Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by hisalone
The whole tone of your response to me is much different than the tone that Carlos received.
That is entirely a matter of your opinion. From my vantage point, I see things totally opposite.

Originally Posted by hisalone
That said, I believe Carlos was led here by our sovereign God.
IF it was the Holy Spirit Who brought carlos123 here, which I heartily agree it was, then the same Holy Spirit would have opened his eyes, softened his heart and given him a mind to accept, at least for serious consideration those things which were said and/or linked to. The Spirit doesn't lead a man to water only to let those who are distributing it take over and ultimately determine whose thirst is quenched and who dies of thirst. This is not to deny human responsibility.

Originally Posted by hisalone
In response to the Pharisees, I am trying to say, they were protective of their false understanding of the “truth”. Over the generations, each generation was taught lies and these are what they protected. Sort of allowing sewage into the drinking water and then doing everything possible to keep it that way, not allowing means of purification to get in.
[Linked Image] It has been your repetitive contention that, at least in part, that the "stalwarts" and many of us here are to be considered like these Pharisees because we desire the "old paths" and have no shame in unwaveringly defending what was considered to be the truth of God which has been consistently believed, defended and even died for throughout history. By implication, whether you intend it that way or not, this comes across as saying that all of the above are defending a "false understanding of the 'truth'. Again, "each generation was taught lies and these are what they protected." Without question the statement on its face is undeniably true. But you have used it in such a way that it is applicable to men such as Calvin, Edwards, Owen, Hendriksen, et al, ... myself and others here. You have constantly stated that you do not and will not "align myself with you (Pilgrim) nor any man", thus making yourself logically as a "lone ranger"; one who stands alone and rests upon his own understanding because you have your Bible and the Holy Spirit. I need not tell you what this amounts to, right? Think about it!

Originally Posted by hisalone
I'm seen as one who contradicts the wisdom of the past, but I don't know why, again, I see things a little differently, but I don't deny what they have spoken in the past, I just have expanded on it looking at it from a different viewpoint.
It's unfortunate that at this time you cannot see how you show yourself as one who has little to no respect nor humility in regard to "the wisdom of the past". On the one hand you occasionally say you appreciate and even benefit from the "old writers of the past". But more often you denigrate them and even summarily dismiss them because they are "fallible men". Fallible men they were, but not as implied that they are not to be trusted at all... but your "insights" are to be trusted. rolleyes2 I'm sorry, but I also don't accept this euphemism from a different viewpoint. The "viewpoint" which these men of the past had and I pray most of us here have is one which is biblically based; 1) genuine humility toward God, 2) utterly dependent upon the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of God's written Word, 3) prayerful and careful study of that Word with the hermeneutic (method of interpretation) which the Scriptures themselves regulate, 4) a love for the Church as it is "the pillar and ground of the truth." and thus great respect for those who have gone before and who were gifted by the Holy Spirit for teaching. Much more could be included, but these few things I think were foundational in these men. It was such men who produced by the providence of God the great Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms which we are blessed with.

The point of all this is that I have to wonder if you ever consider within yourself when you come across what you deem "new insights" from Scripture, particularly those which most of us here find problems with, that they haven't been presented before, they were scrutinized and were rejected? But you get upset when that happens to you here. I'll always remember the flippant way you dismissed William Hendriksen in a post where his "viewpoint" contradicted yours. I believe the topic was the "love of God" where you presented a "new viewpoint" on how to understand God's love to all men. Your "new insight" was challenged and I personally opposed you as did others because it isn't an "expansion" of what others have believe, but rather contrary to what they believed and what Scripture clearly teaches. But you dismissed all the statements of those in the past, all the statements found in the Confessions and the Canons of Dordt, all the Scriptural references shown you, etc. You deliberately chose to stand alone on the premise that "God continues to reveal Himself in these last days"... more than He has to others in the past. Can you appreciate how that appears to someone reading such things? Think about it! grin

Lastly, I would like to provide a quote from Martin Luther, that incredible man who had the tenacity and courage, thanks be to God, to stand up against the entire organized church of his day because he discovered that "truth once delivered to the saints" (notice not some "new insight"):

I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order.... when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order, but only anger, dispute, and destruction - to be sure, only with the Word of God as our weapon.
In His grace,

As you said:
"IF it was the Holy Spirit Who brought carlos123 here, which I heartily agree it was, then the same Holy Spirit would have opened his eyes, softened his heart and given him a mind to accept, at least for serious consideration those things which were said and/or linked to."

Perhaps it would have taken some time but was underway. I think that plants take time to grow!
Not that I totally buy all your statements.

Last edited by Robert; Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:24 AM.