Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Science, Theology and Truth

Expand Messages
  • Kyle Witten
    Mark are you equating theology with the Bible? I would hope that you would know better. As Don indicated in his post, which it doesn t appear that you read
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 1, 2003
      Mark are you equating theology with the Bible? I would hope that you would know better. As Don indicated in his post, which it doesn't appear that you read in its entirity before responding, these are two seperate things. The Bible is infallable. Theology, however, is nothing more than man's best efforts to interpert the words of Scripture, and as such, is subject to error.

      Kyle

      -----Original Message-----
      From: yecreationist [mailto:krinks@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:24 AM
      To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Science, Theology and Truth


      > Conclusions
      > Science and theology are both fallible systems for seeking truth.
      > God's Bible and His universe both supply unerring facts. Our own
      > theories should be built upon the facts from both God's Bible and
      > His creation. Even then, we must allow for the possibility that we
      > might still be wrong. Perhaps the most important lesson we should
      > learn from this is humility.



      Mark: Sorry but theology is NOT fallible! Holy men spake as they
      were moved by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is infallible as Paul said.
      As for "facts" from creation, I say to you what Jesus said to
      the Pharisees. If you didn't believe Moses then you wouldn't believe
      me(Jesus) for he(Moses)wrote of me(Jesus).If Moses, who spoke to God
      cafe to face as a man to a friend, said six literal days then he
      meant six literal days!!!!!Besides, how on earth can you expect a
      fallen creation to tell you anything about itself seeing as it is
      not in the perfect state in which it was first made since the
      introduction of sin???!!!!! You sir are a scoffer, read 2 Peter to
      see what that means!



      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

      ADVERTISEMENT
      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1707281911:HM/A=1513703/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_06F/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl>
      <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1513703/rand=141725300>

      Providing a critique of the views of Hugh Ross and encourages members to "Question the Assumptions of Naturalism" which are foundational to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mark Penn
      ... Mark: Sorry but you show your ingorance here just as he did when he pasted the book by whom ever actually wrote it. 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 All scripture is
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 1, 2003
        >Mark are you equating theology with the Bible?� I would hope that you would know better.� As Don indicated in his post, which it doesn't appear that you read in its entirity before responding, these are two seperate things.� The Bible is infallable.� Theology, however, is nothing more than man's best efforts to interpert the words of Scripture, and as such, is subject to error


        Mark: Sorry but you show your ingorance here just as he did when he pasted the "book" by whom ever actually wrote it.

        2 Timothy 3: 16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

        *** Notice the key words "may be perfect". Also notice the key words "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". I see a book capable of showing us exactly what the Lord our God wanted us to know with NO EQUIVOCATION. I am sorry that you side with whom ever wrote the book he was pasting(it is plagarism I might add when you paste someone else's work and don't give proper credit as he didn't.) and don't properly humble yourself to the Lord and respect his word as adequate and sufficient. This is what happens when you take the horrible myths of atheistic men and reconcile them with scripture. Peter rebuked your kind....

        2 Peter 3:3-6 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

        *** Notice it is the scoffer walking after his own lust that says things have gone on as they have since the beginning of creation(uniformitarianism). It is also a big part of this uniformitarianism to deny the global flood, which the Rossites of the world today do. Peter calls you that follow Rossism scoffers.
      • richard williams
        ... you would know better. As Don indicated in his post, which it doesn t appear that you read in its entirity before responding, these are two seperate
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 2, 2003
          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Penn" <krinks@p...>
          wrote:
          > >Mark are you equating theology with the Bible? I would hope that
          you would know better. As Don indicated in his post, which it doesn't
          appear that you read in its entirity before responding, these are two
          seperate things. The Bible is infallable. Theology, however, is
          nothing more than man's best efforts to interpert the words of
          Scripture, and as such, is subject to error
          >
          >
          > Mark: Sorry but you show your ingorance here just as he did when he
          pasted the "book" by whom ever actually wrote it.
          >
          > 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
          and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
          instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect,
          thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
          >

