You have just made several statements which at face value--and you gave no hint of their being intended in any other way--simply cannot be squared with the consensus of Christian thought.

First, you said:
Originally Posted by hisalone
Whenever people stand against the majority, they are condemned and hated, but they must stand lest they sin against God.

Did you even consider the implications of this statement? By using the term "whenever" and invoking the name of God, your statement is the equivalent of saying: "the majority is always wrong in God's sight, the minority is always right". Is that really what you believe?

Does that mean that you believe that, let's say, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the followers of Rev. Moon--which all would agree are still minorities--are right in the sight of God? Please clarify this and if necessary, restate your assertion in terms that are universally true.

Second, you said:
Originally Posted by hisalone
I also do not force my opinions or become personal when someone doesn't agree
followed closely by:
Originally Posted by hisalone
That is a big problem...
People need to quit ...
we must not ...

I don't know how you think anyone on a website can "force" their opinions on another. This is not a church, remember--even as loose and disorganized a thing as some have recently wanted to render that term--but rather a public interchange between willing participants under the terms of the site owners. The ordinary steps of church discipline, from private admonition through group admonition through excommunication, simply cannot operate in this environment, since by definition, and consented to in the terms of registration, this is a public forum.

Does that mean that slanderous attacks are appropriate? No, because the Lord forbids such. But because this is a public forum, every assertion made here falls under the greater scrutiny given to those who teach, that is, make public declarations about the truth of God:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (James 3:1)" and
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-37" and
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

Have you considered that every statement you make here is in fact personal, both because you are making it, and because unknown numbers of people, ie "persons", will read it?

Back to your "not forcing your opinions", which for the reasons above I must take as, "not telling anyone too strongly what they may not want to hear", how do explain that you then feel free, after having said that you do no such thing, to go ahead and charge "persons" here to "quit x" or "must not x" or rebuke them by saying that "x is a big problem". On your own terms that would seem to be "forcing your opinion" on some of us.

The point, hisalone, is that you knew--and those you are defending knew--that this is a public forum when you entered it, and to claim that opinions--stated as assertive declarations--are merely private and therefore not subject to public scrutiny, is simply indefensible.

Third, you are simply wrong in your analysis of the fundamental error of Roman Catholics and Pharisees, and this shatters your usage of the "old/past" vs "new" distinction. You said:
Originally Posted by hisalone
in their (ed.: RC's) desire to protect something from the past they became unteachable.
yet you choose to stay in the past. Isn't that what the Israelites did? The teachers were unwilling to accept a continuing unveiling of God's truth? There is a tenacity to protect the letter of the law here which is good, but be careful you aren't also protecting the Spirit from showing you more of Christ's glory.

Hisalone, I am going to very blunt here and yes, hopeful to "force an opinion" into your head (as Bob Newhart said, you might want to take a pad and write down these 10 words):


Everything you have ever said on this site, as "new" as it seemed to you at the time, is now in the PAST. Every reaction you have had to something anyone has said on this site, you were "choosing to stay in the PAST". Funny thing, finitude--but I'll have more to say on that in a minute, Dv. You CANNOT know ANYTHING except what comes from the past--get over it.

The error of the RCs and the Pharisees was not that they were trying to "protect the past"--and that is the crux of your using them as warnings against reference to church history, creeds, catechisms, stalwarts--but that they always INNOVATED--notice the Latin there, as in "making something NEW"--RATHER THAN HOLDING ONTO SOLA SCRIPTURA.

It started in Genesis 3. Satan innovated on the Word. It's old now, but it was new then.
Cain innovated with his offering. It's old now, but it was new then.
Nadab and Abihu innovated with their incense. It's old now, but it was new then.
Jeroboam innovated with his idols. It became old, but it was new at first.
The rabbis innovated, not by keeping the old Law, but by adding to the Law. It was becoming old in Jesus' time, but that was not its error--its error was that it circumvented the necessity of a pure heart.
The RCs innovated with all of the above. Not simultaneously, not immediately, but gradually, and every step seeming a reasonable innovation, a "progress of doctrine" which took them AWAY from, rather than TOWARD, the old ways. These became old--time seems to flow in only one direction for us--but they all began as something new at first.

So, you say you want to find something new from God? So have many before you.

Fourth, you said:
Originally Posted by hisalone
we need to think past our own experiences (thinking like finite beings) to understand Him more clearly

I see only two logical alternatives to your parenthetical statement.

(A) not thinking like any being at all
(B) thinking like an infinite being.

Please tell me which you had in mind!

Fifth and finally, you said:
I thought this was a discussion board to discuss, not fight and belittle if someone doesn't agree.

Hisalone, if someone wants to "discuss" secondary or tertiary issues and agrees like gentlemen to enter and leave the ring as friends, no problem. If someone ignorant of primary issues demonstrates true humility by admitting their ignorance, studying answers given, and testing against the Word, and charitably assuming the good intent and maturity and wisdom of either current teachers here or those cited from the past, and responding with exegesis rather than experience (isn't that what the Bereans did?), I'm pretty sure they will not be "fought and belittled".

But if anyone comes, or remains, with an agenda clearly at odds with those attitudes, how can he hope to not be corrected? And what if he feels "belittled"? Haven't our fathers gladly gone to the fire--for the truth--with far less complaint than some here have made for being rebuked when they have turned, and are clearly intending to lead others, so far out of the narrow way?


(And for those wanting to know:
"I" rate:
0.46% of words
40th in rank order)

In Christ,
Paul S