Conference yukon::christian_v7

>    For example, The Bible says 4 times that baptism is for the
>    forgiveness of sins. I would think that would be enough, but many free
>    churches think that 'faith alone' is enough for the forgiveness of
>   sins.

(1) Be careful of any doctrine that hinges on a preposition.
(2) Understand the whole context and not an excerpt (which distorts the
      true picture).  What do you do when it says faith alone four or more
      times in addition to your scripture references?
(3) A study on the studying of the Scriptures can be helpful.  Even a 
      cursory understanding of how the different translations are
      rendered and the weight they are given by various scholars.
      Unless you read Greek and Hebrew with fluency, we must remember 
      that we are at least once removed from the actual text and 
      shades of meaning and context are tricky things between languages.
      Mind you, I believe the Bible to be without error.  I do not hold
      even myself up to that meter when sorting out my personal theology
      with regard to the Scriptures.  We must (I must) allow the Scriptures
      to filter me; I cannot allow me to filter the Scriptures to my own
      use.

Mark

    True Baptism is a Baptism of the Spirit.  Faith is accepting the
    Spirit.
    
    THey are thus one and the same thing.  Rituals and symbols are
    important in that they remind us of our commitments but it is the spiritual
    Baptism of the Spirit that is key.
    
    That is why John can baptise with Water but only Jesus can Baptise with
    the holy Spirit.
    
                                         Patricia

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I tend to think that what you mentioned is the true application
        of being baptized (in those verses).  If baptism of the Spirit 
        also has application and if it is that 'initial' reception of 
        God's Spirit, then it is the exact same event as the initial faith 
        response.  It is faith which permits the presence of Christ in the
        heart.
    
        I'm not sure, but I think this is possible.
    
                                                    Tony

    Thank you for your responses. I believe the answer is clear. The only 
    security we have is the 'dependancy on the Holy Spirit', as mentioned
    in the first note, no organization is 'right', no 'denomination' is
    right, they all deviate from the truth through time. It is only the
    Holy Spirit, and whether we are truly moved by him, submitted and
    listening to him. 
    
    This then clarifies the problem. It is putting faith in a christian
    organization or denomination which is dangerous. The beliefs of these
    organizations will invariably conflicht with the Holy Spirit. If
    someone puts their trust in the teaching of their christian group, they
    are putting their trust in the wrong place, which may be very
    dangerous. Faith and Trust, scriptually, is to be solely directed to
    Jesus, to the Holy Spirit. 
    
    And this answers the problem of baptism of infants, baptism by
    emmersion, who should take communion, etc. Our focus must be on Jesus
    (after all we are the Bride, the future Wife). Just as Jesus said of 5
    of the 7 churches in Revelations, that if they didn't repent they would
    be removed, so it is today. It is the first-love to Jesus which
    matters, which decides. It is how Jesus sees baptism that decides, not
    how the christian organization I belong to sees it. The problem is, we
    often put words in Jesus' mouth, in order to justify the standing of
    our group, because we have more faith in the group than for
    Jesus directly. All the christian organizations have many differences.
    They are all wrong! Maybe they have some truth, but it must be Jesus we
    serve! If we think that the group we belong to is our security, then we
    have missed the mark. If the people in an organization really love
    Jesus, then Jesus is there, with those people who really love him, as
    mentioned in Rev.3:4, "Aber du hast einige wenige Namen in Sardes,
    welche ihre Kleider nicht befleckt haben"
    
    How does Jesus, for example, see baptism? It is a love "marriage" to
    himself, but this is not until 'death do we part', but for the
    betrothal of his beloved bride, his future wife. It is a submission to
    him as our Lord, coming into the new covenant, just as earlier the Jews
    came through circumcision into the former covenant. It is a turning
    away from all the earth has to offer, just as marriage also requires
    saying 'No' to all others. Baptism in water is into Jesus, into his
    death. If someone does not love someone, they shouldn't marry, if
    someone does not want to love Jesus deeply, then they shouldn't be
    baptized. 
    
    This shows the error in the early roman church at ca. 250 AD when they
    started baptizing infants, which just 2 generations later determined
    that the majority of people in the church were not there because they
    heard the proclaiming of the love of Jesus, his death for them, and
    gladly received this and were baptized receiving the forgiveness of
    their sins, which caused them to love him even that much more because
    of how real his love was for them, forgiving them for all of their
    sins. Jesus himself says, 'he who is forgiven much loves much'. Maybe
    this would be a way of measuring whether people really experienced the
    forgiveness of their sins through baptism, those who through this
    baptism really love Jesus much more than they did before, because their
    sins are forgiven. Did it result in them finding their first love in
    Jesus? I know for me it did. 
    
    But could this be the problem? When people see baptism as a
    requirement, or litergy of the church, the actual purpose of baptism is
    fully lost. And using it on infants robs them (if they really believe
    that this was their baptism) of what Jesus meant by it in the first
    place? Is this why everyone believed and was baptized on the same day
    in the new testament, because it was the way to receive Jesus with his
    love for them, his forgiveness? But if the people are getting baptized
    for any other reason, I can see why this 'foundational teaching of
    Christ' would be misunderstood, yes, taken away from them. It could be
    that the Roman Church at 250 AD had left their first love, and
    therefore baptism also lost its meaning. People weren't becoming
    members of the church because they found Jesus, his love for them, and
    through baptism, his forgiveness for all of their sins. The cross was
    meant to be a thing of the heart, the love of God reaching us in our
    sins through the death of Jesus. It is baptism which unites us with
    Jesus in his love and death for us. 
    
    Maybe the reason why the early church held through so much litergy that
    baptism was for the forgiveness of sins was for the very fact that
    future generations could not understand this in a direct way anymore
    and only the litergy could preserve the truth as given by Jesus and his
    apostles. But if this truth is only in the litergy, in essence it is
    lost. Only if people really find that their baptism results in the
    forgiveness of their sins and a much greater love for Jesus does it
    have any meaning.
    