          --->you prove the opposite point. <b>All SCRIPTURE</b> not ALL THEOLOGY.

          snip


          The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture has always applied the the
          text, never to the interpretation, nor hermeneutical methods, nor
          commentaries. Why do you defend the indefensivable? isn't it obvious
          enough from church history that Christians do NOT properly interpret
          Scripture at a great many important points?

          richard williams
        • Mark Penn
          The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture has always applied the the ... Mark: Again you ingore what is clearly written. I an not suprised as you must to
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 2, 2003
            The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture has always applied the the<BR>
            >text, never to the interpretation, nor hermeneutical methods, nor<BR>
            >commentaries. Why do you defend the indefensivable? isn't it obvious<BR>
            >enough from church history that Christians do NOT properly interpret<BR>
            >Scripture at a great many important points?<BR>
            ><BR>
            >richard williams<BR>
            ><BR>


            Mark: Again you ingore what is clearly written. I an not suprised as you must to hold to the views that you do. Anyway...

            2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ....


            .....That the man of God may be perfect,....


            ..... thoroughly furnished unto all good works."


            *** Paul tells us it is indeed possible to be made perfect through following what is written in the scriptures. I am sorry your perverse doctrine says otherwise but Paul clearly said the word "may", which implies to the literate that it is indeed possible.
          • richard williams
            ... the ... obvious ... interpret ... you must to hold to the views that you do. Anyway... ... is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 2, 2003
              --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Penn" <krinks@p...>
              wrote:
              > The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture has always applied the
              the<BR>
              > >text, never to the interpretation, nor hermeneutical methods, nor<BR>
              > >commentaries. Why do you defend the indefensivable? isn't it
              obvious<BR>
              > >enough from church history that Christians do NOT properly
              interpret<BR>
              > >Scripture at a great many important points?<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >richard williams<BR>
              > ><BR>
              >
              >
              > Mark: Again you ingore what is clearly written. I an not suprised as
              you must to hold to the views that you do. Anyway...
              >
              > 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
              is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
              instruction in righteousness: ....
              >
              >
              > .....That the man of God may be perfect,....
              >
              >
              > ..... thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
              >
              >
              > *** Paul tells us it is indeed possible to be made perfect through
              following what is written in the scriptures. I am sorry your perverse
              doctrine says otherwise but Paul clearly said the word "may", which
              implies to the literate that it is indeed possible.


              again, you dodge the point.
              even in reference to the verse you mention.
              perfectionism-----

              are you methodist, or salvation army? they teach that man can in this
              life become PERFECT. most of the church does not teach perfectionism.

              it is an either or proposition. either you are perfectionist. and use
              this verse to prove it. or you are not. the verse may very well be
              inerrant. BUT there exist two interpretations of it in the church.
              only one can be right. therefore INTERPRETATION of scripture is not
              INFALLIBLE, unless of course you want to state that your
              interpretation of Scripture is infallible. in which case you ought to
              be pope.

              richard williams
            • Mark Penn
              are you methodist, or salvation army? they teach that man can in this ... Mark: It doesn t matter what most of the church teaches. The way that leads to
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 2, 2003
                are you methodist, or salvation army? they teach that man can in this<BR>
                >life become PERFECT. most of the church does not teach perfectionism.<


                Mark: It doesn't matter what "most of the church" teaches. The way that leads to life is narrow. I would expect "most" to be in error. Through teaching of evolution and/or OEC both of which MUST corrupt scripture to be found there and followed, and unconditional eternal security which says we are free to live as we see fit without fear or repercussion, most of the churches today are wrong and corrupt. I shouldn't be surprised to see "most" churches teaching other perverse and unscriptural doctrines.
                Paul clearly says "may be perfect" which clearly implies that it is possible to be perfect through the word. If the whole world taught otherwise it wouldn't matter a lick because Paul said it and it is good enough for me, not to mention the many fine sermons written by John Wesley on the issue.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.