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

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types

Expand Messages
  • keith dotzler
    One thing I would like to say is that I agree with you that no translation of the original languages is at all pure.... Careful, Dan. What about Joseph s
    Message 1 of 24 , May 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      One thing I would like to say is that I agree with you that no translation of the original languages is at all pure....
       
      Careful, Dan.  What about Joseph's conversation with his brethren, prior to their recognizing him as their long-lost brother?  He spoke to them in Egyptian, using an interpreter (Gen. 42:23), yet the whole account appears in the "original language" of Hebrew.  Does that constitute a "pure" translation, or not? 
       
      It never ceases to amaze me how a translation from Greek and Hebrew into English can't possibly be pure, yet a translation from Egyptian (Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses) and Chaldean (Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel) into Hebrew CAN.
       
      The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell, and wreaks of Popery.
       
         
       
      Keith
       
       
       
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Daniel
      Sent: 5/4/2005 11:31:12 PM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types

      Chris,

      One thing I would like to say is that I agree with you that no
      translation of the original languages is at all pure and also that
      they still can in some sense be called the word of God. In other
      words if the only translation I had was the NIV, then I would use it,
      as corrupt as it is.

      And I see what you are saying about the fact that the spirit assures
      us that the Bible is the word of God so that what is debated is not
      the authority of scripture but which text type most accurately
      reflects the original. But to me it seems like the same thing as
      questioning God's word but on a different level. Yes, the original is
      inspired but if we don't know what the original is then we are back
      to square one (square one being that we don't really know what the
      word of God is yet). What good is it simply to know that there is an
      original out there somewhere? Because, if the means by which we get
      back to the original is by textual criticism, which is by definition
      uncertain, then we still have that layer of doubt to pass through to
      get to God's word. It might be true that all of the text types agree
      in most places but is that why we should be sure that those
      particular words are inspired? The only reason why we know that is
      because the textual critics say it and as faithfull as the RPNA is
      (and I would say that they are one of the most faithfull
      denominations) I cannot rely of there testimony because they are
      still mere men.

      I actually believe that Textual Criticism can be used to guide us,
      just like we can use church history to guide us to find the right
      cannon of scripture, but I firmly believe that God has to give a
      direct witness in order to be completely sure. Just as we wouldn't
      say the the authority of Scripture rests on the church we should also
      say that it doesn't rest on the testimony of textual critics. For
      instance, I don't believe that John 3:16 is there simply because all
      of the text types have it, but because the spirit assures it to my
      heart. What I am against is modern textual criticism which seems to
      confuse that order of importance. So, I don't believe that the Spirit
      first guides us to the Bible and then leaves us to find out which
      text is right, because even the places that agree can only be found
      out to be so by those who see the texts first hand (and even that
      doesn't remove the uncertainty) but that the Spirits work always
      logically precedes the uncertainty of science on any level.

      Some, I guess, could argue that I am missrepresenting the arguement
      by saying that we rely on textual CRITICS as opposed to saying
      textual CRITICISM. Putting aside the fact that textual criticism
      wouldn't be certain anyway, I think that we can safely say that the
      church would have to rely on the actual fallible CRITICS themselve
      because only they are qualified enough to make such an inquiry
      leaving the rest of the church to move with them as they get blown to
      and fro by every wind of scientific discovery and human error.

      It is good to discuss this with you and God bless.

      In Christ,

      Daniel Drost


    • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
      Keith, ... translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell, and wreaks of Popery. ... Now, if you are so dogmatic and emphatic to make this
      Message 2 of 24 , May 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Keith,

        You wrote:
        > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
        translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
        and wreaks of Popery.
        >
        >
        >
        > Keith

        Now, if you are so dogmatic and emphatic to make this judgment on
        this issue, then why are you not more emphatic to condemn will-
        worship, i.e. singing man-made hymns, use of instruments in public
        worship, celebrating holy-days (xmas & easter), and etc.?

        I understand that you and I rightly understand & agree that the
        Papacy is the Anit-Christ and for the right reasons, but you are yet
        to give up the very foundation that makes all people follow after
        the Beast, which is WILL-WORSHIP, that is truly from the very depths
        of the pit of hell (to use your imagery). It's funny and ironic
        that Lutherans and Baptists rail against the Church of Rome and that
        whore named the Pope, yet follow her steps when it comes to worship.

