Satan's Emergent "Church" Movement - By Bryan Denlinger

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
Actually, Alayman is wrong here. Christendom has taught for millenia that Scripture is a revealed source of His voice. Until very recently, and then only among a very small minority, has it been taught that it is the only source of His voice. In fact, it's a position that is completely indefensible...which is why I believe both TB and Alayman are avoiding my questions.
Click to expand...

See those words in your quote colored red?  They're the key to your sophistry, especially the second one. 

Challenge:  Find anywhere on this forum, or anywhere in this universe where I stated that Scripture is the ONLY source for revelation and I'll call a crowd, grab a trumpet, and, well, you know the rest....[/quote]

You haven't made that claim but several others on this thread have made such a claim. You have claimed that "the Bible is to be the Christian's supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice", so I will ask you as I have asked others...

Where does the Bible describe which books are to be included in the canon of Scripture and which ones are not to be included? The only appeal you can make is to Scripture by your own statement. (Remember: this is coming from someone who holds to a 66-book canon.)
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
Alayman - have you even read the WCOF? If you'd like, I can quote the parts on the Church local and the Church universal.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, but it bears repeating, I wouldn't let you teach my dog, let alone actual people.


You're the one who has repeatedly denied that the Bible is to be the Christian's supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice, which is an explicitly anti-reformed notion, one that the WCoF expressly opposes in numerous places, including the one you quoted.
Click to expand...

It would be entertaining to see him Pastor a group of 50 or more....
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=ALAYMAN]
Actually, Alayman is wrong here. Christendom has taught for millenia that Scripture is a revealed source of His voice. Until very recently, and then only among a very small minority, has it been taught that it is the only source of His voice. In fact, it's a position that is completely indefensible...which is why I believe both TB and Alayman are avoiding my questions.
Click to expand...

See those words in your quote colored red?  They're the key to your sophistry, especially the second one. 

Challenge:  Find anywhere on this forum, or anywhere in this universe where I stated that Scripture is the ONLY source for revelation and I'll call a crowd, grab a trumpet, and, well, you know the rest....
Click to expand...

You haven't made that claim but several others on this thread have made such a claim. You have claimed that "the Bible is to be the Christian's supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice", so I will ask you as I have asked others...

Where does the Bible describe which books are to be included in the canon of Scripture and which ones are not to be included? The only appeal you can make is to Scripture by your own statement. (Remember: this is coming from someone who holds to a 66-book canon.)
[/quote]

Where does the Bible say differently?
Where does the Bible say that every man chooses his own truth?

What a moronic....emergent way of thinking.
Forgive my redundancy!

 
rsc2a said:
You haven't made that claim
Click to expand...

Of course I haven't.  That makes you a liar, or sophist at best, but nevermind the man behind the curtain.


rsc2a said:
....but several others on this thread have made such a claim. You have claimed that "the Bible is to be the Christian's supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice", so I will ask you as I have asked others...

Where does the Bible describe which books are to be included in the canon of Scripture and which ones are not to be included? The only appeal you can make is to Scripture by your own statement. (Remember: this is coming from someone who holds to a 66-book canon.)
Click to expand...

Scripture makes the claim that it is inspired of God, which logically precludes you undermining its authority.  You may be able to worm around and debate what exactly constitutes Scripture, but whatever it actually is, it is God's word, and it is authoritative.  Christendom has recognized this (of the reformed variety particularly, which is why I entered this fray, to laugh at another one of your "reformed" (dis)beliefs) far before you became enlightened-catholo-ecumergent.
 
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Is this you deflecting the key issue of authority?[/quote]

No...this is me explicitly stating that I don't place Scripture on the level of the Almighty.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]It's either God or you....if its God, it's in His Word.[/quote]

No. And no...unless you mean the Word Incarnate and Jesus didn't come made of paper with a leather binding.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If its you it's in whatever you say He says to you.
And by you, I mean a collective you, not just you.  :)[/quote]

Both/and, not either/or. (Again...this is straight out of that Scripture you keep elevating to godhood.)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Gods Word is inspired by God...that's why it's His Word.[/quote]

Amazing Grace was inspired by God. So was the sunrise. So are the sacraments...

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Gods Word is infallible and inerrant.[/quote]

...depending on you define those words, yes.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]2 Timothy 3:16: ALL  Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,[/quote]

That passage doesn't state either of those things however.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
Alayman - have you even read the WCOF? If you'd like, I can quote the parts on the Church local and the Church universal.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, but it bears repeating, I wouldn't let you teach my dog, let alone actual people.


You're the one who has repeatedly denied that the Bible is to be the Christian's supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice, which is an explicitly anti-reformed notion, one that the WCoF expressly opposes in numerous places, including the one you quoted.
Click to expand...

