for the messianic conqueror to justify them (i.e., prove them right all along—not the justification through the cross) just as much as the Jews were; they do not know the meek, humble and lowly Savior. It is they, I believe, who worship "another Jesus."

There are teachings in the Bible which if followed scrupulously, seem to lead to unhealthy and unwholesome places. For instance, I have a friend who remains in an abusive marriage. Because of the Bible's teachings on submissiveness, she does not challenge her husband's abuse. She believes she is honoring God in her submission. Now, I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I, myself, have been happily married to the same man for more than 18 years. But it is interesting that during the first two years of our marriage, while we submitted to the biblical models of husband/wife roles, we had a terrible time. Then we abandoned the formula and began interacting as equals in every way. We honor and submit to each other and when there is conflict, we seek consensus. Sometimes this is a painful process that takes time to reach resolution. For instance, we will come to the bargaining table, so to speak, with a list of needs. One by one, we let go of the lesser demands, until we are left with a core set of needs that must be met for each of us to be at peace. Ultimately, we find a solution that honors the core needs of each other. But if we were following the biblical model, once we reached a stalemate, my husband would just pull rank and I would be left feeling violated and discontent. And of course there is the Scripture that exhorts the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church. I agree with this principle wholeheartedly. But I believe it applies to both, not just the husband. Both the man and the woman submit to each other in love through the power of the Holy Spirit. Obedience is never the issue. This is just one small area in which the written Word falls far short of the Living Word. Our marriage, while it does not conform to the letter, does, I believe, conform to God's nature.

As Paul said in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This, I believe, is a breakthrough passage—a place where Paul transcends cultural limitations and grasps the highest of truths. But what about I Pet. 3:5 and Eph. 5:22? I think there are many such conflicts in the Scriptures. And how shall we reconcile them? By being in touch with the Spirit of Truth.

Many of my problems with the Bible surround issues of social justice and compassion. For instance, I had been reading the NT passages about slavery and was surprised at their sanction of the institution. It is true that Paul provides one verse that allows for a slave to become free if given the opportunity, but the overwhelming weight of the verses seems to lean toward acceptance. I then started to look into the history of the abolitionist movement and was shocked to learn that most Bible Christians believed God did not want slaves to seek their freedom. It was the "free-thinking" atheists and liberal Christians who pushed for justice. Later, when it was a done deal, mainstream Christianity jumped on the bandwagon. Of course, now, only the most radical Christian groups would assert that God sanctions slavery. And so, I postulated to those I know who are Bible defenders that they are beginning from a moral position (that slavery is wrong) and seeking to justify this position with the Scriptures. But I assert that if we were to draw our convictions from the Bible alone, we would be hard-pressed to find justification for the abolitionist movement.

Anyway, following are Jim’s comments that capture the underlying premises of the debate for me.

"Your point is that the Bible teaches that slavery is ok. My point is that whatever God ordains is right and good. He ordained the slaughter of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan--every man, woman and child in the place. He ordained the destruction of the Amelekites and punished Saul for sparing Agag. Are there any "innocent" people when all are found under sin? Why is slavery in and of itself evil? We assume from our history that the enslavement of Africans was completely an evil thing because we were taught the winners' propaganda. If we only read the divorce proceedings in the local press and the police blotter concerning spousal abuse, we could easily conclude that marriage was an evil, abusive, enslaving institution for women--and indeed some ardent radical feminists argue as much--saying that marital sex is equal to rape."

Jim did go on to affirm that the Scriptures support freedom in Christ, only that rebellion is wrong. But of course, abolition was a revolutionary movement, so I wonder what his position would have been at the time.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that if we submit our sense of right and wrong, justice, and goodness to what the Bible says--even if the convictions of our deepest selves bear witness to something else--we are glorifying God (i.e., if the Bible said that God was a pedophile, they would say "amen.") But I don't see how that exalts God at all. On the other hand, I believe the only thing that glorifies Him is when I can truly affirm His beauty and goodness, because my own spirit bears witness to it. Many would argue this is only my natural man speaking. However Paul said: “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit" (II Cor. 3:17,18). And in Jer. 31: “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them” (34). I believe my deepest convictions are those that the Holy Spirit has formed in me so that I will be able to worship God in truth, not merely because I am told to.

Jesus told the disciples: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you…If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him… But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" (Mat. 14:16-26).

I think it is worth noting that Jesus did not tell the disciples to wait for the next installment of the Bible (Acts 1:4,5). I absolutely agree that I must keep His Word, but it is the Living Word spoken by the Holy Spirit. Unless He confirms--convicts or convinces me—about a scripture, I will not believe it. (“Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” Luke: 24:32.)

Many Christians believe we are susceptible to deception without the authoritative Book—every word. But I ask, how did the church fathers happen to select these particular books for the canon from the many hundreds circulated among Christians? It was the Holy Spirit. And how do we Christians come to believe in the Bible as opposed to the Koran or the Book of Mormon? Again it is the Holy Spirit who confirms it. So why is the Spirit sufficient for these things and not my day-to-day walk? Does the Spirit have only enough power to carry me to the Book and drop me there?

I believe that God moved through fallible men and women all throughout history. And every believer in his/her own generation must "test the spirits" in all things. Is it possible that God could have produced and preserved a "perfect" and inerrant book for all the generations? Absolutely, it is possible. But that seems inconsistent with what I know about the way God intervenes in our lives. I have come to see that He wishes me to have discernment—more than just testing truth against what’s written--a deep and intimate knowledge of who He is.

I think we Christians have to consider if the way the Church has approached and understood the Bible may be an obstacle to what God wants to reveal to us. One could have reasonably assumed that after Jesus came we would have had God’s culmination of thoughts on all things. But that isn’t the case. I can imagine that it was difficult for the disciples chosen by Jesus to accept Paul. He never even knew Christ the man. And what Paul was proposing went counter to Jesus’ own words. In Matthew 10: 5,6, Jesus said: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." So how could God be leading this man to do something that contradicted what Jesus said? Can’t you just hear the Christians of the time arguing against the presentation of the gospel to those outside of Jerusalem? "God does not lie; He would never go against His own Word. This is heresy!" However, today we believers can rightly discern that Paul’s vision was consistent with God’s nature. It was a matter of timing.

Fundamentalist Christians assert that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. I agree. But we humans are not. Human beings are not always able to hear all that God has to say—individually or corporately. I know that I can hear things from God today that I never would have been able to accept 15 or 20 years ago. I think this is also true for the Church.

Consider Matthew 19: 3-8: "And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?' And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause a man shall leave His father and mother, and shall cleave to the wife; and the two shall become one flesh? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.' They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?' He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." So here Jesus Himself is saying that God's people could not accept the whole truth in the past and so He allowed a smaller truth to stand in for His full thought.

What I have observed is that individuals who try to contain God in the Book have resisted Him at every important juncture of history.

So what are the implications of all this? Well, I recognize that I am either walking with the Lord or I am hopelessly deceived. Either I am fellowshipping with His Spirit or He will one day say, "I never knew you." But I can do nothing else. If I turn from my God as I know Him, I have no basis for any faith at all.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Bob,
If the early church had got everything right, there would be very few of the NT epistles. Or is that what you referred to? I do think the APOSTLES got it right when they wrote the scriptures.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

You speak for me as well, Karen, and you're right: it isn't easy..."to take a stand against the dominant voices in Christianity who feel they have the authority to say who is or isn’t one of God’s own. It’s not unlike those in our country who take it upon themselves to decide who is a real American and who is not. I am both a Christian and an American—even if my ideas differ from yours."

Amen. And thank you.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

No Karen, I am not going to scold you for inserting the part from my email. God is not going to spend centuries revealing himself in His written word and then say OOPS, I blew it, you guys are right, you are more moral than I used to be--time for me to catch up with the times. I am sorry to sound trite, but what are we suggesting that God needs to 'lead us' to receive his word when he already has commanded us to believe it?

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God"

The Spirit is consistent in His work of revelation just as he is in regeneration. You cannot have your cake in this place and eat it too. The written Word is just as much the work of the Spirit of God as is Jesus in your heart. If we can trust the Word in one place we can trust all the Word--even the parts that appall us as well as the part that tells us about the Spirit. There is no conflict between the Word and the Spirit--there is always a conflict between our sinful hearts and both Word and Spirit.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

I did not by the way, say who is and who is not God's own. (and would hardly be considered by any to be a dominant voice in Christianity.)

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

"Why is slavery in and of itself evil? We assume from our history that the enslavement of Africans was completely an evil thing because we were taught the winners' propaganda."

Jim. You really believe this?

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Karen, your post was so lengthy it is difficult to comment on all you wrote, but I just have to say something about a few of your statements.

First, "I believe the Bible is inspired but not inerrant". I don't even know where to begin with this one. WHO do you think inspired it then? If God inspired it, there are certainly no errors in it. "inspired but not inerrant" has got to be the ultimate oxymoron. Just because our human understanding might not see the whole picture, I don't think God is in error.

Next, "I found significant contradictions between what the Bible appeared to say and what God was speaking to my heart." Well, given that choice, I'd go with the Bible all the way! Our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (yes, even as Christians) and if God seems to be saying something in that heart that contradicts the Bible, it's a pretty sure thing it's not God.

Then, "Unless He confirms--convicts or convinces me--about a scripture, I will not believe it." Well, it is certainly your choice not to believe, but as Jim said, God has already commanded us to believe it.

You seem to be living very subjectively, and most of all separating the Word from the Spirit. As if the Spirit would tell you something contrary to the Word. I John 5:7 says "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are ONE".
I notice when Jesus went through his temptation with Satan in the wilderness, He didn't close His eyes and wait to see what the Spirit was saying. He quoted the Word of God to Satan. Because that IS what the Spirit is saying. They are one.
There have been so many posts today that use all these big fancy words, trying to rationalize away the Word of God. As Shania Twain would say, "That don't impress me much." The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. His thoughts are not our thoughts. The Bible is inspired, inerrant, and truth, whether or not the puny human mind agrees with it.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

So, Nic...you believe in slavery too?

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Uh, Nic...she was quoting Faucett. Need a napkin to get that egg off your face?

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

I guess you'll have to take that one up with God, Roberta. I didn't write the Bible, I just believe it. We are all bondslaves to Christ.
Colossians 3:22-24

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Nic...do you believe this?