        It is easy to bash the Pope, but it is very hard to get off the
        Appian Way, when you don't realize that you are walking the same
        path that Rome would have all people on, namely the road that leads
        to worshipping the Beast. Will-Worship leads to that.

        Keith and Dr, Letis, when will you really begin to lay the ax to the
        root of the Anti-Christ to make true and deep cuts into her? In
        other words, when will you give up your will-worship and truly
        worship God as He has commanded, i.e. singing using the 150 Psalms
        alone without the use of instruments, observing the Lord's Day alone
        & not other "holy"-days, not having pictures of hippies anywhere and
        call those pictures of hippies, "Jesus", and other religious symbols
        that cause veneration, abandoning the false notions of
        Consusbtantation (which is Rome in disguise), and etc.

        The LORD God of Hosts MUST be first, then comes our desires, as
        long as they do not clash with God's will and Law towards us.

        You MUST die to self...mortify your flesh...you are not yours, but
        have been BOUGHT with a price and are now a SLAVE to righteousness
        and will-worship is NOT righteousness...be faithful to your Master
        and Friend.


        Let God be true though every man a liar.


        For His Crown & Glory,

        Edgar


        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
        <kdotz@e...> wrote:
        > One thing I would like to say is that I agree with you that no
        translation of the original languages is at all pure....
        >
        > Careful, Dan. What about Joseph's conversation with his brethren,
        prior to their recognizing him as their long-lost brother? He spoke
        to them in Egyptian, using an interpreter (Gen. 42:23), yet the
        whole account appears in the "original language" of Hebrew. Does
        that constitute a "pure" translation, or not?
        >
        > It never ceases to amaze me how a translation from Greek and
        Hebrew into English can't possibly be pure, yet a translation from
        Egyptian (Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses) and Chaldean (Nebuchadnezzar,
        Daniel) into Hebrew CAN.
        >
        > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
        translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
        and wreaks of Popery.
        >
        >
        >
        > Keith
        >
      • Daniel
        Keith, I can t rule that out I guess. God could do that if he wanted to. So do you believe that (a) certain translation(s) is (or are) actually completely
        Message 3 of 24 , May 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Keith,

          I can't rule that out I guess. God could do that if he wanted to. So
          do you believe that (a) certain translation(s) is (or are) actually
          completely inspired? I don't see why that couldn't be the case! I
          guess I spoke to soon.

          Dan Drost
        • keith dotzler
          Bro Edgar, I am neither Lutheran NOR Baptist. I WAS Baptist for 11 years, and, prior to that, Roman Catholic from childhood. Since my eyes were opened to the
          Message 4 of 24 , May 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
             
            Bro Edgar,
             
            I am neither Lutheran NOR Baptist. 
             
            I WAS Baptist for 11 years, and, prior to that, Roman Catholic from childhood.  Since my eyes were opened to the Doctrines of Grace and the Papal Antichrist, I now consider myself an elect child of God (who has mercy on whom He will have mercy...leaving vast multitudes yet blinded to things I, by His grace alone, now see), and proudly consider myself Reformed and truly Protestant.    
             
             
            "...when will you give up your will-worship and truly worship God as He has commanded, i.e. singing using the 150 Psalms alone without the use of instruments, observing the Lord's Day alone & not other "holy"-days, not having pictures of hippies anywhere and call those pictures of hippies, "Jesus", and other religious symbols that cause veneration, abandoning the false notions of Consubstantiation (which is Rome in disguise), and etc."
             
             
            What makes you think I am a will-worshipper, sing to instruments at "church," observe "holy" days, have pictures of Jesus hanging on my walls, and venerate crosses and other religious symbols? 
             
