Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • We stand with Ukraine. Please consider supporting Ukraine through a qualified organization.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Calvinism

B

BenJasher

Guest
Solo said:
Anything that is not of God is ungodly, secular or otherwise.

Hmm...

So maybe I shouldn't be using this computer to carry on this discussion with you? Maybe I shouldn't drive a car either. I probably shouldn't even be heating my house with gas. Or use a telephone.

Those things aren't listed nor mentioned in the scriptures.

Maybe I should quit wearing slacks and button-down shirts, and go to wearing robes and turbans.

Tell ya what... You are going to have to get on your camel and hand deliver your response to me written on a goat skin in Hebrew.

We have to remain within the confines of what we find in the Bible, ya know. We wouldn't want to be getting all ungodly and stuff, now do we?
 
S

Solo

Guest
BenJasher said:
Hmm...

So maybe I shouldn't be using this computer to carry on this discussion with you? Maybe I shouldn't drive a car either. I probably shouldn't even be heating my house with gas. Or use a telephone.

Those things aren't listed nor mentioned in the scriptures.

Maybe I should quit wearing slacks and button-down shirts, and go to wearing robes and turbans.

Tell ya what... You are going to have to get on your camel and hand deliver your response to me written on a goat skin in Hebrew.

We have to remain within the confines of what we find in the Bible, ya know. We wouldn't want to be getting all ungodly and stuff, now do we?
Your computer can be used for ungodly use.
Your car can be used for ungodly use.
Gas was given by God, and his creature was given intelligence to utilize gas to warm one's house. Some have used gas to murder folks.
Once again, man can use a telephone in a Godly or ungodly manner.

Inanimate objects are not the cause of ungodliness; those inanimate objects can be used in Godly ways or ungodly ways. Man can choose to utilize those inanimate objects in a Godly way, or an ungodly way. Take you pick.

PS Your response was ungodly.
 

JM

Member
From
Canada
Messages
2,818
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Drew said:
Sometimes these little back and forths can take on a life of their own. I suspect that other posters are not interested in our little punch-counter-punch action.

However, in all seriousness, I think it is highly relevant to know if a poster believes that they are infallible in matters of doctrine. So why not simply answer the question? If you admit fallibility, I will drop the issue. If you claim infallibility, then you are telling us something vitally important about your view about the nature of faith.

If, for whatever reason, you do not wish to admit fallilbility yourself, then please answer the following alternative question:

Is there any human being alive today who is infallible in matters of Christian doctrine?

Drew presents a fallacy. If you were talking with the Pope about the Holy Trinity, the truth of the Trinity isn't affected by what he believes about his own infalliblity. This is just red herring, there is nothing in my posts that would suggest that I believe I'm infallible, but Drew wants to add this into the thread in hopes of making his arguments sound logical. I do believe we can draw facts from Scripture, but Drew believes we need not get into the Scriptures because so many “possibilities†exist in understanding God's word...this is relativism.



Ben, being secular doesn't mean it's ungodly at all, that's not what I'm saying. Solo hits the nail on the head. All true knowledge is from God and we find it all over the world. The laws of logic for instance, but true knowledge from God is found in the Scriptures.

~JM~
PS: I'm taking a short break from posting.
____________________________

Relativism consists of various theories each of which claims that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e., dependent on, some other element or aspect. For example, some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviours only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.
 
B

BenJasher

Guest
Solo said:
Your computer can be used for ungodly use.
Your car can be used for ungodly use.
Gas was given by God, and his creature was given intelligence to utilize gas to warm one's house. Some have used gas to murder folks.
Once again, man can use a telephone in a Godly or ungodly manner.

Inanimate objects are not the cause of ungodliness; those inanimate objects can be used in Godly ways or ungodly ways. Man can choose to utilize those inanimate objects in a Godly way, or an ungodly way. Take you pick.

PS Your response was ungodly.

What did I do? Did I get under someone's skin with that last remark? Please accept my humble apologies. However, if you thought my last remark was ungodly, you'll really like this one.

Were you wearing your turban when you wrote these things? How come you didn't write it in Hebrew on goatskin and roll it up like a scroll?

I am just being foolish for the sake of being foolish. To be honest, Solo, you weren't the one I was directing those remarks to. JM is the one who seems to be so righteous he couldn't laugh at his own mistakes, and he is the one I aimed those remarks at. I quoted you simply because you seemed (to me) to be headed in the same direction as he.