    The Holy Spirit leaves, if someone doesn't really love Jesus and obey
    him. Churches can exist without the Holy Spirit, but then the first
    love also dissapears, and the teachings lose their life, only the
    letters remain. Truths propigated with the wrong motives becomes dogma.
    "The law came by Moses, Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ". Grace is
    even MORE important than Truth. It was God's great love which brought
    the truth to us, as a free gift. If the grace and love were to be taken
    away, the truth is a lie, only a reminder of the past. 
    
    Rodger
    others, who don't love him 

    I read this verse this morning and I thought it fit this thread:
    
    Now flee from youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and
    peace, WITH those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
    
    			2 Tim 2:22 (Caps are mine for emphasis)
    
    This plays real nicely with Heb 10:24,25 that Andrew pointed out.  The
    Lord meant for us to walk the Christian walk with others.  The Lord
    many times chooses to use our brothers and sisters to teach us,
    encourage us, exhort us, correct us, reprove us [sounds a lot like 
    2 Tim 3:16 8^) ].  The Holy Spirit lives in me, but He also lives in the
    lives of fellow believers.  Sometimes the Lord reveals His will to us
    by having us listen to others, who might have a clearer picture of a
    particular truth (or who may have already experienced a particular
    struggle we are going through).  
    
    I think the original point was that we shouldn't just blindly follow
    our particular doctrine's stated beliefs.  I definitely agree with
    that.  God's Word should always be the foundation of what we believe. 
    But, we also shouldn't ignore the experience and wisdom of those who have 
    gone before us and those who walk with us today.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

I may not have understood all of .6 but I got from the general theme that
church organizations are not to be trusted.  Certainly, I have often
advocated "climbing over any doctrine for the Truth."  However, one cannot
merely "worship God in a field" and be done with it.  And worshipping
God with another person makes it a gathering, generally by agreeing persons.
And teaching in a church is no different than the espousal of ideas in
.6, Rodger.  How is your persuasion different than my persuasion of my
Sunday School class this Sunday?

Speaking specifically to infant baptisms - what did it mean for a man's
whole household to be baptized?  Were they all of age in the households?
All of the households that were baptized?

Baptism has been long understood in and out of the Christian context as
a death to one purpose in life to new life in another purpose in life.  
For the Christian, the baptism signifies the renuciation of the world and 
the new birth to the new Way.  I could just as easily be baptized into the 
Order of Water Buffalo Lodge.  It signifies to the whole world that "Hey, 
world, we're changing our fundamental operating procedures, here.  Christ 
is now our Guide through life."

And while many in a household may or may not have been of age, the head
of the household generally decided how the household was to go.  He'd be
the one to clear the house of "other gods" and set the course for the
children.  And so, infant baptism is a symbol, a declaration by the Head
of the Home, that the child is to be raised according to the newly
adopted faith.

We understand the symbol to carry a great significance.  In my church, 
those who may have been baptized as infants may choose to become baptized
as adults.  (Generally, we recommend infant dedication so as not to cause
confusion such as these.)

>    Only if people really find that their baptism results in the
>    forgiveness of their sins and a much greater love for Jesus does it
>    have any meaning.

I disagree with you and find no basis for your supposition here.  The
removal of sin occurs at the moment of belief.  If that coincides with 
two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen running over your body then fine.
If not, sins are forgiven with or without baptism.  Baptism is a declaration
of one's intent to follow Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness He provides.

Mark

    .11
    
    Amen!  

>    I agree.  And God will continue to inspire Women and Men to potray
>    his/her work from the personal perspective s/he has given them.
.
.
>    His greatest work was his life in the shadow of his death.  With full
>    knowledge of his impending death Jesus continued to be obedient to his
>    Father.  

Without reading .14 one might never guess that the same person wrote both of
these.  Jesus never once had trouble with S/He, His/Her, nor Father/Mother.
There is no interchangability of pronouns given.  It seems such an incongruity
to refer to God in such a manner and yet affirm that Jesus, God's Son, who
should know the nature of His Father, with whom He is One God, calls God
Father.

>    Yet you exclude many Christians from participating here! 

Hogwash.

MM

>    I think people are moving closer and closer to God.  In today's world
>    most people believe in justice and mercy and love for all.  No one
>    practices this completely.  Some people practice it hardly at all.  But
>    most people agree to what is in fact moral.  Those things in which
>    there is great disagreement are in fact minor compared to those things
>    in which there is agreement. That is the impact of an ultimate source of
>    morality in this world.

I would have to disagree with you here.  When one looks at the 
atrocities going on in the world today, I think even the most liberal 
minded must agree that this world is farther from the Christian life or 
God than ever before.  Why just in today's paper alone there is a story 
of a man who 3 hours into his marriage took his bride's daughter and 
raped her and now the little 6 year old girl is HIV positive.

How much do you know about gang life?  Are you fully aware of its 
implications on society?  Do you believe that gangs are evidence of a 
nation turning towards God?  I've had four young men in my livingroom 
who were all gang members.  These boys explained a life that brought me 
into reality that only this type of "in-your face" confrontation could 
possibly bring.

We like to believe that we are closer to God...yet it's not safe in the 
"good" neighborhoods to walk at night.  I find this relativity to be 
too myopic.

    

>    His greatest work was his life in the shadow of his death.  With full
>    knowledge of his impending death Jesus continued to be obedient to his
>    Father.  He continued to Preach, Teach, and Serve.  In the living of
>    his life, he totally redefined what it meant to be a savoir.  He
>    totally redefined what it meant to be a Messiah.  He submitted to his
>    own death on the cross.  Losing Faith, only for a brief moment, he
>    overcame even that final moment of human desparation.
    
>    "My God, My God, why have thou forsaken me!"

Patricia, 

God, the Father is a Holy God.  The Bible has told us that he cannot be 
in the presence of sin.  He looks not upon us when we sin... he sees us 
through His son Jesus [those who have accepted Christ].  When Jesus took 
the sins of the world upon his cross for us, God withdrew himself from 
Christ as he could not dwell in sin.  Christ's questioning is a response 
as you say from his "human" desperation.  Asking why doesn't always mean 
loss of faith.  Questioning God is never wrong... even when we know the 
answer. :-)

    
Nancy


    

Your verbosity surpasses me, Patricia.  :-)  I can't keep up.

> God is powerful enough and Awesome enough to win every Soul!