"Why is slavery in and of itself evil? We assume from our history that the enslavement of Africans was completely an evil thing because we were taught the winners' propaganda."

[Dave Drago (68.92.85.31)]

1. Folks, this is a very engaging topic. I rest in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. However, I appreciate Steve’s point that this reasoning is circular. Yet, I would no more defend the Bible than a roaring lion. It stands alone for itself. A good read on this subject are the Josh McDowell books of Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Also, Lee Stroebel’s the Case for Christ is an outstanding resource. He was the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and he traces his journey from atheism to faith. He challenges us with questions like, how reliable is the New Testament? And, is there any reason to believe the resurrection really happened?
2. The Bible does bear witness to itself. And it is powerful and cannot be ignored.
Jesus states that heaven and earth will pass away and His words endure forever. Jeremiah said that the grass withers and the flower fades (and all flesh is like grass) but the word of our LORD endures forever.
Jesus said we are to live from every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Where can I find His words? Only in the B-IB-L-E, yes that’s the Book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E.
3. However, I have observed many aberrant interpretations coming from man. What am I to do? Do I discard my Bible on the scrap heap of human wisdom? I think not!!! Just because we do not always interpret truth correctly, it does not negate it.
It never ceases to amaze me that Jesus commissioned His church (not just the elders, but the corporate body of believers) to tell His story!!! He gave to crooked sticks the Word of God unbroken and unbound!! I love to tell how Jesus saved me from my sins, even when I was not looking, He sought me.
4. The message we see in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is that God loved me enough to bear the punishment for my sins. He loved me enough to reach down and save me when I could not save myself. How do I know that Jesus loves me? The BIBLE tells me so.
5. One thing Christians can share in is the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ and His death, burial, resurrection and return. We may differ on the particulars (I know in part now, but I will know in full when He comes), but we can appreciate diversity within the historical orthodox faith, once and for all delivered to the saints.
6. I came across a great little poem this week as I prepared for the Sunday morning Worship Service. Enjoy:
Believe as I believe, no more, no less;
That I am right, and no one else, confess;
Feel as I feel, think as I think;
Eat what I eat, and drink what I drink;
Look as I look, do always as I do;
Then, and only then, will I fellowship with you.
-Source Unknown
A wise man said it this way:
In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials diversity and in all things love.
7. Dear God, I pray that You will keep me close to Your words and believe them all even when I do not understand them. I pray I will always approach Your words like a little child, and that my academic studies will draw me closer to You. LORD, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I thank You that You saw fit to place me in Your kitchen drawer. Use me as an instrument of peace. Your son, Dave.
P.S. I also pray that my brothers and sisters and those reading this site will attend a House of Worship this week and that they are built up and encouraged in the faith. God loves YOU!!!
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Roberta...do you believe this?

"Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave." (I Cor 7:20-22)

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Nic...Don't play the "avoid the question" game with me. Do you believe in the slavery of human beings to other human beings?

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Believe as I believe, no more, no less;
That I am right, and no one else, confess;
Feel as I feel, think as I think;
Eat what I eat, and drink what I drink;
Look as I look, do always as I do;
Then, and only then, will I fellowship with you.
-Source Unknown

Explain....

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

Roberta,
I believe a question was posed to you also. Do you believe the verses I quoted as the Word of God? It is not really a question of what I believe to be right, or what you believe to be right. The only right one is God, which is why I answered you with bible verses. It would seem that God views the issue of slavery differently than you. Now, should you be questioning me on this or God on this? Because I think His views are more important than mine

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I question you...again...do you believe that human beings should enslave others...your bible says so...then you must believe it.

I do not in any way believe in slavery. I don't believe God does either. But since you do believe that God believes in enslavement, you must disagree with the governments world wide who have outlawed it, yes?

Or are you going to cleverly avoid this question too? You sound more and more like Carl...careful!

[Dave Drago (68.92.85.31)]

What do you think? A very intriguing poem!!!
Let me give you a context. Matthew 5:43-48. Love your enemies. And Pray for those who mistreat you. Then you will be acting like your Father in heaven. He makes the sun rise on the good and bad people. He sends rain to the ones who do right and the ones who do wrong. If you love only those who love you, will God reward you for that? Even tax collectors(ugh, the IRS) love their friends. If you greet only your friends, what's so great about that? Don't even unbelievers do that? But you must always act like your Father in heaven.
Explanation: When I was an enemy of God HE loved me. God has accepted me because Jesus sacrificed HIs life's blood. Even when we were God's enemies He loved us, He made peace with us, because His son died for us.
Illustration: Jesus, when they drove the nails into His hands and feet said,"Father forgive them , they do not know what they are doing."
Jesus, shared fogiveness with the dying criminal on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise."
Application: When I love those who I have a hard time loving and pray for those I disagree with I am maturing in the love of God and His peace and grace overwhelms me. When I am at work and my boss belittles me I pray. When I am in the neighborhood and my neighbor drives me nuts, I befriend him. When I give up my rights to reveal the love of God I am maturing in His plan for my life.
Does that help?

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

Roberta,
I will spell it out plainly since you do not seem to understand what I have been saying.
The idea of slavery seems just as wrong to me as it does to you. In our culture and times it is unlawful. However, I cannot deny that it was a common thing in biblical times and that God spoke of it in His Word, in the verses that I used. When it comes to my thoughts being contrary to God's thoughts, I have to concede that God is wiser, and there is a reason He said what He said about slavery. Maybe it does not seem kind or fair to me. But God did say it in His Word. So rather than dismiss the Bible as outdated or in error, I have to go again with I Cor 3:19.....human wisdom is foolishness with God.

Now you can answer my question plainly: what do you think of I Cor 7:20-22 which I quoted?

[Dave Drago (68.92.85.31)]

Slavery: God is not the author of slavery man is. It is the hardness of man’s heart. However, He does advocate for their humane treatment in scripture. He knows the depths of our depravity. To say that God instituted slavery is not accurate. He is not the Author of Sin.
Don't you see how great the Word of God is? He views all men as equal. He gives the slave and the free, the rich and the poor, the smart and the dumb, the brave and the coward, the short and the tall, the slim and the plump all the invitation to receive His forgiveness. The writer of Proverbs said: “The rich and the poor have this in common; the LORD is the Maker of them both." John said in Revelation: "I saw a great white throne with someone sitting on it...I also saw all the dead people standing in front of that throne. Every one of them was there, no matter who they had once been."
God is concerned with eternal justice.
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

Thank you, Dave, for clarifying that. It is not that God advocates slavery, but He made provisions for slaves who became Christians to look beyond their situation and know they were free in Christ. And He used this issue to teach us that we are all slaves to Christ, and that is not a negative thing.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

" "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America."

Well, Nic, Jefferson Davis agrees with you. I do not believe that the bible must be believed innerrant to be loved. I just don't. And for the very reasons you said.."The idea of slavery seems just as wrong to me as it does to you. In our culture and times it is unlawful."

The bible needs to be looked at in practical terms, Nic. That is all I am saying...

"the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as a extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

It isn't practical, morally right or sane to believe in genocide, slavery etc. Mankind grows, learns, becomes more aware as the centuries unfold...God is okay with that. There is no need to use biblical blinders to live in the world.

Karen's post said it better than I can. All parents want their children to grow, to become smart, to learn to think...the bible works well in most every case even today, which is it's beauty, but we as God's children, must remember that there are only two things to remember..."To love thy God with all thy heart, and to love your neighbor as thyself." Personally I am not up for being anyone's slave therefore i will enslave no one...easy, relaxed, free of the jots and tittles that make us all argue.

This is what I am saying, Nic. These two things Jesus himself said are enough to live in this world as brothers and sisters. It is all there is, really.

Why isn't it enough for you and others who say slavery must be right cuz it;s in the bible, when you know in your heart that it is wrong.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Yes Dave...I realized that already...wasn't sure Nic did, and I am still not sure what Jim was talking about.

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

He rescued you well, Nic.

[Dave Drago (68.92.85.31)]

Again, God did not establish slavery, mankind did. God does not author sin. Men took the Old and New Testament passages and said that since slavery exists, God has authored it. Again, faulty reasoning. Remember, it was the christians in the ancient Roman empire that stopped slavery. It was the christians in England and America who stopped slavery.
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Dave Drago (68.92.85.31)]

Roberta,
your killing me!!! What did you think of that poem?

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

Slavery is not "right" but it is a reality of humankind, and that is why God addresses it as He did. As Dave said, He knows the depths of our depravity.


Roberta, you say,
"I do not believe that the bible must be believed innerrant to be loved...... The bible needs to be looked at in practical terms.."

Well, the bible you say you love claims to be inerrant. EVERY Word of God is pure, we are to live by EVERY Word of God. Would God tell us that if His Word included error? That is not very practical

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

Nic is the most honest. She is looking at the Scriptures objectively and realizes that they sanction slavery. Whereas, you, Dave, are beginning from a moral conviction that slavery is wrong (which I agree with) and are trying to find justification for that position in the Bible.

This is precisely the conflict I am speaking about.

-Karen

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

The poem...Oh yes...sorry. Too much mutitasking going on here...

Well, I must say if you hadn't explained the context in which you see it I would have have seen it as the Christian Right's Rules and Regs of Fellowship. I mean, I have already been told that if I don't attend a local church I must not be fellowshiped with (odd sentence construction, sorry). This is something I still find rather foolish, but...I am not up for arguing it again...*s*

Other wise I understand where you're coming from with it. You see the positive aspect, due to context.

I'll share one of my favorites with you by Madame Guyon

Love Increased by Suffering

"I love the Lord," is still the strain
This heart delights to sing:
But I reply - your thoughts are vain,
Perhaps 'tis no such thing.

Before the power of love divine
Creation fades away;
Till only God is seen to shine
In all that we survey.

In gulfs of awful night we find
The God of our desires;
'Tis there he stamps the yielding mind,
And doubles all its fires.

Flames of encircling love invest,
And pierce it sweetly through;
'Tis fill'd with sacred joy, yet press'd
With sacred sorrow too.

Ah love! my heart is in the right-
Amidst a thousand woes,
To thee, its ever new delight,
And all its peace it owes.

Fresh causes of distress occur
Where'er I look or move;
The comforts I to all prefer
Are solitude and love.