And yes, you read me rightly. I did intimate that people can be so caught up in trying to be righteous that it begins to work against them. It is common in people who have a religious spirit. Babylon is full of them, and is haunted by them. ("righteous " people and religious spirits)

Ecclesiastes tells us to not be"righteous over much," or overly righteous. And that is the stick I was jabbing at you with. But let's stop the foolishness before it starts to get ugly. It's all fun til someone gets hurt.

JM said:
Ben, being secular doesn't mean it's ungodly at all, that's not what I'm saying. Solo hits the nail on the head. All true knowledge is from God and we find it all over the world. The laws of logic for instance, but true knowledge from God is found in the Scriptures.

I agree with you. But that isn't what you said earlier. If that is what you meant, it didn't come across that way.

Earlier you flatly stated:

The Bible is the word of God, it's not secular wisdom, but God breathed.

Then you followed by stating:

Nothing more then imitations from the pagans. Much has been written on this topic and I’m certain you both have read or could find articles so I won’t need to go into it. But I will say both of you state from a secularized humanistic viewpoint. You both are seeking “original sources†and missing the source of everything in the world, God. “Think God’s thoughts after Him.â€Â

I apologize for not being able to read your mind any better than that. But nothing Drew or I said should be misconstrued as secular or humanistic. It was neither. It was merely a simple statement of the facts.

As a last parting shot: Many of the OT writers derived much of their information from outside sources and expected the reader to be familiar with them. The author of the book of Chronicles is a prime example of this as he cites many outside sources that are not in our current Bibles.

Does that make the information in the Books of Chronicles secular or humanistic, or otherwise ungodly or pagan? No.

Ya'll have fun. But don't take yourself too seriously. And don't get hurt.
 

Drew

Member
From
Montreal, Quebec
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
14,249
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
JM said:
Drew presents a fallacy. If you were talking with the Pope about the Holy Trinity, the truth of the Trinity isn't affected by what he believes about his own infalliblity. This is just red herring, there is nothing in my posts that would suggest that I believe I'm infallible, but Drew wants to add this into the thread in hopes of making his arguments sound logical. I do believe we can draw facts from Scripture, but Drew believes we need not get into the Scriptures because so many “possibilities†exist in understanding God's word...this is relativism.
Complete and utter hogwash.

The trouble with discussing matters with JM and RED BEETLE is that they shamelessly misrepresent what I write. It gives their arguments the appearance of being more credible than they are. The fact that I am careful to not misrepresent them makes matters worse. Just in case anyone thinks I am blowing air here, I am more than happy to basically prove such misrepresentation on their parts by posting their claim as to what I believe and my post (dated prior to such a claim) which proves the claim in question to be false.

In case the reader needs to be reminded, I have never stated or implied that the Scriptures teach only possibilities and only JM knows whether his misrepresentations are intentional or not.
 

JM

Member
From
Canada
Messages
2,818
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
I wrote: The Bible is the word of God, it's not secular wisdom, but God breathed.

Elaboration: The Bible and all that is contained in its pages is from God, it's God breathed and inspired. To say that secular wisdom of the world is found in the Bible is true because all knowledge is from God but to say the secular world influanced the Bible is to start outside the faith and try to work your way back in. The difference is where we begin.

I wrote: Nothing more then imitations from the pagans. Much has been written on this topic and I’m certain you both have read or could find articles so I won’t need to go into it. But I will say both of you state from a secularised humanistic viewpoint. You both are seeking “original sources†and missing the source of everything in the world, God. “Think God’s thoughts after Him.â€Â

Elaboration: The secular world relies on the wisdom and logic of God. If we begin by saying the pagans have influenced the Bible, this is secular, we begin by assuming the pagan and Christian are found on neutral ground. God is the starting point, hence, "think His thoughts after Him." If we begin by saying the pagans have influenced the Bible, this is humanistic, the source of the revealed wisdom is found outside the Bible. Epistemologically speaking God once again should be our starting point for He “alone controls and facilitates all operations relating to thought and knowledge.†And “Just as man cannot exist or function without God, man can know nothing without him. God not only sustains and facilitates all things, but he sovereignly sustains and facilitates all things.†Cheung, “Ultimate Questionsâ€Â

The order in which you and Drew begin to understand the Bible is both secular and humanistic by seeking to understand and reason without starting with God.

~JM~
 
B

BenJasher

Guest
JM said:
The order in which you and Drew begin to understand the Bible is both secular and humanistic by seeking to understand and reason without starting with God.