A seemingly nice thought, but one in which Jesus certainly did not believe or
agree, so neither do I.  It has nothing to do with power or awesomeness. 
What about a soul that does not wish to be won?  That is not willing to be
won?  God certainly could bind us, gag us, and overpower us, and drag us
along with Him into eternity.  But He loves us too much to overpower us in
that way.

Once again, you're claiming a Biblical basis, but you're really making up a
version of God that you personally find appealing.  I find that sort of God
appealing also, only that God bears no similarity to the God who revealed
Himself to the Israelites or who incarnated Himself in Jesus.

Claiming to be following Jesus while ignoring huge portions of what He said
because they don't fit with your personal preferences in what a God should be
like is remarkably inconsistent.  I'll quote Elijah, on mount Carmel: "How
long will you waver between two opinions?  If the LORD is God, follow him;
but if Baal is God, follow him." (1Kings 18:21)

If Jesus is the one that you follow, then follow Him, and follow Him
completely.  Follow all of what He said, not just the parts that you like. 
If you're not willing to do that, then don't be surprised or offended when
those who ARE seeking to follow Jesus in that manner don't accept your
half-hearted 'following' as the real thing.  And I don't mean 'half-hearted'
as an insult there, but as an accurate description.  Jesus doesn't want half
your heart, He wants the whole thing.  He doesn't want you to imagine a nice
God who will save everybody and then fit Him into that God, pruning off and
discarding the parts of Him that don't fit.  While He does recognize that our
coming to accept His Lordship in our lives is a process and that none of us
arrive there all at once, ultimately He is content with nothing less than
being the one and only God in your life.

I was listening to a tape by David Crossman in the car today, and the chorus
of one of the songs is:

My god and I have an agreement that is mutually fair,
  He comes out when I need him, and otherwise it's just as if he isn't there.
And that's why.... I.... Love.... my....
  Personal and private, low-pressure portable God.

Paul

RE:         <<< Note 652.19 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > There use to be times when girl babies were routinely exposed to death
   > and no one protested the outrage.
    
    Today boy and girl babies are exposed to death and protesters of this
    outrage are called "Anti Choice" or "Women Haters" etc..



   > I believe that we live in an age more moral than past ages.  It is all
   > subjective however.
    

    quite subjective.



    
   Jim

    Patricia,
    
    In response to your statement that we don't allow other Christians to
    participate;  Please read 2.0 of this conference.   
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Patricia,
    
    In regards to your response to me regarding a more moral age.  You
    basically responded as myopically as I had hoped you would not.
    
    Sigh,
    Nancy

> I hope I have challenged some of you to be a bit more open. 

There's an underlying assumption here, that 'open' is a good thing in and of
itself.  Our culture is certainly bent on proclaiming that to be the highest
good.  But is it, really?  Without any distinction about WHAT we are being
'open' to?  Our culture is painfully aware of the perils of a closed mind,
but is utterly blind to the perils of being so open to every idea that truth
is lost.

I hadn't really thought of it in these terms, but a personal goal is to be
ever LESS open to things that are not of God, and ever MORE open to things
that are of God.  I'm aware of the perils of closing too far, and I know that
I need to be aware of that danger.  But I'm also aware of the perils of
opening too far.

Paul

 I wouldn't go back to the time in my life that I was "open" for all
 the tea in China...




Jim

Patricia, I'm very open to the working of the Holy Spirit in my life, and
ever seeking to be moreso.  And I never cease to be amazed at what the Holy
Spirit can and will do, and who the Spirit is willing to use.  Knowing my own
faults as well as I do, my amazement at who the Spirit is willing to use
begins with me.

Yet I believe that God will not contradict Himself.  I believe that the Holy
Spirit will not tell us things that are contradictory to the revelation of
God in Jesus Christ.  So, for example, if someone professes that the Holy
Spirit is telling them that all people attain salvation, which is in direct
contradiction to the Word of our Lord, then I do not believe that it is the
Holy Spirit that told them that.

And I not only have no desire to BECOME open to that, but quite a strong
desire to AVOID being open to that.

Paul

>    You are aware that I do not hold the Bible innerant.  I do hold the
>    Bible as Authoritative and inspiritational.  I have limited my
>    comments in here to a Bible based discussion.  If you feel I should not
>    be noting in here, I will voluntarily comply.

Not addressed to me, but I'd like to comment anyway.

Discussion isn't the problem.  Coming to an understanding about the 
basis for communication isn't a problem.  You say that you believe XYZ
based on what the Bible says about such-and-such.  I say WXY based on 
how I see the Bible.  That's going to be the norm around here.

We struggle constantly about what the Bible ACTUALLY is saying.

But we do have a problem in communicating because the basis is different.
How authoratative is the Bible?  On what basis do you declare some of its
parts invalid?  If you hold any part of it invalid, then how can we really
discuss what the Bible says about anything?

Barry Dysert said it best that the Bible is the only bottom line we have.
Correctly discerning what it has to say is VITAL, unless it is merely
inspirational and somewhat authoratative.  

The whole of Scripture also needs to be in harmony with the parts of 
Scripture.  I think most people would agree that distortions are bad.
Just as distorting "wives submit" is wrong, distorting things to suit
one's other persuasion is also very wrong, and potentially hazardous.

I like the word Andrew used: harmony, because it describes the God I know.
Some of the things I once thought to be incongruous (such as free will and
predestination) are beautifully interwoven into a fine tapestry.

But when we speak of what the Bible has to say, the Bible must stand the
test of itself.  Our ideas of what Scripture has to say must harmonize 
with other Scripture.  If ti doesn't then we need to re-examine our ideas.

I am not a feminist, in the way I understand some feminism.  I am a feminist
in the way I understand it, but you would not call me a feminist because
we have may some basic differences in our definitions as to what feminism is.

The Bible is our definition.  You can discuss anything you like and it will
be held up to its meter for good or for bad.  Being aware that merely saying
that an opinion is Biblically based doesn't make it so.  That goes for me,
as well as you.  The Bible defines itself.

Mark

    .27
    
    Patricia,
    
    It has never been the intent of the moderatorship for this conference
    to be exclusive.  It is in fact the intent of the moderatorship to
    provide a forum where fruitless banters are kept at a minimum.
    
