Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:28:14 -0700

Forget what I 'say'. Just stand back and watch. I'd say that what this amounts to is a sideshow for our Mormon friends. They are being told by Perry, Kevin, you, David and Linda that that which and, in Whom, they believe is not Biblical. You folks are demonstrating that A It can't be known (even after having believed for decades) B That it doesn't reall matter all that much EXCEPT FOR MORMONS, OF COURSE!
Sent: July 22, 2005 14:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Noone who thinks they know anything about anything is ever fine with Lance; he is the one who says we can't
know because of Enlightenment thinking and all that because it has stymied the Holy Spirit who just can't perform
anymore because of it  which makes the Bible useless and impossible to understand.... comprehende????
 
Or, you could conclude that the Spirit is not yet finished leading.  That way, you would not be claiming that
the Bible is in error. Terry
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:57:20 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Where on earth did THAT idea come from? Lower your intake of sasperella (it was OK for Hoppy but not for you, apparently) The Bible is just fine, Terry. It is one or both of the contributors who is not 'fine' in their understanding of the Bible's teaching. This in spite of the fact that they both have access to the Spirit's leading on the matter at hand.
Lance Muir wrote:
At last we've been presented with the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, David).
 
Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approach....HOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than reality.
 

Reply via email to