Nor exile I nor prison fear;
Love makes my courage great;
I find a Saviour every where,
His grace in every state.

Nor castle walls, nor dungeons deep,
Exclude his quickening beams;
There I can sit, and sing, and weep,
And dwell on heavenly themes.

There sorrow, for his sake, is found
A joy beyond compare;
There no presumptuous thoughts abound,
No pride can enter there.

A Saviour doubles all my joys,
And sweetens all my pains,
His strength in my defence employs,
Consoles me and sustains.

I fear no ill, resent no wrong;
Nor feel a passion move,
When malice whets her slanderous tongue;
Such patience is in love.

[Dave Drago (68.92.85.31)]

“Nic is the most honest. She is looking at the Scriptures objectively and realizes that they sanction slavery. Whereas, you, Dave, are beginning from a moral conviction that slavery is wrong (which I agree with) and are trying to find justification for that position in the Bible.

This is precisely the conflict I am speaking about”

1. Karen, of course slavery is appalling to me. However, I am looking at the scriptures objectively and seeing that God does not sanction slavery. I am not justifying slavery, I am explaining that God permits it to exist like other sins.
2. When He sets up His Kingdom on earth, every man will be free. When God reigns we will not have wars and other problems we face now. When mankind is in charge, he abuses his authority.
3. I could say you are not looking at the bible objectively because you are stating He sanctions slavery. I say the bible shows HE tolerates it for now. There is a big difference.
4. Webster’s definition of sanction: Sanction: “from the Latin which means to make holy. A formal decree, a solemn agreement. To make valid or binding by a formal procedure.”
5. Where in the bible does God say, “Thou shalt make slaves.?” He does not authorize it, He does not sanction it, but He addresses it. He permits it because of the hardness of our heart. I agree to disagree
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Dave Drago (68.92.85.31)]

Roberta,
That is beautiful. The kids are in the worship center singing right now (It is VBS this week). I love the little children, red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight.
I am going upstairs to worship with the little ones.
God bless and goodnight.
For HIm,
Dave Drago

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

I heartily appreciate what you're saying, Dave. But imagine yourself in the 18th or 19th century and you are trying to determine God's mind on the subject. You have little or no cultural support for your conviction that slavery is wrong. All you have is the Bible. Please, look at the NT Scriptures that address the subject specifically. To eradicate slavery, you will have to support a revolutionary movement that is characterized as rebellion. What do you do with the following verses: I Cor 7:20-22; Ephesians 6:5-9 and I Tim. 6:1-3.

[Izziesoul (209.6.151.215)]

Nic: I agree with you 100% in your view of the Bible. I have said that same thing to people that if they do not believe the Bible then what do they base their faith on?
In the case of the "slavery" issue, it is a sad and terrible fact of even our present day lives.
Jesus knew this and therefore offered hope to all of us enslaved to something one way or another.
The slavery can be many things and does not necessarly mean that we are enslaved to another human being (although many are). We will only be truly free in the arms of Jesus.
Iz

[John Krainis (207.5.239.219)]

Let's say I have a controversy with the Bible. What are the possibilities?

1. The Bible is wrong,

2. I am wrong, or

3. My understanding of the Bible is wrong.

(Or some combination.)

Most of my controversies have been resolved by working through #2 and #3. Some are still pending!

Really interesting discussion by the way.

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

John,
Rest assured #1 will never be the case

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

This is what the Bible says about slavery. (I might add that there are different sorts of slavery.) Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.

The point I was making during my email to Karen is this: There are liberal theologians, for example those who advocate homosexual priests and marriages who take a "that was then this is now" view of the scriptures. Whenever we evangelicals quote either Testament's prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality, they bring up slavery and leave us stammering. This happened to Jerry Falwell on national televison. A liberal theologian cleaned his clock because Jerry said something like "that was then this is now" concerning God's approval of slavery. The liberal went on to say something like, "That's right Jerry, that was then this is now. The Bible condemned homosexuality and approved slavery then, this is now." Jerry ended up sounding like Porky Pig.

Whatever the Bible says about slavery, or any other subject is God's view of it. His ways are not our ways.

This verse is Exodus 21:12 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." This is God speaking. Does it sound like sanctioning or toleration? It speaks of a man beating his slave. The prior verses mete out punishment for the murder of a slave if he dies fairly soon. This verse follows. Please, all you great theologians, explain this verse.

In the record of the fourth commandment we find this phrase:

but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; {in it} you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.

Please explain what these slaves are doing in the moral law.


Please find me a single verse in all the scriptures that outright condemns slavery as an institution and not speaking spiritually.

I am bringing this up to you because I was challenged by liberal theologians to do the same thing. They want to attack our sensibilities. They want to show that they are more moral than God. They howl that the Bible condones slavery therefore the Bible should be discarded or at least brought down to the level of "any other book." The Bible tells slaves in the NEW TESTAMENT to serve their masters well.

We have hope for slaves in only two places SPECIFICALLY (I don't count Gal. 3:28 because it does not condemn slavery any more than it condemns being a barbarian) and those places are:

1Cor 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.

And: Philemon v. 15-17
For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord forever. If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me.

Paul and Peter both advise slaves to serve their masters well. The Bible does appear to condemn the slave trade. (and I am sure it makes not a blind bit of difference now that Virginia was the state that desired that the slave trade be ended before 1808 as the Constitution directs.)

Concerning American slavery, my point was that we often attempt to lay on our 19th century predecessors our 21st century cultural political correctness and sensibilities. Americans are notoriously historically ignorant. They have no concept of how we came to be where we are now. For example, many Christians point to the decision by the Supreme Court to remove prayer from schools or to allow abortion as the beginning of our decline. Our decline began a hundred years prior. The history we learn in our schools -- along with the theories in the other subjects as well -- are the winners' tale. We study evolution as fact because the evolutionists won out. We are heavy laden with political correctness because those academics who promote it won out. Politically, we have an income tax (forbidden in the constitution) because of the burden of burgeoning government after the Civil War and the politicians that favored larger centralized government won out.

We study history the way we do because it is the winners' tale. Southerners who refused to take a loyalty oath were forbidden to teach in schools. The primary phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance to its author was not 'under God' or 'of the United States of America.' Those two phrases were absent in the first pledge, and both were objected to by the author in the case of the latter and by his descendents in the case of the former. The main phrase he wanted emphasised just fifty years after the Civil War was 'one nation, indivisible' so that never again would any state attempt secession from the union. We say the Pledge (the origin of which we are ignorant) the way we do because of those who won out in rewriting it.


We are ignorant of our history. We are individualistic and syncretic in our approach to Christianity. Some of you who have left GGWO would be better off if you had never left, because you have leapt off the back of the cow into the dung.

[Steve Quinlan (12.45.124.218)]

Jim, You started this thread with my name on it. As a Christian and a human being, I am embarrassed by your post here addressing the issue of slavery and the bible. This will be the very last item I post on this message board, since I choose not to be a part of a discussion of this sort. I have left my email address on all my posts and will be happy to correspond with anyone in that way. Blessings to you all.

[Pekka (80.222.58.34)]

Nobody has proved my point wrong yet. Exactly because LXX is a translation, why is used as base for a literally inspired NT?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

True Defiance,A Relevant Article by Douglas Wilson (http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-1thema.php)

Steve,
I gave my reasons and if you read carefully what I have said you will see that I am not defending the institution of slavery--see my comments on 1 Cor. 7 and Philemon. I am merely pointing out how far we have departed from being able to read Scripture and trust the Author.

I am sorry that we hogged your thread, but as I can attest on the other thread I started, this happens.

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

Steve,
You say you are embarrassed by Jim's post. Yet you neither refute what Jim said with scriptures nor give your own view backed up by scriptures. Why do you choose not to be part of a discussion of this sort? You choose to just pop in with a negative comment, but do not explain your criticism or your own position at all. This seems a bit condescending and arrogant

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

Pastor Quinlan is not in any way obliged to participate. Perhaps he realizes how futile it is trying discuss these topics with people who are not entreatable...after all, he was in this position years ago I recall, and left GGWO for similar reasons. Sounds like he has learned the wisdom of saving his breath and energies for other more fruitful discussions.

Frankly I see his point. Jim's rather "circular" post about slavery is the same thing that is always said by literalists. I wonder how Africam American people can stomach this biblical BS...sorry JIm this statement was over the line...

"Why is slavery in and of itself evil? We assume from our history that the enslavement of Africans was completely an evil thing because we were taught the winners' propaganda."

...too far over the line and no amount of biblical tirades from you, Nic, Dave or anyone can make this right.

Tis no wonder black juries believe in jury nullification when people believe this rubbish. If this is the typical mindset of southern Christians I am damned glad you lost the war.

Sorry Jim. That statement and your back up argument are just plain terrible. I have heard it before from ignorant, uneducated people...but from you...just too much.

I am sorry to see Pastor Quinlan leave, but I don't blame him.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

I paraphrase from memory: GOD: Moses, I'm going to take Israel down and use you to start a new people for me. They've blown it and this is MY judgment.

Moses: Forget it Lord. If you're gonna take down Israel, then take my name out of Your Book.

Moses obviously got it wrong here.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

Karen; I really, really, really liked your post. The Holy Spirit is not meant to brought into what we think is subjection to what He has previously said. He leads us into all truth. Jesus Himself is called 'the Word'. Is He not?

When the Bible was being written, things not presently in it were being written as well. A majority of people in the place to decide decided which writings to include. Were they all Spirit filled? How can I know? How can you? If this were being decided today, would you have faith in God to rightly direct a council made up from all different denominations and churches to do EXACTLY what God wanted? Do you suppose that today is different? Read a little church history about those times. When Paul was writing there were all kinds of heresies being taught within the churches. Who decided who should decide? Maybe the Holy Spirit made sure every book that should be included was, and that none that shouldn't be was; but how can you be so very certain of that? Isn't it logically possible that God left tares in the written Word? He hasn't taken them out of the Church. I'm not asking you to say that there are tares in it. I'm asking you to see that it's possible. He didn't promise us that He'd remove false teachings from the Church; and aren't we (the Church) the living expression of Christ?

The fear I have is that believers will use the written Word to contradict what the Holy Spirit is seeking to say and do. In your flesh, you can use the Word to contradict itself. Is this not true? Without the Holy Spirit we are totally blind spiritually. The letter without the Spirit is dead. Hath not God said?