It would be entertaining to see him Pastor a group of 50 or more....
Click to expand...

Why 50? Is it about numbers or a formal organization?

I'm perfectly happy having my neighbor volunteer that I have the heart of a pastor or having another one ask me to perform their wedding solely because they believe they can trust me on spiritual matters. Or the family member who said... You do know that Jesus only pastored 12 guys, right? :)
 
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Where does the Bible say differently?[/quote]

Say what differently?
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Is this you deflecting the key issue of authority?
Click to expand...

No...this is me explicitly stating that I don't place Scripture on the level of the Almighty.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]It's either God or you....if its God, it's in His Word.[/quote]

No. And no...unless you mean the Word Incarnate and Jesus didn't come made of paper with a leather binding.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If its you it's in whatever you say He says to you.
And by you, I mean a collective you, not just you.  :)[/quote]

Both/and, not either/or. (Again...this is straight out of that Scripture you keep elevating to godhood.)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Gods Word is inspired by God...that's why it's His Word.[/quote]

Amazing Grace was inspired by God. So was the sunrise. So are the sacraments...

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Gods Word is infallible and inerrant.[/quote]

...depending on you define those words, yes.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]2 Timothy 3:16: ALL  Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,[/quote]

That passage doesn't state either of those things however.
[/quote]

So, it depends on what the meaning of is, is....
How great rsc2a art.

Tonight....onion sandwich and a moon howl.....new revelation to follow.
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Where does the Bible say differently?
Click to expand...

Say what differently?
[/quote]

That the canon of scripture isn't 66 books?
That Alayman isn't the final authority for faith and practice?
That liver and onions should is he official dish of the Emergent Church?
 
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
You haven't made that claim
Click to expand...

Of course I haven't.  That makes you a liar, or sophist at best, but nevermind the man behind the curtain.
Click to expand...

But you have claimed the other....

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
....but several others on this thread have made such a claim. You have claimed that "the Bible is to be the Christian's supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice", so I will ask you as I have asked others...

Where does the Bible describe which books are to be included in the canon of Scripture and which ones are not to be included? The only appeal you can make is to Scripture by your own statement. (Remember: this is coming from someone who holds to a 66-book canon.)
Click to expand...

Scripture makes the claim that it is inspired of God, which logically precludes you undermining its authority.  You may be able to worm around and debate what exactly constitutes Scripture, but whatever it actually is, it is God's word, and it is authoritative.  Christendom has recognized this (of the reformed variety particularly, which is why I entered this fray, to laugh at another one of your "reformed" (dis)beliefs) far before you became enlightened-catholo-ecumergent.[/quote]

To place one's authority on the appropriate level is not to undermine it. I don't use the "authority" of a stop sign as the basis for when I should stop working on a project, but I still recognize its authority.

I have absolutely no problem with the authority of Scripture...however, it is not our final authority. That claim rests with God Himself. And, it is definitely not our sole authority. That claim is absurd.
 
The Bible put on a body, and died on the cross for my sins.  I worship the Bible, or Jesus, as I call Him.  :)

Anishinabe

 
Well, it's either trust the Bible, or trust <subjectively> myself to interpret my logic and feelings to be infallibly interpretive of the Holy Spirit's language to/through me, or I could just believe you.  I know which one makes more sense.

But aren't you trusting your "logic and feelings to be infallibly interpretive of the Holy Spirit's language to/through me" by trusting solely the 66-book canon, especially since the canon itself does not identify itself as solely authoritative?

I haven't avoided anything.

Then you ask a lot of questions that are not a part of the topic. I thought it was to deviate from my point. Sorry if I misunderstood.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Well, it's either trust the Bible, or trust <subjectively> myself to interpret my logic and feelings to be infallibly interpretive of the Holy Spirit's language to/through me, or I could just believe you.  I know which one makes more sense.

But aren't you trusting your "logic and feelings to be infallibly interpretive of the Holy Spirit's language to/through me" by trusting solely the 66-book canon, especially since the canon itself does not identify itself as solely authoritative?
Click to expand...

By faith <and reasonable logial inference> I accept the canon.  By faith, <apparently> you trust yourself to interpret emotions, feelings, and whatever else you desire to be true about God.  It makes more sense to trust the word that was revealed than myself (or you) who is certifiably fallible.
 
Bottom line....either God is sovereign and Has ultimately revealed Himself to us through His written and living Word or He has left us on our own...each man comes up with his own truth.
And, what might be true for you isn't true for me, but the beauty of hat is we're BOTH right....because there is NO authority.