            Regarding pictures of Jesus and other religious symbols, I whole-heartedly agree with Claude of Turin (9th century), when he states:
             
             
            "God commands us to bear our cross, and not to worship it; but these are all for worshipping it; whereas they do not bear it at all, neither will they bear it either corporally or spiritually: to serve God after this manner is to go a whoring from him. For if we ought to adore the cross, because Christ was fastened to it, how many other things are there which touched Jesus Christ, and which he made according to the flesh? Did not he continue nine months in the womb of the Virgin? Why do not they then on the same score worship all that are virgins, because a virgin brought forth Jesus Christ? Why do not they adore mangers and old clouts, because he was laid in a manger, and wrapped in swaddling clothes? Why do not they adore fisher-boats, because he slept in one of them, and preached to the multitudes, and caused a net to be cast out, wherewith was caught a miraculous quantity of fish? Let them adore asses, because he entered into Jerusalem upon the foal of an ass; and lambs, because it is written of him, Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world. But these sort of men would rather eat live lambs than worship their images. Why do not they worship lions, because he is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah? Or rocks, because it is said, And the Rock was Christ? or thorns, because he was crowned with them? or lances, because one of them pierced his side?" (Claude of Turin - 9th century witness against the Papacy, cited by Peter Allix in The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Piedmont and the Albigenses, chap. 9)

            Keith
             
             
             
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: 5/5/2005 4:50:13 PM
            Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types

            Keith,

               You wrote:
            > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
            translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
            and wreaks of Popery.
            >
            >   
            >
            > Keith

            Now, if you are so dogmatic and emphatic to make this judgment on
            this issue, then why are you not more emphatic to condemn will-
            worship, i.e. singing man-made hymns, use of instruments in public
            worship, celebrating holy-days (xmas & easter), and etc.?

              I understand that you and I rightly understand & agree that the
            Papacy is the Anit-Christ and for the right reasons, but you are yet
            to give up the very foundation that makes all people follow after
            the Beast, which is WILL-WORSHIP, that is truly from the very depths
            of the pit of hell (to use your imagery).  It's funny and ironic
            that Lutherans and Baptists rail against the Church of Rome and that
            whore named the Pope, yet follow her steps when it comes to worship.

              It is easy to bash the Pope, but it is very hard to get off the
            Appian Way, when you don't realize that you are walking the same
            path that Rome would have all people on, namely the road that leads
            to worshipping the Beast.  Will-Worship leads to that.

            Keith and Dr, Letis, when will you really begin to lay the ax to the
            root of the Anti-Christ to make true and deep cuts into her?  In
            other words, when will you give up your will-worship and truly
            worship God as He has commanded, i.e. singing using the 150 Psalms
            alone without the use of instruments, observing the Lord's Day alone
            & not other "holy"-days, not having pictures of hippies anywhere and
            call those pictures of hippies, "Jesus", and other religious symbols
            that cause veneration, abandoning the false notions of
            Consusbtantation (which is Rome in disguise), and etc.

              The LORD God of Hosts MUST be first, then comes our desires, as
            long as they do not clash with God's will and Law towards us.

              You MUST die to self...mortify your flesh...you are not yours, but
            have been BOUGHT with a price and are now a SLAVE to righteousness
            and will-worship is NOT righteousness...be faithful to your Master
            and Friend.


            Let God be true though every man a liar.


            For His Crown & Glory,

            Edgar


            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
            <kdotz@e...> wrote:
            > One thing I would like to say is that I agree with you that no
            translation of the original languages is at all pure....
            >
            > Careful, Dan.  What about Joseph's conversation with his brethren,
            prior to their recognizing him as their long-lost brother?  He spoke
            to them in Egyptian, using an interpreter (Gen. 42:23), yet the
            whole account appears in the "original language" of Hebrew.  Does
            that constitute a "pure" translation, or not? 
            >
            > It never ceases to amaze me how a translation from Greek and
            Hebrew into English can't possibly be pure, yet a translation from
            Egyptian (Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses) and Chaldean (Nebuchadnezzar,
            Daniel) into Hebrew CAN.
            >
            > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
            translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
            and wreaks of Popery.
            >
            >   
            >
            > Keith
            >



          • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
            Brother Keith, ... I know you are not a Lutheran, but I believed you were/are a Reformed Baptist from the profile I saw on you. If I was wrong here, please
            Message 5 of 24 , May 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Brother Keith,

              > I am neither Lutheran NOR Baptist.
              >

              I know you are not a Lutheran, but I believed you were/are a
              Reformed Baptist from the profile I saw on you. If I was wrong here,
              please forgive me.