    As Mark stated previously, and as you have stated in another conference
    to me, there comes a point when inerrantists and non-inerrantists can
    no longer "reason" together over Truths.  I'd have to state that it is
    also a goal to not constantly be in battle over inerrancy as well.
    
    You are more than welcome to be in this forum, no need to leave unless
    its of your own bidding.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    
    Patricia,
    
    I find it interesting that you believe you have the right to pick 
    and choose, but God doesn't.  You would think as our sovereign 
    that he would.  At least I would think that.
    
    Jill

    Patricia,
    
    I don't read two different answers.  I think that we need to keep in
    mind that this forum is for everyone.  But not everyone is for this
    forum.  It's the latter that creates an environment best kept in other
    conferences where debate is the letter of the law and not discussion.
    
    Nancy

>    You however believe that the Bible is 100% accurate.  Therefore you
>    should have no problem with my using the parts of the Bible that I deem
>    more authoritative.  It is fairly easy for me to limit my discussion to
>    what both you and I hold as authoritative. 

I understand that it is easy for *you* to limit your discussion to certain
parts of the Bible which you have deemed by some arbitrary standard to be
authoritative, but it's not easy for us to do that, and an arbitrarily chosen
sampling of verses forms no basis of discussion.

>    Since I believe the Bible itself fully supports my beliefs, I don't
>    need to to discuss innerancy.
    
>    You guys challenge me to see if I can fully back up my beliefs based on
>    the Bible.  I am challenged to see how authentically I can do that.  If
>    I do that authentically and authoritatively enough, then you need to
>    accept my beliefs because I then have proven them authoritative.  

There's a basic flaw in this reasoning.  If you have a belief which you can
back up with SOME parts of the Bible, yet which is completely contradicted by
other parts of the Bible, you still manage to come to the belief that Bible
'fully' supports your beliefs.  But no matter how authentically or
authoritatively you support your belief with small snippets of the Bible, if
you're ignoring other whole huge portions, then no, you have not proven your
beliefs to be authoritative and no, we will not accept them.

To take the example of universal salvation.  You could bring out a brilliant
exegesis of Romans 5 that supports your view of universal salvation.  But
Jesus is recorded as saying that He will separate the sheep from the goats,
Jesus told the parable of the 10 women waiting for the bridegroom, some of
whom were prepared for His coming, and some of whom were not prepared and
were left out in the darkness and denied entrance.  Jesus is recorded as
saying "I will say to them 'Depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for
satan and his angels, I never knew you.'"  Dozens of other passages could be
quoted.  The concept of a final judgement, and of some being saved and some
being lost, is not just a tack-on, it is a major theme of Jesus' teaching,
and a major theme of the entire Bible.

To say that your view of universal salvation is 'fully' supported by the
Bible, because you can find a few passages that suggest it, while there are
pages and pages and pages that clearly declare the opposite is, quite simply,
absurd.

The problem with your suggestion that since we agree that parts of the Bible
are authoritative we should be able to discuss those, is that the discussion
always runs like this:

You:	"See, there is universal salvation.  This verse in Romans 5, which I
	 believe to be authoritative, indicates that there is."

Us:	"But what about these other hundred verses that indicate exactly the
	 opposite?"

You:	"I don't believe those verses to be authoritative, because they do
	 not fit the concept of God that I desire to believe in."

Now what?

Paul

    Paul,  you are absolutely correct and we would be wise to remember your
    argument.
    
    jeff

>    You however believe that the Bible is 100% accurate.  Therefore you
>    should have no problem with my using the parts of the Bible that I deem
>    more authoritative.  It is fairly easy for me to limit my discussion to
>    what both you and I hold as authoritative. 
    
Really?  How can this be if the underlying definition is not the same?

By what scholarship will you render the Bible as accurate in some places
and inaccruate in others?  Do you depend on experts in Greek and Hebrew?
Or do you depend on feminist theologians?  I would hope that these
feminist theologians are experts in Greek and Hebrew to accurately
translate the Scriptures.

Still, because we both do not find the whole of the Bible authoritative, 
we will have to constantly go back to fundamentals to determine if a
portion of the Bible we want to discuss is authoritative or not.  

For example, we may discuss "the Law" and we both may find -whatever-is-in-
Acts-about-the-law as authoratative, but I find that the Old Testament
Scriptures and other NT Scriptures also provide a greater context for what
Acts says about "the Law."  We CANNOT discuss the "Law" based on what you
may find authoratative about Acts, but not the rest of the Bible.  It would
be a fruitless exercise.  We may be writing English words, but we'd parse
the sentences differently.

Next, you say, "I interpret it this way, you intepret it that way" as if
to say, there is no humanly right way to interpret the Scriptures; and we
can even cite the discussions in here among "Bible believers" as a proof.
This is a fallacy because there is scholarship to help.  And yes, there is
"good" scholarship and "bad" scholarship and so we need to agree upon matters
that make good or bad scholarship.  And who decides that, so how do we know?
---------------------------
Repost of something I wrote before:
---------------------------
John Wesley has a "quardalateral sources of authority" (and the scholars
in here can help me out) for determine what Truth is when it is in question.

1. The Word
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience

The trouble is that many of us want to zip on past 1, 2, and 3, and rely on
number 4.  Nothing is Truth that contradicts the tenor of Scripture.

But Scripture is interpreted.  Anyone who says we rely on the word of God
and the Word only has their interpretation of the Scripture.  So these other
pieces come into play, remembering the hierarchy.  An interpretation CANNOT
contradict the tenor of Scipture and be held as a truth.

"Tradition" is claimed by some, and should not simply mean "the unbroken
succession" of an orgainzation.  The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
church of Jesus Christ is not limited to an organization.
The church is One in Jesus, holy in that it belongs to God not men,
catholic in that it is worldwide; universal, and apostolic in that it
has not varied from what the disciples taught.  (Friend Catholic: I hope
you can see that I am not tearing down your church by lifting up His Church.)