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

Jim; I don't question what the Apostles actually wrote; but there is question over authorship of some books, and some were not written by apostles. And changes in various copyings and translations is another whole can of worms. Did you ever answer my question about the Amplified and Wuest's Expanded?

Also; it deeply grieves me that Steve Quinlan has decided to stop posting here; and because of something that is not really a current day issue for this country. But actually, slavery is a current day issue. The unbelievable difference in the standard of living between the CEOs and the laborers they feed off is no different than what existed in France prior to the Revolution there. The Spirit cries out in anger within me over this. God hates it when the Haves gain more by oppressing the weak. Can't you taste His hatred of it? The Scriptures you so dearly love state it quite clearly. Do some research. And how can we look at the American Revolution as some kind of Godly exercise when it was rebellion against God's ordained authority? Sorry. I'm a little feisty this morning. Nothing personal. If you can, please try to bring Steve back. His postings are so spiritually clear. I really want what God has made him to be here with us. Love, Bob

[John Krainis (207.5.239.219)]

For me this has to do with the character of God. Since He is loving, He would not leave us in the dark without reliable information about Himself. Due to His power and genius, He is able to do this using flawed humans (to pen the inspired writings, and later to identity them).

So I'm comfortable having confidence in God's ability and love, and uncertainty about my own ability to always interpret Him properly. I would suggest we need the Spirit's help understanding and applying the Bible, not determining which sections are inspired.

If we believe the Holy Spirit is able to guide our understanding of divine things, why not believe that He is able to guide the creation of a trustworthy original? The writers could draw from oral traditions, written ones (LXX, Apocrapha, pagan poetry, hymns, etc.), and the Spirit could ensure that the whole was cohesive and correct.

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

John,

You say, "this has to do with the character of God. Since he is loving..." My point is that if you base your understanding of God's character of love on what the Word says, your definition of "love" will have to encompass what most of us would not consider loving. Most Christians try not to examine this too closely; instead, they minimize the hateful, bigoted parts of Scripture and rely on their own understanding of love. What they are doing in essence is putting the Spirit FIRST, over the Word. They avoid the implications of their selective belief in the Scriptures by claiming they have a limited human understanding.

On the other hand, literalists, whose understanding of the Lord's nature is derived solely from the Bible present a God who would make most Christians cringe. I am thankful for these individuals, because they have helped clarify the issues for me.

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Bob, you wrote:
"Isn't it logically possible that God left tares in the written Word? He hasn't taken them out of the Church. I'm not asking you to say that there are tares in it. I'm asking you to see that it's possible. He didn't promise us that He'd remove false teachings from the Church; and aren't we (the Church) the living expression of Christ?"

No, it is not possible. Every word of God is pure. It is forever settled in heaven. To quote you, "Jesus Himself is called 'the Word'. Is He not?" The Church is not the same thing, it is made up of saved sinners who still have their old sin nature. It is not a logical comparison at all.

Karen, you said,
"My point is that if you base your understanding of God's character of love on what the Word says, your definition of "love" will have to encompass what most of us would not consider loving."

God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts, His thoughts and ways are higher.

Roberta, just because someone posts about the bible does not make it a 'biblical tirade'. We could call the posts against it heretical tirades, and then you would lecture us on everyone having a right to their view

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

John,
Thank you for your post. I totally agree. I think God would have had quite an interest in making sure the Bible contained exactly what He intended, despite using flawed men

[John Krainis (207.5.239.219)]

Karen,

I'm starting with a couple of premises which are admittedly partly based on faith and partly tautologous. They are:

1. The Scriptures are acccurate, and

2. God is good.

So that means I have to wrestle with why a good God decrees judgments - Noah's flood, destruction of the Canaanites, Hell etc., which I'm guessing is what you see as troubling (please advise if otherwise).

But in reading those difficult passages, rather than doubt the reliability of the record or the goodness of God, I see my challenge as trying to figure out whether my understanding of God needs to change. Per Rich Mullins, "I doubt my heart, I doubt my eyes". Maybe my understanding of love is limited - it was said of Aslan that he was "not a tame lion".

CS Lewis also talked about "God in the box" - how we His creations tend to judge Him. The first campaign to separate us from God was an implication that God was capricious or untrustworthy ("Hath God said..").

I really believe that the dependability of Scripture, the goodness of God, and the "difficult" texts can ultimately be harmonized. I see my understanding as the weak link in it all (and I think we're kind of saying the same thing).

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

John,

Though I think we're approaching this from a different angle, I have always seen Christ in you. That is the bottom line for me.

God bless you.

-Karen

[John Krainis (207.5.239.219)]

Karen, I really appreciate that, and have always been impressed with the Christ-like way you treat one and all.

One other thought on inerrancy:

It's informative how Jesus dealt with misguided people of His day (especially the "fundamentalist" Pharisees) - it was always to point out that they did not really understand the Bible - "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God".

He consistently validated the OT, and challenged the way His antagonists interpreted it.

I think a similar faulty interpretation is behind the dumb things we Christians do - ggwo errors, silence during the holocaust, justification of heinous treatment of American slaves, geocentricity - unfortunately it's a long list.

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

John,

Gotta go out, but before I do, I want to respond briefly. What you said in your last post makes sense to me, and I am open to all of Scripture--as long as the Holy Spirit shows me how to apply it. What I won't do is submit to a verse that violates what I know of God. If He opens my understanding so that I can see it is of Him, I will respond. I always think of the passage where Jesus describes the true Shepherd as one who leads His sheep, not drives them.

Have a great day.

-Karen

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

God's idea of being 'loving' and our ideas of what is and is not loving can be quite different.

'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but <FONT COLOR="ff0000">put to death both man and woman, child and infant</FONT>, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'

I am assuming that this is perhaps one of those verses that fall into the "unloving" category that would make Christians cringe. But this command begins "Thus saith the Lord." Of course I have left out some information, but as is often the case, that is what happens in these sorts of discussions. But I wonder, even if the following is added, does it soften the command to put to death every human being of this tribe?:

<FONT COLOR="ff0000">"I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt."</FONT>

How many of the Amelekites who were alive when Israel was coming out of Egypt were still around when Saul was King? Is God punishing the descendents for the crimes of their ancestors? And how guilty are the women, children and infants even if there is historical sympathy for the actions of the ancestors? Do we find fault with God here?

As the story goes, Saul, being obviously more merciful than God, spares some including Agag, King of the Amelekites. It is for this "mercy" (and I don't for a minute believe that is what it was) that Saul was rejected from being King:

<FONT COLOR="ff0000">"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king"</FONT>

Even after his confession of wrong-doing, Samuel apparently does not have any pity on poor Saul in any way but instead says:

<FONT COLOR="ff0000">"I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel."</FONT>

And further:

<FONT COLOR="ff0000">"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."</FONT>

Then we have this:

<FONT COLOR="ff0000">"But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal."</FONT>

I think we can very well assume that "before the Lord" means "with his approval." While there is something more to be said about being rejected because he rejected the WORD of the Lord, maybe later.

Is this barbaric? Is it inhuman, a literal "overkill" in exacting justice through genocide? How can God do this and still be called loving and good? How can He even be seen to be just when 'innocent' women, children and infants and even animals are slaughtered?

Does God need us Christians to do PR for Him because of His past bad behavior? Do we nervously clear our throats and come up with all sorts of softening explanations when the facts are as plain as the noses on our faces? "Well, that was then and Israel was God's client nation and God was doing that to bring Israel into the promised land, err, ahem, ahem...and of course the Amelekites were very bad people and they deserved what they got..." What? Even infants? We can not be happy with "his judgments are right."

God does not need our help. We need his. If all his judgments are right--and he says they are-- and his ways past finding out--and he says they are-- and that is all he wants us to know--will we still stand there like impudent children saying, "Well, that's just not good enough for me. I demand an explanation!"

In Romans 9 Paul anticipates a question I am sure all of us who consider ourselves 'thoughtful' when discussing the hard subjects of election and predestination have asked. It would appear to any thinking person a perfect opportunity for Paul to do some very careful PR for God. Does Paul avail himself of the opportunity to explain away and soften what appears to be God's intransigence?:

<FONT COLOR="ff0000">"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."</FONT>

We Christians in our desire to become "winsome" (which is not in itself a bad thing) have done exactly what Nietsche accused us of--"You have gelded God!"

Which of us when asked an "honest question" like "why will he yet find fault?" would answer:

<FONT COLOR="ff0000">"Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?"</FONT>

"But Paul, you've blown the perfect opportunity to give some great PR here and you're really blowing it! Calm down, don't get your nose out of joint!"

But Paul doesn't stop there, oh no, he wades in deeper and says in so many words that God can do anything he wants with his human creatures, here likened to mere 'pottery.' And then he asks, "What if God..." I don't think we like reading this stuff--get out the scissors. But this is the very point that Paul explains what the love and mercy thing are really all about.

God endures with patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction to make known the riches of His glory known upon vessels of mercy--EVEN US...

What is the difference between one group of vessels and another? They are both pottery. Made from the same lump. Only He has the right to say as the Potter, "I will use this pot for one thing and this pot for another." And the pots have no say in the matter.

Such bad PR.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

"Roberta, just because someone posts about the bible does not make it a 'biblical tirade'. We could call the posts against it heretical tirades, and then you would lecture us on everyone having a right to their view"

Nic, you really must stop the "tit for tat" argument...it shows a real lack of imagination and a playground attitude.

Jim, and you when you can keep up, do go into lengthy biblical tirades and try hard to convince us how off we are. Then you resort to name calling (heretic comes to mind)...this is unnecessary. I am sorry Pastor Quinlan chooses not to continue, but these exchanges have become less and less a discussion, and more and more an exercise in futility, for there is no way to talk to unentreatable people. Cling if you must to the black and white. I used to be there too... but stop please looking down on others who are just as spiritually mature, if not more mature than yourself, who choose a different path. "Love your neighbor" don't beat him to death with your categorical doctrine. Love with as much passion the human being as you do the bible. This will be of great service to God, and will enlighten your heart, I am hoping.

No need to answer, Nic, for I am sure it will be the same thing you have said over and over.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

How "off" you are? Good grief.

