[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/20/2005 4:10:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: Is this argument about how bad you can be and still be used by God?No it is not and why would you think otherwise? But it is a statement to the fact that we, who continually are falling from the Glory , can be used anyway. A marvelous blessing.jt: Continually falling from the Glory? What is that?
I found the list of "perverts" you posted which included Samson, Abraham, Paul, etc. to be extremely offensive JD. Everyone you named repented and some are mentioned in the hall of faith (Hebrews 11) so why do you keep identifying them with whatever failure they endured and overcame?Actually, your claim for "repentance" is rather unfounded. Samson certainly did no such thing -- preferring to die for no more noble a reason than revenge.jt: Well then God was in it with him because he prayed for God to restore his strength one more time and was willing to give up his temporal life in it. God says "vengeance is mine, I will repay" and since he allowed Samson to be part of it - I would call it God avenging rather than Samson personally taking revenge and there is a difference.Abraham nowhere repents for his lack of trust in the Lord, happily (I am sure) accepting those gifts that came his way because of his willingness to manipulate or try to manipulate the circumstance. Paul, a zealot for Judaism, nowhere confesses his repentance for his role in the murder of those who were disciples of the Christ, preferring to assume that God viewed his actions in the context of his zealousness for God Almighty.jt: When did the "Father of Faith" not trust in the Lord? Are you talking about the time he feared for his life and passed Sarah off as his sister before King Abimilech? Paul did repent - and he explained how he persecuted thechurch in ignorance calling himself the chief of sinners.
You may not like the way Kevin communicates but his point is well taken. God may use men who are not totally perfected as yet but He never chooses perverts.Actually, his point is poorly considered in view of his defense of the KJV. James 1 was a rather selfhish man who believed that God had given him the right, as King, to act in anyway he (James) deemed pluasible. He was a bi-sexual (at best) man, willing to allow others to die if success (for his person) could be enhanced.jt: Being selfish is no different from any of the rest of us outside of Christ; and how can you know these things? History remember is written many times by a man's enemies; it is also constantly being revised so how can you besure of this man's motives. I've read some of the word he wrote and they do not suggest perverse sexuality to me.I've been misjudged many times. Why not leave it with the Lord, the righteous Judge?When necessary He works in spite of them. And this is my very point. I wouldn't go so far as to say God can not reach people using the newer versions but if they are to grow into anything more than a baby believer they will of necessity have to lay them aside beccause the devil, the blood, and God's proper names will soon be history in them.The Majority Text is one of the poorest versions of the biblical message.jt: Upon what basis do you make this claim JD?Perhaps comparatively good back in the day, but certainly not today. Literally thousands of papyri/manuscripts have been discovered since that text was put together by the RCC priest (not that is anything wrong with that, mind you).jt: What text put together by the RCC priest are you referring to here?His point is right wing Missionary Baptist positioning ---- a sectarian consideration that is of little value to those who actually understand the need for a hermeneutic that takes into account history, culture, and textual criticism as one works to see the Message once written in a language not his own.jt: Who is HE? Are you referring to KevinD? My belief is that the scriptures are spiritual in nature and so it is possible to have the history, culture, and perfect hermeneutic and still find it a closed book. Textual criticism is even worse. What an affront to God.His point [as it relates to the King James Episcopal Bible) is laughable and, even, foolish. Hard language, to be sure -- but very true. Men of faith have worked throughout the ages to bring us the Message of hope that was a part of the First Church.jt: Depends what these men have their faith in. I've read of many who worked throughout the ages to suppress God's Word and refocus the faith of the people into a structure of their own making.To argue that only the 54 men who revised the Bishops's Bible, who were heavily influenced by their own theologies -- almost none of which Kevin would agree with today (men Kevin would call "false prophets" on ANY OTHER OCCASION) -- is to live in a fantasy world that is even dangerous to those who would be students of the Word. JDjt: I see God's Word as supernatural all the way round. Inspired by His Spirit through the Prophets and Apostleswith His hand guiding all the way; same Spirit who leads Believers. Those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.