Reason is given to change with the debasement of humanity and only
more fleeting is personal experience.  Yet, when they affirm the tradition
which affirms the Word, they then can be trusted, for none of these four
points of the quadralateral are sufficient alone, but taken together,
provide a mechanism by which we, as humans, can interpret the Truths
that pre-exist the law.
------------------------

I'm satisfied with Wesley's method for divining truth.  And scholars in 
Greek and Hebrew who hold to these have the best chance of accurately
rendering Scripture.  You have stated before that you come with an
unabashed FILTER of feminism (claiming that we all have our filters).
Yet, I would submit that seeking Truth is an attempt to see without
any filters, allowing the Light of the World to impress Himself upon us
directly and not through any filter.

Find out what it actually says.  Apply tradition, reason, and experience
in that order.  (I suspect that tradition is suspect with you, and that
reason and experience are the filters you lead with - too bold of me to 
state out in the open?)  I still maintain that we (I) need to climb over
any doctrine for the Truth.

Mark

Patricia,
>    I am challenged to see how authentically I can do that.  If
>    I do that authentically and authoritatively enough, then you need to
>    accept my beliefs because I then have proven them authoritative.

P.S.  Attributing Scripture to a particular belief is not proof of
      truth, even though it may hold authority in your life.  There
      are common errors on which "health, wealth, and properity"
      doctrines (for example) are based on "authoratative Scripture."

MM

Patricia, again the sticking point is not what you can say about the passages
that you do believe, but what you will not say about the passages you do not
believe.  Could you address by what standard, if not an arbitrary one, you
reject all the references by Jesus and by the rest of the New Testament to a
judgement?

Choosing one example, you based a significant portion of your theology on
Jesus, in Matthew 25, teaching that "Whatever you did for the least of these
brothers of mine, you did for me" (vs 40.)  You distilled down that this is
how we come to know Christ, through doing good to others.

In *THE VERY NEXT VERSE*, Jesus turns to those on His left and says:

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the
devil and his angels."

On what basis do you discard this verse?

Paul

 Patricia, since you accept Romans 5 as being authoritative, do you 
 also accept Romans 10 (as below) authoritative?  Or, have you considered
 reading the Romans letter as a letter without chapter divisions?
 Which is authoritative, and which is not?



@@Romans 10:1  Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, 
@@that they might be saved. 
  
 Note Paul is not saying how thankful he is that they are universally saved.


2  For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according 
to knowledge. 

  3  For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to 
establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the 
righteousness of God. 

  4  For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that 
believeth. 

  5  For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man 
which doeth those things shall live by them. 

  6  But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not 
in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down 
from above:) 

  7  Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again 
from the dead.) 

  8  But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 

@@  9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
@@believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
@@saved. 
 
    Indicates action must be taken in order for one to be saved.


10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth 
confession is made unto salvation. 

 11  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be 
ashamed. 

 12  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same 
Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 

@@ 13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 

    "whosoever" seems to indicate that there is an action that must be 
     taken for one to be saved..




 14  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how 
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear 
without a preacher? 

 15  And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How 
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad 
tidings of good things! 

 16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who 
hath believed our report? 
 
17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 

>    When Romans five says all Humans are save by the one man Jesus, I
>    accept the all to really mean all.  You accept the all as having some
>    hidden meaning that does not mean all.

By the way, I could not help noting the hypocrisy of this statement.  This is
a classic example of exactly what I was talking about when I said that it is
impossible to have a rational discussion of *JUST* the verses you accept,
while ignoring the rest of the Bible.  You take the high ground here, in
effect saying "I'm taking the Bible at face value, and you are not."  And by
looking *ONLY* at that one verse, you may be correct.  But the only way you
can take this position is to ignore pages and pages and pages of the Bible. 
For you to so ignore whole sections of the Bible, then stand on this ONE
verse and proclaim that you are following the Bible and we are not, is really
quite ludicrous.

Paul

	Why is it that many people can't seem to discuss commonalities in this 
file which could bring forth the fruit God wants to get out, and take an all or
nothing POV? I mean, Cardinal Law is discussing commonalities about abortion
with the Governer this morning. I seriously doubt he will change his POV about
the subject, but by finding the commonalities he and the gov will be able to
address some of the issues that face that topic. In our own facility we had
meetings between a group which can not be mentioned here and Christians. No one
wanted to change anyone's mind, and that was the only real rule of the
meetings. But what they did discuss is commonalities, misconceptions, things
like that. This file never ceases to amaze me though......


Glen

    >cannot get out of dealing with the fact that it says all humans are
    >saved even if that contradicts a different passage.
    
    You can if you read it in the context it was written in, rather than
    trying to take one verse out of context and building a doctrine around
    it.  Its kind of like the press interviewing someone for 45 minutes and
    then using a 10 second clip on the news to imply that the person was
    saying something, without giving a understanding of the context it was
    said in.
    
    Bing
    
    

Patricia, you very carefully again said what you DO believe, and not why you
don't believe what you don't believe.  Again you said nothing about what
basis you use to discard verses.  Nebulous talk of paradoxes does not answer
the question I asked.

To reiterate:

Could you address by what standard, if not an arbitrary one, you
reject all the references by Jesus and by the rest of the New Testament to a
judgement?

Choosing one example, you based a significant portion of your theology on
Jesus, in Matthew 25, teaching that "Whatever you did for the least of these
brothers of mine, you did for me" (vs 40.)  You distilled down that this is
how we come to know Christ, through doing good to others.

In *THE VERY NEXT VERSE*, Jesus turns to those on His left and says:

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the
devil and his angels."

On what basis do you discard this verse?

Paul

    .50
    
    Set hidden [my own note] pending moderator discussion.
    
    Nancy

 Another verse in Romans that says that there are some who are not
 saved..Note Paul doesn't say "There is therefore now no condemnation"
 there is a qualifier, those who are in Christ are not condemned.  Who,
 then is condemned? If Paul says in Romans 5 that salvation is universal,
 why is there a qualifier here, as well as in Romans 6, 10, et al?






Romans 8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in 
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 


Jim

    
    
    Major nit here Patricia:
    
    >We can hold whatever belief we want about the nature of Jesus, but
    >unless that truly impacts our relationship with God and our
    >relationship with other human beings,  It matters naught.
    