              > I WAS Baptist for 11 years, and, prior to that, Roman Catholic
              from childhood. Since my eyes were opened to the Doctrines of Grace
              and the Papal Antichrist, I now consider myself an elect child of
              God (who has mercy on whom He will have mercy...leaving vast
              multitudes yet blinded to things I, by His grace alone, now see),
              and proudly consider myself Reformed and truly Protestant.
              >

              I praise God with you that you are Reformed and that the LORD has
              made you His!

              As for the rest of my comments, they were directed in a more general
              sense, although addressed to you and Dr. Letis as well. Now, if you
              do in fact worship God as He has commanded and do not employ the use
              of man-made hymns and etc., then I praise God and rejoice that He
              has freed you from this idolatry, and if I perceived that you were
              still trapped in that idolatry from my lack of memory, then I also
              ask for you forgiveness here. But, you must also admit that the
              great majority of Protestants, including those calling themselves
              Reformed, have drunk from the cup of idolatry when it comes to the
              public worship of God and engage in will-worship and have followed
              Rome in this instance. Many hack at the branches of Romanism, while
              not going after the root, lest they find themselves chopping at the
              root that they themselves share with Rome.

              If I misunderstood you, Keith in this regards, my humble apologies.

              Yours in Christ,

              Edgar

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
              <kdotz@e...> wrote:
              >
              > Bro Edgar,
              >
              > I am neither Lutheran NOR Baptist.
              >
              > I WAS Baptist for 11 years, and, prior to that, Roman Catholic
              from childhood. Since my eyes were opened to the Doctrines of Grace
              and the Papal Antichrist, I now consider myself an elect child of
              God (who has mercy on whom He will have mercy...leaving vast
              multitudes yet blinded to things I, by His grace alone, now see),
              and proudly consider myself Reformed and truly Protestant.
              >
              >
              > "...when will you give up your will-worship and truly worship God
              as He has commanded, i.e. singing using the 150 Psalms alone without
              the use of instruments, observing the Lord's Day alone & not
              other "holy"-days, not having pictures of hippies anywhere and call
              those pictures of hippies, "Jesus", and other religious symbols that
              cause veneration, abandoning the false notions of Consubstantiation
              (which is Rome in disguise), and etc."
              >
              >
              > What makes you think I am a will-worshipper, sing to instruments
              at "church," observe "holy" days, have pictures of Jesus hanging on
              my walls, and venerate crosses and other religious symbols?
              >
              > Regarding pictures of Jesus and other religious symbols, I whole-
              heartedly agree with Claude of Turin (9th century), when he states:
              >
              >
              > "God commands us to bear our cross, and not to worship it; but
              these are all for worshipping it; whereas they do not bear it at
              all, neither will they bear it either corporally or spiritually: to
              serve God after this manner is to go a whoring from him. For if we
              ought to adore the cross, because Christ was fastened to it, how
              many other things are there which touched Jesus Christ, and which he
              made according to the flesh? Did not he continue nine months in the
              womb of the Virgin? Why do not they then on the same score worship
              all that are virgins, because a virgin brought forth Jesus Christ?
              Why do not they adore mangers and old clouts, because he was laid in
              a manger, and wrapped in swaddling clothes? Why do not they adore
              fisher-boats, because he slept in one of them, and preached to the
              multitudes, and caused a net to be cast out, wherewith was caught a
              miraculous quantity of fish? Let them adore asses, because he
              entered into Jerusalem upon the foal of an ass; and lambs, because
              it is written of him, Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the
              sins of the world. But these sort of men would rather eat live lambs
              than worship their images. Why do not they worship lions, because he
              is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah? Or rocks, because it is
              said, And the Rock was Christ? or thorns, because he was crowned
              with them? or lances, because one of them pierced his side?" (Claude
              of Turin - 9th century witness against the Papacy, cited by Peter
              Allix in The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the
              Piedmont and the Albigenses, chap. 9)
              >
              >
              > Keith
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
              > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: 5/5/2005 4:50:13 PM
              > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types
              >
              >
              > Keith,
              >
              > You wrote:
              > > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
              > translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
              > and wreaks of Popery.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Keith
              >
              > Now, if you are so dogmatic and emphatic to make this judgment on
              > this issue, then why are you not more emphatic to condemn will-
              > worship, i.e. singing man-made hymns, use of instruments in public
              > worship, celebrating holy-days (xmas & easter), and etc.?
              >
              > I understand that you and I rightly understand & agree that the
              > Papacy is the Anit-Christ and for the right reasons, but you are
              yet
              > to give up the very foundation that makes all people follow after
              > the Beast, which is WILL-WORSHIP, that is truly from the very
              depths
              > of the pit of hell (to use your imagery). It's funny and ironic
              > that Lutherans and Baptists rail against the Church of Rome and
              that
              > whore named the Pope, yet follow her steps when it comes to
              worship.
              >
              > It is easy to bash the Pope, but it is very hard to get off the
              > Appian Way, when you don't realize that you are walking the same
              > path that Rome would have all people on, namely the road that
              leads
              > to worshipping the Beast. Will-Worship leads to that.
              >
              > Keith and Dr, Letis, when will you really begin to lay the ax to
              the
              > root of the Anti-Christ to make true and deep cuts into her? In
              > other words, when will you give up your will-worship and truly
              > worship God as He has commanded, i.e. singing using the 150 Psalms
              > alone without the use of instruments, observing the Lord's Day
              alone
              > & not other "holy"-days, not having pictures of hippies anywhere
              and
              > call those pictures of hippies, "Jesus", and other religious
              symbols
              > that cause veneration, abandoning the false notions of
              > Consusbtantation (which is Rome in disguise), and etc.
              >
              > The LORD God of Hosts MUST be first, then comes our desires, as
              > long as they do not clash with God's will and Law towards us.
              >
              > You MUST die to self...mortify your flesh...you are not yours,
              but
              > have been BOUGHT with a price and are now a SLAVE to righteousness
              > and will-worship is NOT righteousness...be faithful to your Master
              > and Friend.
              >
              >
              > Let God be true though every man a liar.
              >
              >
              > For His Crown & Glory,
              >
              > Edgar
              >
              >
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
              > <kdotz@e...> wrote:
              > > One thing I would like to say is that I agree with you that no
              > translation of the original languages is at all pure....
              > >
              > > Careful, Dan. What about Joseph's conversation with his
              brethren,
              > prior to their recognizing him as their long-lost brother? He
              spoke
              > to them in Egyptian, using an interpreter (Gen. 42:23), yet the
              > whole account appears in the "original language" of Hebrew. Does
              > that constitute a "pure" translation, or not?
              > >
              > > It never ceases to amaze me how a translation from Greek and
              > Hebrew into English can't possibly be pure, yet a translation from
              > Egyptian (Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses) and Chaldean (Nebuchadnezzar,
              > Daniel) into Hebrew CAN.
              > >
              > > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
              > translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
              > and wreaks of Popery.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Keith
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
            • keith dotzler
              I know you are not a Lutheran, but I believed you were/are a Reformed Baptist from the profile I saw on you. If I was wrong here, please forgive me. Yes, I
              Message 6 of 24 , May 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I know you are not a Lutheran, but I believed you were/are a
                Reformed Baptist from the profile I saw on you. If I was wrong here,
                please forgive me.

                 
                Yes, I have to change my profile...one of these days. 
                 
                I couldn't remain a Baptist, even as a new Calvinist, once my eyes were opened to the Biblical mode and subjects of Christian Baptism.
                 
                Furthermore, I mentioned in a post to Robbie, I think, that the phrase "Reformed Baptist" is an oxy-moron.  The Reformers baptized infants, and certainly did not restrict Christian baptism to immersion alone.  Baptists, therefore, are guilty of schism. 
                 
                BTW, there is nothing to forgive, Edgar.  Don't fret.  ;-)
                 
                 
                Now, if you do in fact worship God as He has commanded and do not employ the use of man-made hymns and etc., then I praise God and rejoice that He has freed you from this idolatry, and if I perceived that you were still trapped in that idolatry from my lack of memory, then I also
                ask for you forgiveness here.
                 