Who are you to judge what is secular and humanistic about our beliefs? Are you God? I bet you're Catholic. That's it! You're Catholic. The Catholics are well known for deciding someone is an heretic and then standing as their judge and executioner, with no shadow of remorse of any kind. Not only that, but they feel justified before God in doing so. They have a long history of this practice.

I bet you are Catholic.
 
B

BenJasher

Guest
Jm;

I wrote: Who are you to judge what is secular and humanistic about our beliefs? Are you God? I bet you're Catholic. That's it! You're Catholic. The Catholics are well known for deciding someone is an heretic and then standing as their judge and executioner, with no shadow of remorse of any kind. Not only that, but they feel justified before God in doing so. They have a long history of this practice.

I bet you are Catholic.

Elaboration: You may be a Catholic for all I know. That is not the point I intended to get across. What I wanted to say is that it seems to be real convenient to you to be able to mollify your staunch-backed words as though you really weren't looking down at us with a doleful, self-righteous stare. As though you really didn't mean for us to take your plain words the way that we did.

Are we still having fun yet?
 

JM

Member
From
Canada
Messages
2,818
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Jm;

I wrote: Who are you to judge what is secular and humanistic about our beliefs? Are you God? I bet you're Catholic. That's it! You're Catholic. The Catholics are well known for deciding someone is an heretic and then standing as their judge and executioner, with no shadow of remorse of any kind. Not only that, but they feel justified before God in doing so. They have a long history of this practice.

As a Christian it’s my duty to adhere to the Bible, let Scripture judge you, and please stop with the overtly dramatic attempts to use emotion. Emotion may influence the unsuspecting reader as to validity of my posts but this is not a logical refutation of my posts. What do you mean by Catholic? Do you mean universal Christian, then yes, I am. If you mean Roman Catholic then no I’m not. I’ve read this paragraph a few times now and what strikes me is the sudden defensiveness, it’s odd that you would jump to such conclusions, we are simply talking about worldviews. Salvation is another issue that I have yet to present a case on and should be left out of this thread, it’s a red herring, can we stick to the topic please?

I bet you are Catholic.

Asked and answered.

Elaboration: You may be a Catholic for all I know. That is not the point I intended to get across. What I wanted to say is that it seems to be real convenient to you to be able to mollify your staunch-backed words as though you really weren't looking down at us with a doleful, self-righteous stare. As though you really didn't mean for us to take your plain words the way that we did.

My turn to play…â€ÂWho are you to judge what is staunch-backed and self-righteous about my beliefs? Are you God?†Silly, isn’t it. I can understand how my posts may seem stiff or cold, maybe even aggressive, but I assure you it’s just the way I post and it’s nothing in your posts that has drawn it out of me. You viewed my posts in a very, deeply personal way, that’s not my intent.

Are we still having fun yet?

To God be the glory amen.


A quotations to read and think about. Keep in mind this is concerning the topic of secular wisdom being assimilated into the Holy Bible, it’s not a smack at your salvation, it’s not about you but about what you’ve posted. Try and remove your emotional side out of the reading and use logic and reason to understand how a worldview comes into play and why I believe there is no such things as “secular wisdom†being borrowed from the pagans.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 KJV (18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. (20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (21) For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (22) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: (23) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (24) But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: (27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence. (30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (31) That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

It should be obvious that unbelievers view Christian wisdom as foolishness and believers reckon the world’s wisdom as unreasonable by the sheer fact that we “that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.†For us, the Christian, this is the only option. We begin with the ultimate authority and that’s God, who revealed His wisdom by the word and God the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 KJV (14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

It would be contrary to the word of God if the prophets and writers of Scripture were inspiried by anything other then the Holy Spirit. The natural man may have some human wisdom but Spiritual wisdom is directly related and discerned by the Spirit.

Vincent Cheung wrote, “Scripture teaches that, in accordance with his own wisdom, God has determined that human wisdom would never discover the true nature of reality, the foundation of which is God himself. He has also determined to place the wisdom that leads to salvation beyond the reach of human speculation. By this, he intends to frustrate human wisdom, to destroy human pride, and to crush every human aspiration that exalts itself against the wisdom of God. All non-Christian systems of thought begin, proceed, and end in intellectual and practical failure. Thus God has made all non-Christian philosophies and religions foolish and futile.â€Â

Based on Scripture I’d have to conclude that human wisdom was not assumed into the Bible, but that elements of God’s truth can be found among the pagans who God shares common grace with to up hold and restrain them.

Peace,

~JM~
 
S

Solo

Guest
Nice response, JM. Thanks for your cordial and informative manner of posting. God bless.
 