    You have no relationship with God unless you understand the nature
    of Jesus.  
    
    Jill
    

I'm hopelessly behind in this discussion - drawback of my new position.

>    By the way, A quadrilaterial is a four sided box.  It is not a
>    Hierarchy of Authority.
>
>    You have misinterpreted John Wesley in trying to make your point!

       *---------*                    *
       |         |                   / \
       |         |                  /   \
       |         |                 *     *
       |         |                  \   /
       |         |                   \ /
       *---------*                    *

Which of these is a quadrilateral?  Which of these implies hierarchy?
The quadrilateral implies relationship between the four corners, but does
not have to grant equal weight to each corner.  Who has misinterpreted Wesley?

Mark

>    Regarding many issues there is no certainty!  THere is no certainty
>    because God choose that there is no certainty!.  Ultimately our Faith
>    needs to rest in God and our relationship to God.

Regarding many issues there is certainty.  And reagrding many more there
is much in agreement, with trivial uncertainties.  So far, you have not 
provided trivial differences of interpretation, nor definition for determining 
whether interpretation is valid by agreed-upon methods of study.

Mark

Regarding "all" in romans 5:

"I eat here all the time."

Does it mean that every moment of eternity I eat here?  At face value,
that's what it would mean wouldn't it?

----------

How many people are dead in that cemetary?
All of them.

Does this mean that all people who are dead in that cemetary?
We understand it to mean all people within the boundaries of
the cemetary are dead.  All is an answer to "how many" but 
is bound by the context of the cemetary.  All does not mean
all people, nor all dead people.

It is irrational to apply universalism to Romans 5.  It is a distortion
of the context by any scholastic measure.

Mark

>================================================================================
>Note 652.49 POWDML::FLANAGAN
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Paul,
>
>    I am very deliberately and intentionally not discussing why I don't
>    hold the Bible Innerant and therefore my justification for dismissing
>    some verses.
>
>    I am doing this specifically to comply with conference guidelines.  If
>    you want to have that discussion with me, we will have to have it in a
>    forum where that discussion is welcomed.
>
>
>                                     Patricia


There is a note in this conference for discussing the inerrancy of the
Bible.  You post a red herring, if you don't know it.  It's hogwash, 
Patricia, and avoidance, from my point of view.

MM

Oh.  So it's Wesley who corrupted Hooker's "three-legged stool" by adding
the subversive "experience" element.

Read Hooker's "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" to understand the relationship
between Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.  And be sure to understand that
this is _corporate_ Reason, not individual Reason, that is spoken of.

/john

There have been so many comments, I really can't take the time to answer
too much. 

Back to the question: How is doctrine to be kept pure?

Obviously the christian organizations are incapable of doing this. The result
can be seen today. Each group thinks their beliefs are correct, yet they differ
greatly. Also, over long periods of time the doctrine almost invariably gets
worse instead of better (the catholic church as the biggest example, but all
of the other long existing christian organizations just the same). 

This reminds me of people trying to 'capture' the holy Spirit, to hold some
things which the holy Spirit reveals. It is like the Manna at the time of 
Moses. It was from God the first day. But if someone tried to keep it for
more than that time, it was full of worms. Each day new, the Manna had to 
be gathered.

The pure essence of Christianity is discipleship, 'hearing' Jesus, 'hearing'
the holy Spirit. 

'A Prophet like myself will the LORD, your God raise up from amongst your 
brethren, him you shall hear in everything, that he will speak to you. And
it will happen, every soul, who will not listen to this Prophet will be 
cut out of the People.'

The problem many have, is that what Jesus says is often slanted or changed
according to the christian organization they belong to. 

What I really like about Paul is how his office as apostle encouraged the
testing of what he or others said with the scriptures. 

In Berea, he testified,
These were more noble than the Thessalonians, in that they received the
Word with all readiness and daily searched in the scriptures, if it were
so.

He also says to test all things, and hold fast that which is good.

He even says, that if he himself or others teach any other gospel as what they
have already preached, that they be cursed.

But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other gospel as to that which 
we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

How different than how christian organizations today see this. Yet Paul did
have a great influence on the churches, not by forcefull doctrine, but by
obedience to the holy Spirit. He came from underneath. Some churches didn't
want to receive him. He didn't kick them out of the organization. Instead
he came from below, prayed continually for them.

I think keeping doctrine pure in the church is related to the example of Paul.
He wrote also:

'He(Jesus) gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some 
Shepherds, some teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of 
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until that we all
come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Sohn of God, to the 
full measure of the fullness of Christ. That we no longer be ignorant, 
tossed back and forth by every wind of teaching, through the kraftiness of 
Man, through their deception, through which they deceive us...'

Jesus' precaution for keeping the doctrine pure was giving these offices,
apostles, prophets. Today, they wouldn't be accepted by the most christian
organizations, simply because these organizations have closed themselves 
off and are not flexible in their doctrine. The more people trust in their
christian organizations, the more certain it is that we will never come to 
a unity of the faith, to pure doctrine.

Just as an example, baptism.

If an organization has a foundational basis that babies are to have water
poured or sprinkled on their head, how open would they be for someone like
John the baptist or Jesus himself? Would Jesus have to change his beliefs
to join these organizations? Would he have to recant what he and his 
apostles have taught?

Was it not Jesus who made the new covenant? Is it not he who commanded that
those who believe are to be baptized (the very word means to dip. The 
orthodox church never changed the method Jesus had taught!), did he not
command to go to all nations and make disciples, baptizing them in the
name of the father, sohn and holy spirit? Who really has the authority to
change this? And if the organizations teach contrary to the example and 
words of Jesus, who should have the preeminence? We are back to the
prophecy concerning Jesus, 'whoever will not hear this prophet will be cut
out of the people'.

Today the organizations are preserving the faith, unfortunately also 
preserving the error. And yet the scriptures are clear to all who want to
know really what Jesus says.

It is God's soverign choice, that obedience to Jesus and the holy Spirit
is of all importance. It may also be God's soverign will that conflicts
arise with the individuals in their organizations, which result in them
'obeying God more than Man'.

What about Jesus' way of preserving the faith, through men chosen by the 
holy spirit, apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers?

