Not a Question of Our Goodness - Page 12

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/rcsproul.htm
   gouda

Gouda, scanned your article. It's obvious the guy is a flake. Beyond that, what is the significance? People get hung up on words in the "religous" context, such as baptism, which can have any number of significant meanings, including death.

Better yet get it from the horses mouth,,That is after all, the best way to make a judgment about a person. Find out what they in fact said, and the context in which it was said...Not just a few selected bits and pieces someone pulled from a 200 + page book....
http://www.ligonier.org/

Yes, tiger, perhaps it would have been more responsible to properly preface my statement. I have no interest in the man, or dragging him through the mud. I suspected the article was intended for you, but thought Gouda might have a more significant point to make. If I were going to qualify either the subject of the article or its author, I would include the subheading touting the KJV as the end all be all authority on all things God. I'd rather get to the point though.

(Jesus came to earth and suffered and died  for nothing)

This is where I have a problem with religious people, this statement should read,
The Bible say's Jesus came down to earth and suffered and died for nothing.

Not,
Jesus came down to earth blah blah blah as if it were a fact you yourself whitnessed.

The bible say's this the bible says that, it's a book for christs sake, it's not the only book about a god, or a religion.

Yet you seem to think it's the only one that's correct.
And you can't even agree on that.

I agree with felloffher.




 

Moons, for those that believe in God, and considering the implications of that confession, how would you have them refer to the Bible?

As the book they use to read these stories from.
Personally,
I don't care how they refer to it in private, or their church.

Ruger - your link brought me to what looked like a home page. I read the article on Monolism, which seemed to be most pertinent to the discussion. I think the concepts would only further confuse things here. One of the reasons I abstain, is because I believe the catalyst of the angst lies in an age old question, which many people typically attempt to answer entirely from a soulish perspective. I find it impossible to "give" someone perpective, particularly spiritual perspective, because after all, though theology and religion can be taught, only the Spirit of God knows the ... This would seem to stress the idea that "no one can come to me unless..." I understand the desire, the necessity even, to see that scripture is presented in a manner which accurately reflects the truth as it was itended; I do. I find it unfortunate, that these concepts are often so casually, often carelessly spouted about in a forum such as this one, leaving the rest of us in the proverbial "catch 22". We truly must look like a bunch of fools, particularly when others, who by choice, lack the background to understand where the foolishness begins and ends. If anything is true, some people know just enough to get themselves (and everyone else for that matter) in trouble, and make a mess in the process.