[Jeannie (64.12.117.20)]

We must never allow the authority of books, institutions or leaders to replace the authority of knowing Jesus Christ personally and directly. When religious views of others interpose between us and the primary experience of Jesus the Christ, we become unconvicted and unpersuasive travel agents handing out brochures to places we have never visited.

Brennan Manning,Chapter 2, Magnificant Monotony
The Ragamuffin Gospel


It is worthy to note that through the history of TBS/GGWO there was never an allowance to debate on any issues. Much of our walk was external.. if the pulpit said it then we must believe it. We hindered our critical thinking skills, we terminated our thought-processes. Our world became the narrow world of black and white. So in spite of the heatedness of our discussions on factnet, this is revolutionary for many of us. It is also very necessary to search, reason and come to a conclusion on what we really believe.

I also believe some of us are not very good at this new process and it can degrade to the personal. I think this is a learned behavior from GG, a contrary voice was always marked as off, evil or someone in wicked sin. That is a cultic tactic used frequently by Carl to control "the group."

I hope we can all remember what we came out of, and can be kind and gracious to those of differing views and also open to learn opposing thoughts and embrace the new found freedom to grow in our reasoning abilities.

I saw the movie "The Village," not one of M. Night's most suspenseful but it was an excellent moral tale of deception and the sanctity of free will. The parallel's to TBS/GGWO were astounding.

Jeannie

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Some of would do well just being able to read plain English.

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

Some of "you" would do well just being to read plain English?

Nice Jim.

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

"How "off" you are?"

So what do you call it Jim. You and Nic spend an inordinate amount of time putting people down who do not believe the way you do...yep...that's telling people they are "off".

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

If the Bible contains words that are from God and words which are not, then every word of God is still pure. Shall we begin by not suffering a witch to live and by stoning those living in adultery? Which of us does not have some near relative who has the stones coming? That will give you some place to start. Is all vanity, as Solomon wrote? Was he being allegorical, or was that just some poetic whimsy?

I'm not throwing out parts of my Bible. I'm not equating my own stinking selfish flesh with the Holy Spirit so I can do whatever I want. I'm not looking to have a harem just because God gave David Saul's wives. Sometimes the Spirit restricts us in ways the written Word does not. How about them bananas?

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

Jim, Please tell me how predestination influences different aspects of your spiritual walk. Let's get off the subject we've been on. Believe me. I love God's Word. I'm really not trying to undermine it. I really just want more emphasis given to the Holy Spirit. I can't get all my answers just by studying the Word and using my will to apply it. I need Him to show me how it applies in details and to cover what I don't seem able to find in it; like who I should associate with and how and what's right for me to read beyond the Word or even about it. Does this make sense? I'm really pretty reasonable and I'm not mad at any of you. And it's not legal for me to keep slaves, and I don't want them. I can't afford it. Peace, Bob

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

1. The Bible does not contain words from God and words not from God. It is God's word.

Some of the Bible is not directly applicable to you. I.E. You cannot go to Troas to collect Paul's cloak, etc. God did not give all of Saul's wives to YOUR bosom, ad absurdum.

Applying the Bible and the Bible being the word of God are two different things.

2. Predestination influences by necessity everything we all do in that everything flows from the two decrees (or one depending on which camp you're in) from which it flows: Creation and Providence.

3. The Holy Spirit will never restrict or release you beyond what he has already revealed in His Word--the Sword of the Spirit. He will however illuminate your mind and renew it to where you can understand and apply scripture to the details of living--knowing Christ in the small things.

4. I don't keep slaves either but I am one.

5. Tnahk Yuo fer corictyrg my tppyo.

[Anonymous (170.97.67.115)]

You're certainly a slave to your ego, Jim.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

Let's try to recover what it means to be nice to one another. We can disagree and still be friends and not be katty.

Everything written in the Word of God about the Word of God was written before the decision came down on what constituted it. I'll come back to this with a Scripture when I've tracked it down; but I am going out for a season of prayer. Paul told us to pray, so I guess it's God's will. You'd better do it too. In fact; you're supposed to pray constantly, which doesn't allow you time to waste on studying...just kidding, but you get the point.

[Nic (152.163.253.102)]

Roberta,
Such interesting comments you made to me this morning.

"Nic, you really must stop the 'tit for tat' argument...it shows a real lack of imagination and a playground attitude".
"No need to answer Nic, for I am sure it will be the same thing you have said over and over".

Yes, I suppose I do show a lack of imagination when I just take the Word at face value and don't imagine my own interpretation of it. I comment on statements I see that undermine the Word of God. You can call it 'tit for tat', but you do the exact same thing when you see statements that you don't like.
And as far as saying the same thing over and over, take a look at your own posts.

Playground attitude? Am I the bully who chases people all over the board, picking fights with them? No, that would be you.
Your insults to me might upset me if I did not genuinely feel sorry for you. I think you are deceived, and I also think that you are a hard, bitter woman. I truly find you very sad.
Anyone who lives by the Word can count on being attacked by you, and in light of that, your attacks are really quite the compliment.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I know God will bless you Nic...you really have a heart for God and to learn. That I can appreciate. What I don't think you know about me, is that I love God too. I love the Bible, I just don't view it the same as you. That is what I am called a hard and bitter woman for. I spent many years in the ministry beng told not to think. I found it a blessing to be free WITH God not from God once I let the Holy Spirit lead me. Pity me if you do actually care, but I don't pity you. Because behind and beyond all the animosity about right and wrong, we are both sisters in Christ, whether we like it or not. I do not bow to the insistance of some that because I cannot/do not attend a local assembly or that I don't need the bible to be inerrant to love it, that i may not be saved or associated with. For me that is worse bondage thn the cult ever was.

Be happy and enjoy the walk with God that you have Nic, and I mean that with my whole heart. I wish you would feel that same way about those of us who do not walk with God the way you do. I wish you could find it in your heart to love us all without judgement and condemnation...but so far I am not sure that's the case.

Someone reminded me this afternoon that it is okay for us all to be at a different place in our spiritual walk. Perhaps we can agree to disagree and let go...? Maybe not...it's up to you.

[Nic (152.163.253.102)]

Roberta, I did not call you a hard and bitter woman because of your views of the bible. (I called you deceived because of that.) The hard and bitter part is what I see in your insulting posts to those who oppose your views, such as your comments to me this morning.

And you just cannot seem to see the difference between disagreeing with people who undermine God's Word, and judging and condemning them.

As far as just agreeing to disagree, and letting go.....I simply do not trust you, because you will say that, and then turn on someone with nastiness when they say something against what you believe

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

'But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.' I Corinthians 7:12

'I give my opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do this, but also to desire to do it.' II Cor. 8:10

Interesting how Paul speaks of himself, and later gives his own opinion in the Word of God.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

' A soothing tongue is a tree of life, but perversion in it crushes the spirit.' Proverbs 15:4

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

'He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker...' Proverbs 14:31

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

*olive branch not accepted by Nic*

"Interesting how Paul speaks of himself, and later gives his own opinion in the Word of God. " I always noticed that too, Bob.

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

There are some issues where God has not given a specific commandment but leaves it up to a believer's conscience. One of those is 2 Cor 8:10
where you say Paul is giving his opinion (the word in my bible is "advice"). In verse 8 he says it isn't a commandment, speaking of financial giving, but he is giving his advice in verse 10.

So just because Paul was giving his opinion, or advice, does not mean that it was any less inspired than the rest of the Bible. If it is in the Bible it is inspired advice.

2 Tim 3:16 still stands.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Simple. Paul's statements, as are the statements concerning this life are recorded in God's word.

170.97 AnotherNonnyMouse You are no doubt another honored resident psychologist joining us. It is getting rather crowded in here what with all the "heart readers" already present.

Why not try a pseudonym? Like WhirledPeas or Mindhead?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

EXCUSE ME! Meant to say the statements recorded concerning this life by the writer of Ecclesiastes.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

"and then turn on someone with nastiness when they say something against what you believe"

"170.97 AnotherNonnyMouse You are no doubt another honored resident psychologist joining us. It is getting rather crowded in here what with all the "heart readers" already present.

Why not try a pseudonym? Like WhirledPeas or Mindhead?"

Yeah...that nastiness thing....I see what you mean. *LOL*...no worries Nic. I just thought this was funny is all

*waving*

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I thought this merited reposting...I wish he hadn't left factnet.


Steve Quinlan (12.45.124.212)
Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:23 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pekka,
Thank you for posting here. You have clearly identified one of the great tragedies, not only of TBS/GGWO, but also of the Christian Church as a whole. That is, the tremendous difficulty we human beings seem to have respecting the giftedness and dignity of others, especially when these others represent a challenge to our positions of privilege or our carefully protected egos. Why, oh why are we so frightened by those who differ from us? Why do we feel threatened by them, and why do we so often wish their downfall if not their destruction?

I cannot help but believe that it is because we are so fundamentally insecure. Regardless of how loudly we speak about “eternal security” with respect to salvation, or “unconditional love” with respect to God’s nature, an unwillingness to accept or at least tolerate those who differ from us betrays a deep insecurity and sense of being unloved. I believe that the stronger and more impregnable we seek to make our theological and ecclesiological fortresses, the more we evidence our own fear and faithlessness.

What exactly is it that we fear when we become inflexibly doctrinaire? Are we afraid of being wrong? Well of course we are going to be wrong sometimes. What is so dreadful about that? Are we afraid that the TRUTH is on the line and will be corrupted? Isn’t that just absurd? As if we puny and fallible human beings could somehow corrupt that which is eternal and immutable. (Of course we should seek Truth, but God help us if we think we own it.) Or are we simply afraid that people will notice that we are human and therefore, sinful. How liberating it is to confess my sinfulness! How freeing to acknowledge that I have erred! What joy there is in being corrected! When we deny our humanity, our sinfulness, our errors, do we really think we are fooling anyone?

