« Last post by segell on Today at 01:39:18 PM »
I'll withhold comments concerning the tenor of your opening post. But I do have a few of questions for you.
1. What were the "archeological discoveries" that you cite to prove that those who began the reformation teaching did not have knowledge on "certain biblical" topics about which they wrote? And what is your source of information regarding your comment?
2. What are your sources for concluding that Eastern cultic philosophies were incorporated into the reformers conclusions or teachings?
3. What gives you the temerity that current scholars that embrace reformed understanding are on the same level as crooked cops? (Btw, such a foolish and loose comment brings into serious question any other assertion you might wish to make concerning your disdain for reformed teaching).
4. Can you cite those posts that you have "endured" (really?) that make a mockery of education? Or were the posts making a mockery of your continued attempts to elevate your understanding over others by repeatedly reminding everyone of your scholastic background - correspondence school and all. Some here might suggest that you make a mockery of grace. Oh wait, that's right, you have declared that you have a "perfect" understanding of grace and therefore, I suppose, you would be exempt from critical commentary.
5. What makes you think that the Spirit of God only was present when the original New Testament books of the bible were written. I mean, do you think the Holy Spirit might have been at work when the Hebrew of the Old Testament was translated into Greek? or the original Greek translated into English? Or Latin? or any of the myriad of languages the Holy Scriptures have been translated into? I mean, are you suggesting Greek is God's language? Really? Shame Moses didn't know that or David for that matter.
6. When you wrote: "Rather than coming up with reasons for bashing what takes away the apparent truthfulness of your false theology, why not stop practicing being a modern day Pharisee and begin to seek the truth of God's Word?" may I ask just how tight of a wad were your underpants? I mean, really? Modern Pharisees?
7. Now, last two comments: I commend you on your study of the Greek language. Has it been your knowledge of the Greek and your exercise of your logic that has drawn you to your Biblical conclusions? And do you suppose that the conclusions you have drawn can only be found in the study of Greek and not in the current translations that many of us use today?
8. Lastly, I don't recall in those of your posts that I read whether you expounded upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the ability of God's people to obey, to remain faithful, to follow God's lead while assuring each one who are His that we truly are His. I find that a curious absence. If you have written on the subject, please point me in the right direction.
You see, there are some of us - and many who do not consider themselves Calvinists or Reformers or followers of any teaching - who believe that what we learn in the Bible is illuminated to us and in us by the ministry of God's Spirit. That doesn't mean that we don't study. That doesn't mean that we reject scholarship. That doesn't mean that we are stupid and foolish people like you seem to want to continue to name us. There are some of us who practice something called "praying the Scriptures" where we enter in to prayer and discussion with God as we read His Word. It's a wonderful discipline among many other disciplines that God's people follow in order to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
You see, some of us believe that we are called to obedience for a very different purpose than the one you assert. We both believe that we are to obey. No argument there. But for the purpose? Well, that is another story.