Correction!! Study helps do not give
"understanding" Lance. Only the Holy Spirit can give
"understanding"
Historical background is not "understanding" per se.
One can know all ABOUT something and be completely
void of "understanding" or
spiritually ignorant just like the scribes and pharisees of Jesus'
day..
By the way Dean, if a child can understand it then, would you say that Judy doesn't need her 'study helps' and DM doesn't
require skills in ancient languages, logic etc.?
cd: I think this is good advice
and I am trying to do just that Lance. My advice to you is to forget all the
different "isms" in these other views as they have IMO lead you into
confusion.God wrote in a language so simple that even a child could
understand-what you hold for truth is a doctrine of complexity that even a
collage graduate would fall short understanding-and you or Satan has
placed people around yourself that is supporting this complex error. Simply
read the Bible for your self and draw you own conclusions from those written
words and-as you say live by those
words-respectfully.
Sent: 2/24/2006 5:58:24 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Plurality vs
Pluralism - Who is believing/teach THE TRUTH?
Dean says to Lance "their is only ONE
TRUTH...the Bible wording supports OUR TRUTH" Further, "I have tried
to teach you...(the Bible truth, the One truth, our truth.. concerning
sin)"
I posted the course notes on Christology for
you to see the diversity, Dean. In Mad Magazine it was Spy vs Spy whereas
on TT, in the churches and, in life it is ideaology vs ideaology, religion
vs religion, belief vs belief and, yes Dean, even SCRIPTURE VS SCRIPTURE.
I suggest that you live out that which you
believe God has shown you.
Original Message -----
Sent: February 24, 2006 05:33
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Plurality
vs Pluralism - Who is believing/teach THE TRUTH?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2/22/2006 7:18:44 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Plurality vs
Pluralism - Who is believing/teach THE TRUTH?
Look 'em up. I'm for the former and,
agin' the latter. It seems to me that each believes their
understanding of the truth to be THE understanding of the truth.
Each attempts to demonstrate the foregoing by employing means
generally acceptable to all participants. When arriving at an impasse,
persons just agree to disagree or, think of those with whom they
disagree as unwilling/unable to SEE their (read THE) TRUTH. Persons
also testify to the presence of their truth in their lives. Persons
suggest some variation on illumination/enlightenment/Divine
confirmation of their truth.
cd:The problem I see
with your reasoning Lance - Respectfully- is that the Bible wording
supports our truth (ie. And there is only one truth). We can back up
what we say with the word of God with harmony through the entire
Bible- these others you mentioned cannot. I have tried to teach
you about sin and the consequences of sin even on a believer. Can you
use the Bible to teach me once saved always
saved?
How and, in what ways have I
mischaracterized TT since its
inception?
|