So much potential has been lost to the church over the ages because those in positions of leadership held the mistaken belief that their leadership would be weakened by a frank acknowledgement of their humanity. As I read my Bible, one characteristic of the great leaders of the faith stands out above others. They were all – to a man (or to a woman) flawed people who did not deny their humanity, but let God use it. As far as I can tell, God asks little more of us than this: to be and revel in being at once sinners and saints. Such a posture may yet allow us to both see and appreciate the value of those around us who are graced by God in ways different than ourselves. Pekka, Thanks again.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

When Satan tempted Christ, he used the inspired Word of God to do so. Using the Word to express what we say does not make us or our intentions right.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

'But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.' John 16:13

Why does He need to hear anything from the Father or Jesus? He can just read the Book. Sounds to me like there's continual living communication between those in the Godhead, and the Spirit speaks to us whatever is appropriate for God's ends. It doesn't sound like He's operating out of a text. Dare I say it? It doesn't even sound like the Spirit is operating out of His own understanding, but out of understanding given from the Father.

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

Many false teachers misuse the Word with wrong intentions. That doesn't take away from its inspiration or inerrancy. Satan used the Word with Jesus for that very reason. He knew Jesus would respect the authority of the Word and would not be decieved by liberal theologies or strange doctrines, as so many are today.

By the way, Roberta, you twisted things again in your 2:37 am post. Jim said those things to 170.97 because 170 had said earlier that Jim was a slave to his ego. It wasn't because of a disagreement of beliefs.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

Nic; Okay. I recognize and respect your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible as it stands. I wasn't trying to imply that you or Jim are trying to use the Word improperly. I wasn't comparing you to satan. It's kind of stupid to have to say that, but the way things often get taken on this board, it seems necessary.

My comments on this topic are not designed to make it so that I can avoid conviction or discredit the Scriptures I choose to. The Lord's presence in the Word is startlingly apparent. Often my heart burns as I read and ponder things in it. It is the very same burning that I often have in communion with Him in prayer. He speaks to me; not ever in audible words; sometimes in impressions and visions which can be very complex and difficult to put into words. Sometimes He shows me relationships between different scriptures that He digs up out of my memory and He prompts and urges certain things for prayer for others. He shows me things about myself and others. He shows me things with music and films and books. He's relaying truth to me. He changes me by what I internally see. I fully realize that something I gain from a piece of music or from looking at an artwork or recognizing something about relationships with others is not to be written down and considered on an equal par with 'the Word' as we have it. But anything God is truly speaking is the Word of God. I may not know for certain how much of what I'm getting is directly from Him. But from His perspective, what is from Him is absolutely pure and eternal. He's the One Who knows which words are His. he doesn't write them all down where we can see them with our eyes. And the creation is so a direct expression from God; and we learn things about Him and His nature if we study or observe different things about it, whether they're written down already in the Bible or not. Sorry, but God's expression is not limited to a book. All the books in history could not contain what He has already expressed; and He's not done.

I don't want to be contentious. Part of what this forum is for me is an opportunity to explore what I believe and why. I don't mean to attack or discredit others here. I'm seeking mutual submission to our Head. I sincerely want you to walk out what you believe and all that God gives you to be. I love you being here. I have zero animosity toward you or Jim. Love, Bob

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

I twisted nothing, Nic. I combined both posts purposely so make a point, one you obviouisly missed.

[Anonymous (56.0.96.18)]

I don't think she is the one missing the point, Roberta

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I am sure you don't.

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

"Why, oh why are we so frightened by those who differ from us? Why do we feel threatened by them, and why do we so often wish their downfall if not their destruction?

I cannot help but believe that it is because we are so fundamentally insecure. Regardless of how loudly we speak about “eternal security” with respect to salvation, or “unconditional love” with respect to God’s nature, an unwillingness to accept or at least tolerate those who differ from us betrays a deep insecurity and sense of being unloved. I believe that the stronger and more impregnable we seek to make our theological and ecclesiological fortresses, the more we evidence our own fear and faithlessness."

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

<FONT COLOR="0000ff">"A healthy skeptism is one thing. But paranoia is another. Be prepared for folks to be ignorant about you, and base their actions and beliefs on that ignorance. Don't expect the world to change, and do insist on your rights if and when they are infringed upon. Accept that there are other religions and not all of them agree that yours is valid. Accept that no matter what, some of them will always feel that way. Be as true to your own personally held beliefs as you can, and review them often. Don't poison your own spirituality by wasting energy on the folks who refuse to accept multiple points of view. Don't give them power. Do grow your own power and work within the system. KNOW the system - it's the best defense anyone ever has."</FONT>

Any analysis offered?

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

Very transparent of you Jim.

Victim Mentality
by Melissa Oringer

"they feel empowered to (1) release the associated guilt they've been carrying around (rightly or wrongly) and (2) expel all sorts of venom on the group from whom they've left."

Is this your characterization of those who disagree with you?

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

last message...meant tongue in cheek, Jim...*LOL* was supposed to accompany the post, but never quite made it through the process...

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Just thought you'd enjoy fellowshipping with a Wiccan, seeing as how you're so tolerant. Sounded so familiar to a lot on here. *ROTFLOL*

[Bob Brinton (151.203.161.112)]

Yeah. Jesus was too tolerant also; always hanging out with whores and tax collectors and even those stinking right wing Pharisees. Several times I've heard people say that they think the Pharisees get a bad rap; that they really weren't so bad - kinda like us - just judging everyone around them and finding them to be lesser life forms - oh - kinda like the way 'African Americans' think they were treated in the south, and even up nawth. I'm a French/English Canadian American myself; and I get mistreated all the time. Those people at Tangelwood with their sweaters draped over their shoulders who talk while the music is playing and drink their expensive wine. Kind of reminds you of what Paul was complaining about to do with Communion in Corinth. Anyway. Thank God that most of them don't like chamber music or the radical modern stuff that I'm so fond of. You can usually get better seats for that sort of thing; if you have an employer who'll get you some tickets. One of the great treasures the Speaks brought to the Berkshires was a large work force willing to work for peanuts; and now those of us 'left behind' are left in a wonderfully depressed economic area with companies who mostly don't pay too well. Oh, there are other factors, and I don't care much about money anyway. Books and music and art and prayer and some decent fellowship in the Spirit...that's very good. The Lord's blessings are better than houses and cars. Am I rambling?

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Yes

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Jim,
That was hysterical......it does sound like a lot of the drivel on here.....be careful that Roberta doesn't put a hex on you now

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Bob,

Ignore the 205 troll..

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Yes, Bob, ramble on

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Your "rambling" makes more sense and has more value than the statements of many. "Ramble" on.

The other 205

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Faucett, even I cannot believe THAT inference.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Well, if you have been reading a lot of the posts here, it really is not such a stretch

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

So...now I am a witch...hmmm...actually alot of Christian festivals are derived from pagan ritual...Christmas/Saturnalia/winter solstice, Easter was coordinated with the spring fertility rites (that's where Easter bunnies come from, you knew that, right?)....done by the early Roman Christan fathers to gain more acceptace for the new state religion. I think they call that propoganda/lies/political redistricting?

Anyway.

Wiccans are harmless, Jim...no need to get your kickers in a knot. You do know they aren't Satan worshippers, right? Cuz, they don't believe in Satan.

You really are too transparent Jim. And rather one dimensional, sad to say. Oh yes, but with Christian kindness, grace and love through and through,

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

hey, Bob...I don't consider that rambling...at least you used all one color in the post...

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Roberta, you prove me right every time that you have absolutely no sense of humor.

[Mo Sense of Humor?? (141.154.144.33)]

No sense of humor??? Hey...I'm still talking to you aren't I??? *LOL*

[Bob Brinton (151.203.187.4)]

Is there a possible Wiccans for Jesus movement ahead? Reach them if you can; but I expect that if they do come to Christ that the Spirit won't let them stay in that.

[Anonymous (4.156.100.66)]

Hey, I drape my sweraters over my shoulders, Jim, and love expensive white wine. I am offended!! However, I NEVER talk while the music is playing.

LOL

[Bob Brinton (151.203.187.4)]

I'd be quite happy to share your expensive white wine with you, or even red. Just post it here.

[Anonymous (4.156.99.180)]

My apologies to Jim! Just looked back to see it was Bob who posted about draped sweaters and expensive white wine drinking at Tanglewood.

I said I LIKED expensive white wine, Bob, not that I could afford to buy it. LOL

Enjoy your Sunday!!!

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

"Wiccans are harmless, Jim...no need to get your kickers in a knot. You do know they aren't Satan worshippers, right? Cuz, they don't believe in Satan."

Exactly what Screwtape would say.

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

Wiccans are not harmless, any more than any false religion is harmless. They are deceiving people and ultimately leading them to hell. Just because they don't worship Satan per se, they are serving him and worshipping him through their idol worship. They believe God is in everything in nature and worship creation instead of the creator. Satan's best deceptions are what people see as innocuous. Good or evil, it is not God, and Satan doesn't care as long as people end up in hell through it.

The Wiccan ethical code, "Harm none, do what you will" sounds harmless, but its roots are in an evil religion. If you trace it back to its roots it included human sacrifices to a deity. "Many of the ancient pagan and Mother Earth cult religions required human sacrifice. Although most witches today deny using human or animal blood sacrifices, case of witches who used blood letting and sacrifice are replete throughout history even to the present day."

The bottom line is, it is WITCHCRAFT. Hello? Galatians 5:20 has witchcraft in the list of things that keep people from the Kingdom of God. Doesn't sound too harmless to me

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

Down Nic...*LOL* Good Heavens you guys are gonna blow a blood vessel. You got your info mixed up Nic, but there's no use in talking to the unentreatable. Doean't matter anyway unless you think God isn't able to bring them to a knowlege of Himself. Satanists are not Wiccan, and Wiccan's at least the onse I have known, aren't the least bit worried about Christians, unless they are being persecuted by them.

What I think is sad however is the need to demonize those who don't see thing the way you do Jim. It really isn't necessary unless you really are as insecure as you sound. Don't you have any faith that God will take care of everything even people who disagree with you? I mean, you believe God agrees with slavery and genocide, so why are you afraid?

By the way..Bob did you know there was a practicing Wiccan at your gathering last night? And contrary to what some may have heard, no sacrifice other than berries, herbs and flowers are part of any modern "sacrifice" to the "Lord and Lady", the two aspects (male and female) of God that Wiccans worship.

The Wiccans I knew loved the Creator FOR the creation, and they were very relaxed quiet people. I am Christian, they knew it and had no problem whatsoever....not sure you you do. God will draw them to Himself, give them a chance to know him by whatever means he chooses. Have a little more faith in Him. Good Heavens...He is able.