B

BenJasher

Guest
As a Christian it’s my duty to adhere to the Bible, let Scripture judge you, and please stop with the overtly dramatic attempts to use emotion. Emotion may influence the unsuspecting reader as to validity of my posts but this is not a logical refutation of my posts. What do you mean by Catholic? Do you mean universal Christian, then yes, I am. If you mean Roman Catholic then no I’m not. I’ve read this paragraph a few times now and what strikes me is the sudden defensiveness, it’s odd that you would jump to such conclusions, we are simply talking about worldviews. Salvation is another issue that I have yet to present a case on and should be left out of this thread, it’s a red herring, can we stick to the topic please?

I am not being defensive. And I am not jumping to conclusions. You very clearly intended to have Drew and myself understand that you thought that your way of viewing the scriptures was superior to ours. That is not simply a matter of the way you post. It is almost word for word what you said. It came through very clearly.

It wasn't an overly dramatic attempt at emotion. It was an attempt at sarcasm, and not overly dramatic at that. I don't play mind games with the unsuspecting, the uninitiated or the ignorant. That is your ball game. There was no validity to your posts. Are we to take it that your view of things is superior to ours and not question that? I bet you would be well pleased if we did. The Catholic Church felt the same way in the Dark Ages. We may have been talking about world views. But obviously your view on world views is superior to ours.

I think it would be a good idea to get this thread back on topic. Why do you refuse to answer Drew's question? That would get the thread back on track. Are you so infallibly superior to the rest of us that you see no need to? Again, that was sarcasm. Don't confuse it with emotionalism.

As a staunched Calvinist, a staunched conservative, a staunched Biblicist, thank you. My turn to play…â€ÂWho are you to judge what is staunch-backed and self-righteous about my beliefs? Are you God?†Silly, isn’t it. I can understand how my posts may seem stiff or cold, maybe even aggressive, but I assure you it’s just the way I post and it’s nothing in your posts that has drawn it out of me. You viewed my posts in a very, deeply personal way, that’s not my intent.

I made that assessment on the self-righteous and condescending tone of your words. Your words don't seem stiff and cold. They are stiff and cold. Stiff and cold equate to dead. If I woke up next to my wife in the morning and she was stiff and cold, I wouldn't need a brick to fall on my head to realize she was dead.

You say that you didn't intend for me to take your words the way I did. How would you like for me to quote them word for word? It is one thing to speak in stiff and cold terms as though you never meant to come across as condemning and condescending; but you did. It may have been unintentional. But you did just the same.

All I can say about your "quotations" is that whatever amount of circular reasoning you use to say that "secular wisdom" wasn't incorporated into the scriptures; there is just too much evidence to the contrary.

That wasn't emotional. That wasn't sarcastic. That just a simple response to your voluminous display of circular reasoning.

Do people like you ever just "lighten up" and be human for a while, or is it too important to you that you be stiff and cold?

I went through a time after college where I tried to put on a stiff, cold, superior personna. I couldn't make it work. I was then and still am today too much of a smart aleck. I couldn't keep a straight face. Personally, I feel sorry for anyone who can pull that off successfully. They need a girlfriend or something. Maybe a hobby. Get a puppy. Puppies put smiles on people's faces.

Based on Scripture I’d have to conclude that human wisdom was not assumed into the Bible, but that elements of God’s truth can be found among the pagans who God shares common grace with to up hold and restrain them.

You see! If you had just said that in the beginning, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I may not have even responded to you. Nil dicit! But that isn't what you said. It isn't what you intimated. And I don't believe that it is what you meant to get across.

Nice response, JM. Thanks for your cordial and informative manner of posting. God bless.

Next time we do this, you be earnest and I will be cordial. I am done being earnest for this week. Cordial sounds like a nice change of pace.


Did you hear the one about the two maggots that fell in love in dead earnest?
:-D
 

JM

Member
From
Canada
Messages
2,818
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Solo said:
Nice response, JM. Thanks for your cordial and informative manner of posting. God bless.

Thank you Solo and as you can see there is nothing else to post.

Peace,

jm
 

Drew

Member
From
Montreal, Quebec
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
14,249
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
The order in which you and Drew begin to understand the Bible is both secular and humanistic by seeking to understand and reason without starting with God
I think this is quite unfair and implicitly denies the manifestly obvious - we have no choice but to mix in secular knowledge in our reading of the Scriptures. Like the rest of us, JM grew up in a world where he learned the meaning of words and the content of concepts in a secular environment. We really have no choice in this matter - there simply is no disentangling the Scriptures from the rest of the world. To claim that one can do so seems almost preposterous.