What about a church outside of the organizations?

Rodger

    I have seen and enjoyed the Difficulties note.
    
                                 Patricia

      Hi,
    
        I haven't really read much of this string, but just a couple
        thoughts...
    
        "keeping the truths pure..."
    
        This suggests that the "truths" already were pure.  Obviously
        God's truth is pure and thus the meaning of the term to 'keep
        pure' has to do with the purity of truth as heeded by God's
        church.  I suggest that we cannot keep the truth pure (in this
        regard) because we never had it pure to begin with!
    
        Ephesus, the early Christian Church, "lost her first love"
        (Rev 2:4).  Paul predicted a great falling away and there has
        since been a reformation.  "But the path of the just is like the 
        shining light that shines ever brighter unto the perfect day."
        Prov. 4:18.
    
        The endtimes are ushered in when the church _comprehends_ "with
        all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height -
        to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may
        be filled with all the fulness of God."  Eph 3:18,19
    
        To suggest keeping pure implies that it already is and can actually
        suppress attaining the truth in its purity for if it is not
        presently pure, how can we attain the pure if we keep what we have?
        What if the pure truth implies some departure from the old which
        is not altogether pure?
    
        How do we know what Paul's theology was?  We look back on 1900
        years of history, much of which constituted a great falling away.
        How much does our understanding of the gospel mirror Paul's?  How
        do we know?
    
        Regarding seemingly contradictions, the above helps to speak to
        me to humble before the word of God.  Who am I to conclude anything
        is a contradiction?  Too many times, I have been blessed to come to
        an interpretation that harmonizes what once seemed an irreconcilable
        contradiction.  Do I discern like one who comprehends the dimensions
        of God's love love?
    
        Hardly!
    
        Complete harmony will be found by that group which is the final
        group that constitutes "the path of the just."
    
                                                    Tony
    

>Note 652.59  POWDML::FLANAGAN
>    I try not to play games.  I did not know that there was a note in here
>    to discuss innerancy, I've never read that note, and I am not trying to
>    avoid the subject.
>
>                                             Patricia

  Then perhaps you were merely misinformed about what the "rules" are
  about this conference?  Perhaps, they've been read through a filter?

>Note 652.60  POWDML::FLANAGAN

>>Yet, I would submit that seeking Truth is an attempt to see without
>>any filters, allowing the Light of the World to impress Himself upon us
>directly and not through any filter.
>
>    You have sufficiently identified your filter above.  You will allow the
>    Light of the World to impress Himself upon you as long as that light
>    does not contradict your interpretation of the Word.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Bull feathers.  I've had my *interpretation* contradicted BY the
  Word a few times.  My *interpretation* has had to YIELD to what the
  Word has had to say.  The Word filters me; I make every attempt NOT
  to filter the word.



>>Find out what it actually says.  Apply tradition, reason, and experience
>>in that order.  (I suspect that tradition is suspect with you, and that
>>reason and experience are the filters you lead with - too bold of me to
>>state out in the open?)  I still maintain that we (I) need to climb over
>>any doctrine for the Truth.
>
>    You have created an absolute Hierarchy out of the Quadrilaterial.

  I will not back down on the hierarchy.  But I will back down on the
  use of the word quadrilateral if it causes so much confusion, or is
  inappropriately applied (by me).

Mark

    I didn't realize that there were such differences of meaning to baptism
    and the forgiveness of sins.
    How about this one " Baptism is to initiate you into the family of God"
    thus making you a co-heir to His Kingdom. When Man separated himself
    from God he (man) tried many ways to reunite with God: Good works,
    worship and later religion. God gave the answer and spent His only SON.
    He hadn't just sent His son He SPENT his son on the cross to reunite
    Manwith Him. The sacrifice that had to be paid for sin. When we sin we
    should repent for having made it necessary for the Son of God to be
    Spent for the mistakes of man.
    
    I don't think we should think of Truths but The Truth. "Jesus said I am
    THE Truth" not a truth or one of the truths.
    
    If you are in doubt as to the interpretation of "The Truth" (The way to
    God) Then ask Him, there is no better counsellor than God Himself.
    
    It is true that different beliefs exist, a development over time made
    in good faith.
    
    Let us aks God to guide us: "Lord Your ways are not my ways help me to
    accept things I do not understand or agree with. Show me The Way You
    want me to go, the way that is in Your plan for me. Thank You Lord that
    despite differences in Faiths and Doctrine we are able to praise your
    name together. Inspire theologians to formulate Doctrine as You
    intended and to give me the strength to accept in entirety the
    Doctrine of my church however misguided I may find it. Help me to be
    instrumental in bringing about Your will on Earth. Amen.    

    Tony, 
    
    Thanks for your note. Yes, there was a time when the truth was pure! It
    was when Jesus was speaking it to his disciples, and when the Holy
    Spirit, which Jesus said would come and lead us into all truths, came
    on Pentecost and the church was born. What Jesus said to his disciples
    is pure. We have what Jesus said, GOD BE THANKED!!! In the 4 gospels,
    the letters from Peter, John, etc. Paul, recognized also from Peter,
    was also given much Revelation, not from man, but from Jesus. This is
    also pure.
    
    But the scriptures warn us:
    
    He(Jesus) gave Apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and shepherds
    for the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, till we all
    come to the unity of the faith,...
    
    That we no longer be children, tossed back and forth by every wind of
    doctrine, from the craftiness of men whereby they deceive,...
    
    There is no place where we can find the pureness of the truth as much
    as in the scriptures, since through them we come directly back to the
    direct encounter of Jesus, who is the truth. His apostles also wrote
    the other letters of the apostles. 
    The writings in the following generations are very good to find out how
    the first christian church understood and practiced these truths. But
    after about 200 years there could be many types of error which may 
    distort the truth, apply it wrong, since there would be no originals to
    correct them (such as infant baptism). 
    
    People were sent by the holy Spirit to preach the gospel. The holy
    Spirit is today the same, Jesus is the same, but the truth has suffered
    so much over the last 2000 years, that there are many new obstacles
    before us. Many claim Jesus Christ, but many are in error. Should we
    still preach the gospel to them, knowing that they haven't really been
    born of the Spirit and freed of sin? If so, we are resisted by the
    errors, whom the 'Father of lies' uses to deceive, that they cannot see
    the glorious gospel of Jesus.
    