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

I did not get my info mixed up, Roberta. What is it that you think is wrong? Everything I mentioned can be found in an article "What is the Wiccan Religion" on the internet.

The issue is not God being able to draw them to Himself, or giving them a chance to know Him by "whatever means He chooses" (which by the way is only through Jesus Christ who they do not worship). The issue I was addressing in my post was your statement that Wiccans are harmless. They may not be harmful to Christians, but their religion is harmful to themselves and to anyone they bring into it, because it is witchcraft and the end of it is hell.

Once again, I cannot believe that on a "Christian" message board it is necessary to spell out the dangers of any kind of witchcraft.

You defend the Wiccan religion more than you defend the Bible

[Nic (64.12.117.20)]

"The Wiccans I knew loved the Creator FOR the creation..."


The Wiccan religion and other forms of Paganism are pantheistic in that the Divine is seen as everywhere and in everything. They also are animistic in that every human, tree, animal, stream, rock, and other forms of Nature is seen to have a Divine Spirit within. Many traditions are monotheistic in that there is an honoring of Divine Unity. They also are polytheistic in that the Divine is honored in a variety of female and male deity forms - Goddesses and Gods -which are aspects of the Divine Female and Divine Male and their Unity.

Wiccans and other Pagans also honor the Elements of Nature -- Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Spirit -- and their associated directions -- North, East, South, West, Center -- in the sacred Circles where rituals are held. Rituals usually include a combination of meditation, invocations, movement, music, and the use of magical tools.

As part of their spiritual practice, many Wiccans and other Pagans develop their intuitive abilities and practice magic, directing psychic energy for particular healing and helping purposes. In working magic, Wiccans are to adhere to the Wiccan Rede, which is the central ethical law of the religion: "And it harm none, do what you will." Most Wiccans acknowledge that whatever magical force is sent out returns magnified to the sender.

from INTRODUCTION TO THE WICCAN RELIGION AND CONTEMPORARY PAGANISM

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

many of these ex-church members are liberal and unteachable ,they are murmerers and complainers and refuse to heed the holy scriptures to examine themselves ,constant attacks on gg when they should have moved on years ago .

[Anonymous (149.174.164.83)]

As opposed to what? Conservative and unrepentant? Fornicators and deceivers? Abusive leaders unwilling to submit to biblical correction? Elders unwilling to act and who put the founder of THEIR church above the founder of THE Church?

[Anonymous (24.88.32.251)]

Hey Now I don't know what liberal has to deal with unteachable.

I may be liberal or moderate but I certainly believe you should be teachable and open to God.

Neil

[Anonymous (149.174.164.83)]

It's the same old GG party line, Neil.

69, I'm not murmuring - CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

Same old lies and attempts to depict those who have left or speak out about the spiritual abuse - SPIRITUAL ABUSE - as un-Godly, second-class Christians who don't have it right. The term is "off", isn't it?

It's not working anymore. Your parlor tricks are nothing but smoke and mirrors - and the Internet is the Masked Magician. Ready to be exposed?

[Anonymous (24.88.32.251)]

Hey I know a few democrats who support Pastor with their hard earn money.

Maybe a few who support him with their trade in the legal proffesion, does that make them ungodly?

Come on...

Jesus was neither conservative nor liberal (Although there is a few refrences to us having a liberal God)

There are some people here who would attack the ministry over the car the biggest finacial supporter drives.

Then there are people who have been truly hurt.

It needs to be spoken to in truth and love.

Lets start there. The rest is deflecting from the truth.

Neil

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Nic...give it a rest. *LOL* Believe what you want to. I said..."the wiccan I KNEW" I didn't say I knew them all. You really must relax. No need to be so afraid of the world and it's people...God created them. One of the best things that happened after we all left GGWPO/TBS was to discover that the biggest lie of all was that the whole world was crawling with evil except for people who worshiped like we did. It just ain't so, Nic. The world outside of the pages of the bible is a beautiful place where God reigns more than Satan does.

Many of us found a world filled with good Christian people from many many denominations, many who were not Christian but were being wooed by God to Himself. I recall the day I met a wiccan for the first time and we talked about blood sacrifice and he told me that Christians believed in the sacrificial blood of Christ and wiccans today no longer did blood sacrifices. I hadn't seen it that way before. Believe as you will Nic, but please don't expect all Christians to be like you. That's not loving thy neighbor if all your bible causes you to do is accuse the brethren. If you are this insecure perhaps you need to check your own faith in Him. I don't think He is so weak that he cannot draw those who don't believe, I don't think that Satan is more powerful than He is, nor am I afraid of people who don't think, believe, witness or testify like I do. I am sorry that you are. You don't have to be. Carl was so adept at making us all afraid of the world. The victory is living in the world and not being of it.

If all you have to do is be ever watchful for others who aren't lined up with you on every subject under the sun...take a vacation. Have some fun. Discover that God is so much bigger than the evil, so much more beautiful than you can imagine and everywhere present if you look up from your rules and regs long enough to notice.

I know you think the worst of me, and I am okay with that if it makes you feel good. I don't feel that way about you...

Blessing

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Roberta,
Please explain. How am I insecure? How am I accusing the brethren? I am not talking about people who simply "don't line up with me on every subject". They are WITCHES! They perform rituals and practice magic. I am not afraid of them but neither do I condone them. Please answer this: What is the source of their "psychic energy" and "magical forces"? It is not God, so that only leaves one other source.

You can tell me to relax, take a vacation, and try to portray me as in a frenzy because I speak out against witchcraft. Maybe God needed a vacation when He spoke against it all through the Bible. Maybe He was just getting too worked up about it, with all His "rules and regs", and needed to just relax.

You say I think the worst of you. The truth is I am astonished at your attitude toward both the things of God and the things of Satan.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Roberta, you will bloody tolerate ANYTHING except Christians. AND you guys started the whole "inerrancy debate" on here by questioning the veracity of the Bible and it's relevancy to these times, then you want to perform a little jiu-jitsu by saying:

"it might be more profitable for the church to leave the debates about inerrancy aside and concentrate more on hearing the living and active word of God speak in the community of Faith."

What "living and active word" would that be exactly? And what "community of Faith" would that be exactly? Why would you "concentrate on hearing" on an untrustworthy scripture that is so needful of being updated? And where would you be hearing it anyway? Watching flippin' Benny Hinn and Paul Crouch on TV? You started a debate then you want to leave it chiding us all to get on with "concentration." What a great big crock.

And all this *waving* that you're doing? Is this another one of your little "Im leaving, but not really" trips? Roberta you really are so pompous, telling people to "relax" after you've provoked them. Why don't you go pay attention to your poor husband?

Nic, Roberta loves to wind you up. And she likes to play "I'm seriously offended." Anybody who gets on here who actually thinks good teaching from the scripture is important is going to sooner or later catch it from Roberta.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Now stand by and watch either the sarcasm or the bluster. Roberta why don't you do something really unpredictable!

[Bob Brinton (151.203.147.59)]

Roberta; I didn't realize that a practising Wiccan was at the gathering Saturday night; but I can guess who it most likely would be. Does her first name begin with a 'J'? Judy or Julie or something similar? I was told a couple of months ago that she had become a believer. If she's the one you're talking about, it will be interesting to see if she can continue her current path. If she really did come to Christ, then I don't think God will allow her to. These are not compatible paths; whether they're 'nice people' or not. And I do believe you are right to seek to bring them into the Kingdom.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.163.79)]

I agree with Nic that wiccans are witches; and I certainly would not seek advice or counsel from them. Jesus Christ is the only way for men and women to be reconciled to God. For wiccans to be saved, they will have to let go of their current religion. It's not only 'thou shalt have no other gods before Me' as in above or in advance of 'Me', but no other gods in His presence; that is, in your life. He wants to be the only one you worship. There's no place for worshipping rocks and trees and little bugs.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.163.79)]

The democrats supporting GG thing...One day I saw something in the paper about Kerry addressing Christians in a place in Ohio called 'The Greater Grace Temple'. Is this affiliated with GGWO? I myself am nonpolitical and don't like either party. I'm just curious.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Well done, Jim.

But you lost all credibility with me, and my "poor husband" as well with this:

"Why is slavery in and of itself evil? We assume from our history that the enslavement of Africans was completely an evil thing because we were taught the winners' propaganda."

Nothing you could say now makes any sense whatsoever. At least Nic is a thinker, has hunger and a heart for God that is indeed beautiful, is intelligent and in her way has great wisdom. Not that she perhaps cares what I think, but I see a great future for her in the Word, as a devout Christian and as a woman who can love God's people.

I still agree with Karen and Steve Q. Their posts make total sense and are what I believe.

As for anything else I think Anon 170 said it
best.

"Para a liberdade Cristo p&ocirc;s-nos em liberdade. Seja est&aacute;vel, por isso, e n&atilde;o se submeta novamente ao jugo da escravid&atilde;o."

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Bob, the person I know who was there had a different name. Modern wiccans are a hybrid from ancient pagan forms of earth worship from eons before recorded time. What I find so amusing is when some Christians learn for the first time that many of the Holy days were celebrate have origins in pagan lore. I met a lady in Jacksonville in a bible study who literally fainted when the pastor brought up the subject of the origins of celebrating Christmas in December. It took them 3 months to talk her into coming back to church.

I miss those people. It was a small Full Gospel church, mostly African American local people. I was living across the highway from the Navy base where my brother was stationed recovering from injuries i got in a car accident...that church was so wonderful. The preacher was a skinny black man that one wouldn't have thought could speak above a whisper...but he had so much life when he preached.He made Jesus so real and the music was so moving, and the people loving and kind...it was years before I made a conscious decision for Christ, but I think that's where God started to woo me, soften my heart and he used those good people to draw me.

I'd love to see them again, but most are likely in heaven by now...anyways, we'll have an old fashioned halleluia break down when we're all tigether again. You remember Dana Colby? He'll be there too...we were kids together and he got saved, was married for so short a time, and drowned when we were finally both in Lenox at long last.

Must try sleeping...now I am the one who's rambling! My love to Mary!

[Bob Brinton (151.203.163.79)]

Roberta; I was aware of pagan stuff behind the dates used for Christian holidays. I like Santa Claus and lights and stuff. I view it through my personal joy as a child. Why should I let the other stuff rob me of that?