We read in the Scriptures to love one another. This does not mean that the very meaning that we ascribe to the word "love" in not going to have been heavily informed by our "secular" experiences in the world. In a healthy family, we learn about love in our early relationships with our parents and others. We become educated about "what love is" at least in part, through such experiences.

Does Jesus revolutionize and expound on the concept of love? I would say that He does (for example when He teaches us to love our enemies - to do good to those who hate us). And the Scriptures do teach us a lot about what it means to do good. But not everything, and I submit that to suggest otherwise is patently naive.

Much of our knowledge of how to express love is garnered through living in the real world. We learn how to speak gently and reassuringly to a child through life experiences, not through studying the Scriptures. A parent also learns when it is time to let his/her child start making their own mistakes by using judgement and knowledge gleaned through life experience.

The Scriptures are "a burning light" to quote Bruce Cockburn, but they are a light that shines in a real world and knowledge about that world is essential to following the leading of that light.
 

JM

Member
From
Canada
Messages
2,818
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
I think this is quite unfair and implicitly denies the manifestly obvious - we have no choice but to mix in secular knowledge in our reading of the Scriptures. Like the rest of us, JM grew up in a world where he learned the meaning of words and the content of concepts in a secular environment. We really have no choice in this matter - there simply is no disentangling the Scriptures from the rest of the world. To claim that one can do so seems almost preposterous.

Well, you seem to affirm what a few of us have been saying for a while now. It’s not like you are unwillingly accepting some of secular society’s knowledge but embracing it. To say we cannot know the truth and separate if from secular knowledge denies the scripture I have already posted. [see 1 Cor. 1 and 2] This mixture of thought leads to ideas such as universalism and open theism by negating a Biblical worldview, not starting with God in all matters, etc.

We read in the Scriptures to love one another. This does not mean that the very meaning that we ascribe to the word "love" in not going to have been heavily informed by our "secular" experiences in the world. In a healthy family, we learn about love in our early relationships with our parents and others. We become educated about "what love is" at least in part, through such experiences.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 KJV (14) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

We see there is a difference between the way in which the world thinks and operates and Drew’s mixture of “some Bible here†a “little secular knowledge there†is not the idea we are to strive for. We are to think “God’s thoughts after Him,†not affirm our human knowledge.

Does Jesus revolutionize and expound on the concept of love? I would say that He does (for example when He teaches us to love our enemies - to do good to those who hate us). And the Scriptures do teach us a lot about what it means to do good. But not everything, and I submit that to suggest otherwise is patently naive.

Much of our knowledge of how to express love is garnered through living in the real world. We learn how to speak gently and reassuringly to a child through life experiences, not through studying the Scriptures. A parent also learns when it is time to let his/her child start making their own mistakes by using judgement and knowledge gleaned through life experience.

Again, Drew’s relativism based on his experience in secular society only affirms he embraces a non-Biblical worldview and if he doesn’t yet deny the Bible as the final authority in all matters of faith, he logically should for the Bible is a collection of stories and experiences of other people. Drew’s god can not violate the free will of anyone to insure a Bible that would be complete and without error.

A parent instructs a child to fear the Lord for it is the beginning of wisdom [Psa. 111:10] and a parent is to instruct there child to have a Biblical worldview by teaching the scriptures [Deut. 6:7]. Our knowledge of the living God is what directs our steps and this happens when we are born again and receive the Holy Spirit. Then and only then can we raise up our children and instruct them in the way they are to go. Our experiences before regeneration are meaningless if we are not given a context to those experience through God’s wisdom.

The Scriptures are "a burning light" to quote Bruce Cockburn, but they are a light that shines in a real world and knowledge about that world is essential to following the leading of that light.

So what you’re saying is we need the knowledge of the world to be able to follow the light of Christ? This is foolishness.

An overview of secular society’s wisdom

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, BECAUSE their deeds were evil.

What Drew suggest is impossible. The wisdom of the secular world is evil, unbelievers hate the God that saved us and Drew suggests we need the knowledge of the world to follow the light?