Nature, sex, a good burger, a cloud, the waves....all equal with Gods word which might be 66 books.....might be the red letters in the gospels, might be The Scarlet Letter.

Who knows?
Besides Smellin and rsc2a, that is....them onion sammiches is done opened up my eyes....halleumaleughr!
 
Tarheel Baptist said:

Where does the Bible say differently?
Where does the Bible say that every man chooses his own truth?
Click to expand...

Where does the Bible say differently concerning the Catholic canon? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the nutrition guide on a box of Wheaties?

By selecting to believe ONLY the 66-book canon, you are also selecting your "own truth", the same thing you accuse others (and rightly so) of doing. The only difference is, you are selecting based on religious tradition and accept as you were taught or perhaps as a conclusion of your own investigation. Either way, you also are being as subjective as those you mock.
 
rsc2a said:
ALAYMAN said:
rsc2a said:
You haven't made that claim
Click to expand...

Of course I haven't.  That makes you a liar, or sophist at best, but nevermind the man behind the curtain.
Click to expand...

But you have claimed the other....

[quote author=ALAYMAN]
rsc2a said:
....but several others on this thread have made such a claim. You have claimed that "the Bible is to be the Christian's supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice", so I will ask you as I have asked others...

Where does the Bible describe which books are to be included in the canon of Scripture and which ones are not to be included? The only appeal you can make is to Scripture by your own statement. (Remember: this is coming from someone who holds to a 66-book canon.)
Click to expand...

Scripture makes the claim that it is inspired of God, which logically precludes you undermining its authority.  You may be able to worm around and debate what exactly constitutes Scripture, but whatever it actually is, it is God's word, and it is authoritative.  Christendom has recognized this (of the reformed variety particularly, which is why I entered this fray, to laugh at another one of your "reformed" (dis)beliefs) far before you became enlightened-catholo-ecumergent.
Click to expand...

To place one's authority on the appropriate level is not to undermine it. I don't use the "authority" of a stop sign as the basis for when I should stop working on a project, but I still recognize its authority.

I have absolutely no problem with the authority of Scripture...however, it is not our final authority. That claim rests with God Himself. And, it is definitely not our sole authority. That claim is absurd.
[/quote]

What authority do we have, now, today, that is equal in authority with Gods revealed Word....the Bible?

If the Bible is true, given by God, who is immutable would God reveal something to you contrary to a scripture?
It is our ULTIMATE authority...and will remain such.
FOREVER oh Lord your word is settled in heaven.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Well, it's either trust the Bible, or trust <subjectively> myself to interpret my logic and feelings to be infallibly interpretive of the Holy Spirit's language to/through me, or I could just believe you.  I know which one makes more sense.

But aren't you trusting your "logic and feelings to be infallibly interpretive of the Holy Spirit's language to/through me" by trusting solely the 66-book canon, especially since the canon itself does not identify itself as solely authoritative?
Click to expand...

By faith <and reasonable logial inference> I accept the canon.  By faith, <apparently> you trust yourself to interpret emotions, feelings, and whatever else you desire to be true about God.  It makes more sense to trust the word that was revealed than myself (or you) who is certifiably fallible.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of Sproul's quote about having a fallible canon of infallible books...

Notice he's not forcing the Bible to be something it's not. But, I guess he doesn't have the Reformed credentials necessary to talk about Scripture.
 
rsc2a said:
I'm reminded of Sproul's quote about having a fallible canon of infallible books...

Notice he's not forcing the Bible to be something it's not. But, I guess he doesn't have the Reformed credentials necessary to talk about Scripture.
Click to expand...

I listen to Sproul everyday, and heard that sermon of which you speak.  You sir, are no Sproul.  And given the truth of what Sproul admitted to, and to which I conceded in my last post in this thread to Smellin Coffee (that I accept the canon on faith, through reason), I'd go on record that Sproul is not saying anything close to what you're saying when he refers to the nature of Scriptural authority.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Tarheel Baptist said:

Where does the Bible say differently?
Where does the Bible say that every man chooses his own truth?
Click to expand...

Where does the Bible say differently concerning the Catholic canon? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the nutrition guide on a box of Wheaties?

By selecting to believe ONLY the 66-book canon, you are also selecting your "own truth", the same thing you accuse others (and rightly so) of doing. The only difference is, you are selecting based on religious tradition and accept as you were taught or perhaps as a conclusion of your own investigation. Either way, you also are being as subjective as those you mock.
Click to expand...


I've never read a Wheaties box....but if its in red letters, it's got a shot.
God has left it up to you Dan....you decide what is true for you....and your truth doesn't have to be my truth...it doesn't have to be true, just be sincere....because God isnt able provide us a definitive source of His truth.
We are of all men most miserable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top