I remember Dana. That was one of the saddest things. He was such a great kid. And I really liked his parents, also. I wonder if Brian Hill ever got over that.

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

Poor Brian. I saw him that night after they had searched for Dana all day, and he was a total wreak. Polly was beside herself with worry. The funeral was dreadful.

It will be good to "see" Dana again when we get to heaven.

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

Go and do something satan really doesn't want you to do today and pray instead of spending time on factnet.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

"But you lost all credibility with me..."

List of things and people that have no credibility with Roberta:

1. The inerrant, inspired, unchangeable Word of God.

2. The Church of God gathered together.

3. "Misogynist churches" that won't let "gifted women" (like her, no doubt) preach.

4. The "misogynist" Apostle Paul.

5. Any Christian who thinks that sound doctrine is important.

6. People who will not tolerate the idea that Christianity is just another religion that you can find "God" in.

7. People who see Christianity as the exclusive way to God, and take the Bible "literally".

8. Me.


Roberta, please send me my card for membership in this club. And the handy decoder ring you use to make sense out of anything, especially your thought processes.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

There you go again...*LOL*

How about this...I'll send you a free membership AND a delux decoder ring IF you promise to keep them in that special place where you hide your white hood...is it a deal?

"Roberta, you will bloody tolerate ANYTHING except Christians"

No, Jim. I believe everyone has the right in America to believe as they choose...even anally retentive Christians like you. I just don't believe we all have to believe exactly like YOU want us to...simple. You are not God, Carl is not God, I am not God. I believe God is in control, and you are a frustrated person because you cannot control everyone else. Freedom, Jim. Freedom is what I believe in. God's freedom, your freedom, everyone's freedom to think, believe and have faith in what we believe. God will draw people to him, but not by beating them over the head with doctrine like you and Carl do.

People told me you still retained the Carl cult mentality and I didn't believe them. It seems I was wrong.

"Para a liberdade Cristo p&ocirc;s-nos em liberdade. Seja est&aacute;vel, por isso, e n&atilde;o se submeta novamente ao jugo da escravid&atilde;o."

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Oh darn, and I was keeping that in a special place along with my bullwhip and chains and stars and bars battle flag...

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

*ROTFLMAO*

[Hodeuon (68.50.121.170)]

A few days ago Bob asked about how the Bible came together and whether something could have been left out or added incorrectly. I’d like to take a shot at answering that if I may.

First, I think that John 14:26 supports the idea that all the teaching that God wanted passed on did get passed on. “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Second, the original copies of each scriptural book were entirely correct &amp; accurate. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17) The phrase “by inspiration of God” is theopneustos, “God-breathed”.

Third, Jesus corrected Israel on many matters when He came, but He is not recorded as having corrected them on which Scriptures they used. Judaism at the time was using the same books that are in our Old Testament now, except that they had 22 or 24 books whereas we have 39. (They had Samuel, Kings, Chronicles as one book each, combined Ezra &amp; Nehemiah into one book, and put the 12 minor prophets in one book. Some combined Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah; others did not – thus 22 or 24.) Jesus never quotes from the Apocrypha (the extra books which * may * have been treated as Scripture in Alexandria but definitely were not in Jerusalem). He also never says that an accepted book wasn’t Scripture. Admittedly this is something of an argument from silence, but it seems to me that we can conclude that Judaism was using the proper Old Testament canon.

Fourth, there had been other books that weren’t included in the Old Testament. The Book of Jasher and the Book of the Wars of the Lord are two of them. But the recognition process worked out. Since Israel managed to mess up just about everything else God told them, I conclude (and note this is my conclusion) that since the OT turned out right then it must have been God making sure it turned out right. I suggest that the Holy Spirit oversaw the recognition process.

Fifth, if the Holy Spirit could oversee the recognition &amp; assembling of the OT, then He could do the same with the New Testament. Since (like Israel) the Church managed to mess up most of the its major doctrines, I’m just as happy that the Holy Spirit was overseeing the recognition of the canon. The Church did not confer canonicity; it recognized which books had canonicity from the time they were written. The two criteria that were used were apostolic authorship and widespread acceptance. Apostolic authorship was necessary because they were the ones to whom Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would cause them to remember everything necessary. Some books were written by a close associate of an apostle – Mark was associated with both Peter and Paul, Luke and the author of Hebrews were associated with Paul, and Jude was associated with James. In two cases we have apostolic recognition of another’s writing as Scripture: 1 Timothy 5:18 says, “For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."” (1 Tim 5:18) The second quotation is Luke 10:7. 2 Peter 3:15-16 says, “and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation -- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16) 1 Timothy was written about 62 AD so Luke was recognized as Scripture by then (and Luke refers to others writing about Jesus’s life before he did; perhaps he means Matthew and Mark). And Peter had knowledge of multiple letters of Paul by the time he died about 67 AD.

There were books that were recognized not to be Scripture. Some lacked apostolic authorship. Others lacked widespread acceptance. Why was widespread acceptance necessary? Because it was the Church at large that was recognizing the canon; it was not a top-down decision. This criteria worked out quite well. For example, in the fourth century, some began reading a book as Scripture (the Acts of Paul, IIRC), and then one church heard about it and said, “No, that’s a historical novel one of our deacons wrote. We demoted him and told him no more novels.” So that one got dropped quickly. In other cases, the writings themselves said that they weren’t Scripture; for example, 1 Clement and the letters of Polycarp, so when you see them in collections like, “The Lost Books of the Bible” the publisher is being disingenuous.

By 170 AD, it was axiomatic that as there were four cardinal directions, so there were four Gospels. By this date, we also have quotes or allusions by the church fathers to all NT books except 2 John, 3 John, and Jude – three of the shortest. The Pauline letters had been collected, and except some areas not having copies of Philemon, was pretty well fixed. It was the “general epistles” that were under discussion. 1 John and 1 Peter had universal recognition, while Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation did not yet. And the Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Hebrews, Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas were also under discussion. Between 170 and 300 AD we have five witnesses – the Muratori Canon (a list of books) in Rome, Irenaeus in Gaul, Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in Alexandria, and Eusebius in Caesarea – who confirm that this was the case in five different geographic areas. In 363 AD, the Council of Laodicea listed 26 New Testament books (leaving out Revelaton). In 367, Athanasius listed the same 27 books that we use, and only those 27. The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) confirmed this.

Hodeuon

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

So there.

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

Oh yes, this isn't new...this can be found in any of the Christian church's church history books....what was it you said, Jim...lemme think..."the winners' propaganda".

Too bad the Emperor Julian's attitudes were not politically correct in later years.

Oh and H? You needen't have bothered to email me that you intended to post. This is a public forum after all. After noting the tone of your other emails I would have expected you and Jim agree on things. I am okay with that, really, contrary to what else you may read here.

Welcome.

[JF (205.174.22.26)]

Julian...the apostate? No doubt one of your heroes.

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

Julian called apostate by the church, but not by all of contextual history. He was turned off by the constant debates and the hypocrisy...Christians killing Christians over doctrinal disputes. He thought the original Galilean followers may have had it right, but the constant bloodshed between the factions within the believers added to the politics of the Emperor's use of the church was not any kind of worship he wanted to be a part of. Then of course he wanted to be a Greek philosopher and have nothing to do at all with politics, but his brother screwed that up.

Yes, he wrongly attempted to turn back time to try to renew the old pagan worship. If he had spent what little time he had before his death cleaning up the corruption within the Christianity of the day, he'd have been much better off and might have lived a longer life and we might not have so many hostile church diferences in the church universal today.

But it was too much a case of the violence of factions of believers killing each other off over doctrines that turned him away...I think he'd have been a powerful Christian leader if he had not been politically stunted and scarred. He was smarter than most about the truth about Christianity in its pure sense, but the politics, infighting and barbarism of the early church fathers plus the corrupt politics he saw in his youth within his own family hardend him and turned him away from doing the right things he could have done for the church.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.163.79)]

The book of James was not written by James the brother of John, who had lost his head. He was an original apostle. James the brother of Jesus was not.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.163.79)]

I don't really wish to continue debating over this. I'll live with what we've got. But if what Joshua said to Israel is to be considered as written to Israel, then Paul's letter regarding the situation in Corinth needs to also be taken in the context of Corinth. You can't play it different ways at different times just to get whatever your point is across. Well, whatever....

If 'every word is profitable'...then it applies to Joshua as well as Corinthians. What kind of choice is it if it's predestined? I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just missing something. I think you've made a good case scripturally for predestination, Jim; but it's not 'set in cement', as they say. There is room for reasonable doubt. That's the 'American way', si?

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

There is predestination and there is also free will involved. And no one can understand it fully. There is a balance between the two, and people have been debating it for ages. Maybe we were not meant to fully understand it, because our human minds cannot fully comprehend God and His ways in this life.

Jesus said He would be lifted up and draw ALL men unto Him(Jn12:32). He is the propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD(I Jn2:2). He will have ALL men to be saved, and gave Himself a ransom for ALL (ITim2:4,6). And John 3:16 says WHOSOEVER believes will not perish. And God is not willing that ANY should perish (2Pet3:9).

And by the way, all men means ALL men, everyone... not "all kinds" of men. That is just twisting the verse to fit a bias. In fact, you really have to twist all those verses I mentioned to fit predestination without free will.

[rj (141.154.144.33)]

bump

[Anonymous (149.174.164.83)]

So which James was it, Bob?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Nic, then the love of money is the root of ALL evil and not all kinds of evil.

Bob, predestination is not something I made up. It is actually really in the scriptures, which aren't really American at all, and are in many cases quite contrary to the "American" way.

Nic, if Jesus draws ALL men, meaning every human, then you are a universalist and there's nothing to worry about because every one drawn will come.

All kinds of men fits the context, go look at it again.

Bob "Israel" in Romans 9, all of which will be saved and national Israel are not the same entity.

Predestination not set in cement? Good one.

James the brother of Jesus is the same James mentioned in Acts 15, and was the Lord's brother. His authority is apostolic because of the doctrine, not because he was an apostle. Same with Luke, writer of the Gospel and Acts.

Nic, either salvation is certain or hypothetical. If it is hypothetical and depends even one iota on us at all it is not grace and no one is really saved. If God needed an act by you to save you, he wouldn't have needed Christ to die.

Those verses and John 3:16 in context have absolutely nothing to do with free will.