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: [The fallen mind of man is hostile toward God] for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Ephesians 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: [And what is the reason for their blindness? Vanity of their mind, the understanding was darkened.] 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Ephesians 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

We should be separated from the wisdom of the world, their logic, their reasoning, their ways. God’s wisdom shows us that we are at a spiritual war [Gen. 3:15] with the devil and his offspring, that we have an understanding, not of ourselves but from God…that allows us to access this wisdom and understand it [John 8:44] in opposition to the children of the devil. Since Drew affirms his experience he gained in the world is the only factor in which he understands the Bible and the “light†[what ever that means to him], and not the other way around, this thread is pretty much finished. There is really nothing left to post and what I’ve read Drew only strengthens my resolve to avoid him.

~JM~
 

Drew

Member
From
Montreal, Quebec
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
14,249
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
I think that even the tiniest amount of reflection will lead one to conclude that the division between the sacred and the secular that JM is trying to promote does not exist.

JM appears to be painting a picture of a world that simply does not exist. It is not difficult to see why.

When we sit down and read the Scriptures, what happens? Strings of words enter our brains. We then have to ascribe meaning to those words. I don't know how JM does this without reference to the real "secular" world of experience, but when I read a phrase like "Do not bear false witness against your neighbour", I have to make reference to "secular" knowledge in order to determine whether a particular statement that I might make is true or false.

We can see the absurdity of the position that "secular knowledge" is not required to actually implement the wisdom of Scriptures by the following specific example:

1. My neighbour and I spend Tuesday evening together watching football. Let's say that I have reason to believe that my neighbour is a thief (but I invite him over anyway).

2. That evening, another house on the street is robbed.

3. The police interview me the next day and ask if I know about my neighbour's whereabouts on Tuesday evening. I am now being asked to "bear witness" about my neighbour.

4. Let's say that I am tempted to say that I have no idea where he was on Tuesday evening. How would I even know that this is a false statement, were it not for the empirical "secular" fact that we were together on Tuesday night? Do the Scriptures tell us where this fellow was on Tuesday night?

Let's say that I make the statement: "I do not know where the neighbour was on Tuesday evening." Would it be sin for me to say this if we were not together on Tuesday night? Of course not! It would be the honest truth. The fact that were together is what makes it sin!

Empirical knowledge of the world works together with Scriptural guidance.

In the light of the above, I will let the reader decide if the following claim by JM is reasonable or not.

JM said:
So what you’re saying is we need the knowledge of the world to be able to follow the light of Christ? This is foolishness.
 
B

BenJasher

Guest
JM said:
This mixture of thought leads to ideas such as universalism and open theism by negating a Biblical worldview, not starting with God in all matters, etc.


Universalism doesn't negate the word of God, only the idea of eternal torment. It isn't a mixture of the secular with the scriptural. Do you really want to open that can of worms? I will gladly tie two brain cells behind my back and argue the scriptural merits of Universalism with you if you like. Whaddaya think? But we would need to move that debate somewhere else. We wouldn't be allowed to do that here.

Your little one-sided debate with Drew is one thing. I can throw my two cents in and it is all fun til someone gets hurt. But I have a tendency to get my hackles up when someone like you starts slandering Universalism. You, in all probability, don't understand enough about Universalism to make a good argument against it. You are just senselessly slandering something you don't understand.
 

Vic C.

Member
From
Central NJ
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
18,230
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
But we would need to move that debate somewhere else. We wouldn't be allowed to do that here.

That ought to be interesting. Hey, I'll even supply the Forum. 8-)
 
B

BenJasher

Guest
I wouldn't debate Universalism here. This board is militantly anti-Universalism. The moderating staff of this board has a track record of selectively enforcing the TOS in favor of those who believe the same way they do. An ET can get ugly and flagrantly violate the TOS, and it goes un-noticed, whereas a UR would get warned and subsequently banned for the same infraction. Afterwards the whole thing is blamed on UR's.

Anyone who was around in the days of the Universalist debates, or who has read through those threads since it was outlawed could see that for themselves. It was terribly convenient for those threads to disappear recently.

In the end, that is alright. Those who own, operate, and moderate this board have the right to do as they wish with it. And in doing so, they have done no wrong. They can decide they don't like pop-corn next. Any discussion of pop-corn would be off-limits and nothing would be wrong with that. The selective enforcement of the rules is where the wrong was committed.

There are other forums where I will take that subject up with him in a one on one debate. But I will name the board, and lay down the rules ahead of time. Either he can accept the challenge or back off the slander of Universalism.

If he doesn't want to accept my challenge, maybe he shouldn't be senselessly slandering something he doesn't understand.
 

Vic C.

Member
From
Central NJ
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
18,230
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
I said I would suppy the Forum. I didn't say it was this site. 8-) ... and it wouldn't be moderated, excepting name calling and cussing.
 
Top