    Rodger

    Williams from VNABRW!
    
    Thank you for your note. 
    
    I'm not sure if I understood all you were saying. But I really rejoiced
    reading about Jesus being 'spent', and the encouragement to receive
    council from God himself. I also love spending time with God, seeking
    his heart, to know him ever better, to love him ever more.
    
    The error confronts me much more, because of the calling that the Lord
    has on my life. I have been called from my youth as an evangelist,
    ordained about 12 years ago. 
    
    There is a difference between things which God has told me and what the
    church may believe. But that was the same with Paul as he wrote
    Galatians, Corinthians, his letters to Timothy, John, Peter, etc.
    
    Concerning forgiveness of Sins through baptism:
    
    Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
    the forgiveness of your sins.
    Why do you tarry, Be baptized, washing away your sins, calling on the
    name of the Lord.
    But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared toward
    man, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
    his mercy he saved us, by the wasing of regeneration (fig.baptism in greek)
    and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
    Putting off the old man..., being dead to sin, being freed from sin,
    through baptism. (Rom 6)
    There is no doubt through the scriptures that baptism was for the
    forgiveness of sins, just as Peter said on the first day.
    All of the old churches, catholic, orthodox, anglican, etc. all believe
    it today, it is even a part of their confession of faith, 'We believe
    in baptism for the forgiveness of sins'
    All of the church fathers also believed it. 
    
    Justin:  (150 AD)
    Then  they  are led by us to where there is water and are reborn in the
    same rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn.  They undergo the
    washing in water  in  the name of God the Father and Master of the universe,
    and of our Savior,  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy Spirit. For indeed 
    Christ  said, "Unless you be reborn, you will not enter into the
    Kingdom  of  Heaven."
    It is allowed(communion) to no one else to participate in that food which 
    we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by 
    us are true,
    who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness
    of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us.
    
    and may obtain remission of sins previously committed,  the name of God 
    the Father and Master of the universe is invoked in  the  water over the 
    one who has chosen to be reborn and who has repented
    of his sins. 
    Needless to say, the scriptures and the first fathers also teach that
    baptism IS our second rebirth, just as Jesus said, 'unless you be
    born of the water and the spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.'
    
    Hermes 
    
    "Sir," I said, "I will continue to question you." "Speak," he
    replied. "I have heard,  sir,"  said  I, "from  some teachers, that there 
    is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into 
    the water and obtained the remission of our former sins."  
    [2] He said to me, "You have heard rightly, for so it is.  One who has 
    received remission of sins ought  never sin again,  but live  in purity. 
    
    The list can continue to EVERY writing about baptism until into the
    middle ages. 
    The understanding of Luther about baptism, and others after him,
    totally disagrees with all of the writings before him. I don't believe
    even the heretics came against this truth, it was so established.
    
    Yet today, most free churches have a similiar understanding as Luther,
    it is only 'symbolic', has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins,
    eternal life, the rebirth, membership to the body of Christ. But this
    is a 'drifting away' from what Jesus, the apostles and the early church
    believed.
    
    Rodger
    

    Roger, Thank you for your reaction to my note. Your comments have given
    me a warm feeling that Jesus lives in us, telling us things, guiding us
    and working through us to guide His church.
    I have always believed that when one is Christened they are absolved
    from their inherrited original sin, filled with the Holy Spirit and
    made a member of His family. That normally happens when we are babies:
    as a gift from God through the act of our parents.
    But there comes a time when we as adults have to say yes to Jesus
    Christ, when we have to give a committment to Jesus Christ with a big
    thankyou for being accepted into His family. Some call this act of
    committment "Born again" we are reboosted with the Holy Spirit and is
    normally accompanied with outward signs of being showered with gifts
    from Him " Love, Peace, Kindness, Self control, sometimes increased
    Knowledge, discernment of Spirits and many more.
    During adult life when we are conscious of committing sin we sometimes
    break our relationship with Him. On seeking reconciliation with Him we
    are again forgiven. I asked Jesus once "Can you yet again forgive me?.
    The answer came instantly: "Would I ask you to forgive others 77 times
    7 times and not do that myself for you"  
    
    Brother in Christ 
    
    Peter

We love to argue, don't we.

My opinion, FWIW, is that truth hasn't been diluted over the centuries.  
Very few of the Bible-based denominations disagree over the basic things 
that make us Christians.  Who is God?  Who is Jesus?  Who is the Spirit?  
What must I do to be saved, etc.

Denominations have arisen because of disagreements on some of the details, 
or on style, or on emphasis.  The basics of Christianity haven't changed, 
and are still regarded as true.

Now, I'd urge you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  A church 
is crucial to one's walk with the Lord.  We can't do this alone, and we 
need other people to serve, and to serve our needs, as we seek the Lord.  
If there is a church that you completely disagree with, for example, on 
their baptismal doctrine, then leave and join one that you agree with.  As 
long as they are biblical.  If you can't find a church you can live with, 
then there's an issue that you need to face.  We are called to fellowship 
with others (Hebr 10:24-25) and we are called to unity (Eph. 4).  

- Don Randall  

    
    I haven't read this string through so please excuse redundancy.  My
    belief is that God has certainly provided the means for keeping the
    truth of Him pure.  He has done this through the written Word, our
    Bible.  In fact there is no better way!  I thanked God only this
    morning for His Word and the beauty of having it written down!  Written
    words do not change (though they're meaning may change a bit).  
    
    So, not only did God give us His truth but He gave it in such a way
    (written) that we can count on it forever!  
    
    Off the cuff, I would say that the extra-biblical emphasis of some
    Christian sects are exactly what cause the *appearance* of and very
    real (for some) confusion.  This can be expected.  It is our
    imaginations which lead us to folly and error.  God's Word always
    brings us back to the truth.
    
    I'm thankful to have become a part of a sect which declares openly and
    aggressively that the 66 books of the Bible are the final revelation of
    God until eternity.  All we need to live our lives in His will is in
    His Word if we will only study it.
    
    jeff