                 
                 
                Again, there's nothing to forgive, Edgar, but you certainly have it.
                 
                I'm far from perfect, but I do read a good amount of the posts here, as well as the stuff on the Reformation Bookshelf CDs.  Prior to getting those CDs, and joining this club, I had no idea about the hymn issue.   ;-)
                 
                I'd like to mention something.  You might notice my mentioning of "having my eyes opened" to more than just a few issues.  Believe me, it didn't all come at once, nor was it via some Pentecostal state of ecstasy.  Once the Lord revealed the truth regarding my salvation, I began studying the various doctrines of the Reformation with an intensity I've never before experienced.  From the Doctrines of grace, to the Papal antichrist, to Baptism.....I delved into everything I could get my hands on, from the 16th century forward, and inhaled it all like a gust of fresh air.  Truly the wind bloweth where it listeth, and the works of the dead who have died in the Lord, whom Christ calls "blessed," do follow them...... 
                 
                 
                 
                Keith

                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: 5/5/2005 10:20:36 PM
                Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types

                Brother Keith,

                > I am neither Lutheran NOR Baptist.
                >

                I know you are not a Lutheran, but I believed you were/are a
                Reformed Baptist from the profile I saw on you. If I was wrong here,
                please forgive me.

                > I WAS Baptist for 11 years, and, prior to that, Roman Catholic
                from childhood.  Since my eyes were opened to the Doctrines of Grace
                and the Papal Antichrist, I now consider myself an elect child of
                God (who has mercy on whom He will have mercy...leaving vast
                multitudes yet blinded to things I, by His grace alone, now see),
                and proudly consider myself Reformed and truly Protestant.    
                >

                I praise God with you that you are Reformed and that the LORD has
                made you His!

                As for the rest of my comments, they were directed in a more general
                sense, although addressed to you and Dr. Letis as well. Now, if you
                do in fact worship God as He has commanded and do not employ the use
                of man-made hymns and etc., then I praise God and rejoice that He
                has freed you from this idolatry, and if I perceived that you were
                still trapped in that idolatry from my lack of memory, then I also
                ask for you forgiveness here.  But, you must also admit that the
                great majority of Protestants, including those calling themselves
                Reformed, have drunk from the cup of idolatry when it comes to the
                public worship of God and engage in will-worship and have followed
                Rome in this instance.  Many hack at the branches of Romanism, while
                not going after the root, lest they find themselves chopping at the
                root that they themselves share with Rome.

                  If I misunderstood you, Keith in this regards, my humble apologies.

                Yours in Christ,

                Edgar

                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
                <kdotz@e...> wrote:
                >
                > Bro Edgar,
                >
                > I am neither Lutheran NOR Baptist.
                >
                > I WAS Baptist for 11 years, and, prior to that, Roman Catholic
                from childhood.  Since my eyes were opened to the Doctrines of Grace
                and the Papal Antichrist, I now consider myself an elect child of
                God (who has mercy on whom He will have mercy...leaving vast
                multitudes yet blinded to things I, by His grace alone, now see),
                and proudly consider myself Reformed and truly Protestant.    
                >
                >
                > "...when will you give up your will-worship and truly worship God
                as He has commanded, i.e. singing using the 150 Psalms alone without
                the use of instruments, observing the Lord's Day alone & not
                other "holy"-days, not having pictures of hippies anywhere and call
                those pictures of hippies, "Jesus", and other religious symbols that
                cause veneration, abandoning the false notions of Consubstantiation
                (which is Rome in disguise), and etc."
                >
                >
                > What makes you think I am a will-worshipper, sing to instruments
                at "church," observe "holy" days, have pictures of Jesus hanging on
                my walls, and venerate crosses and other religious symbols? 
                >
                > Regarding pictures of Jesus and other religious symbols, I whole-
                heartedly agree with Claude of Turin (9th century), when he states:
                >
                >
                > "God commands us to bear our cross, and not to worship it; but
                these are all for worshipping it; whereas they do not bear it at
                all, neither will they bear it either corporally or spiritually: to
                serve God after this manner is to go a whoring from him. For if we
                ought to adore the cross, because Christ was fastened to it, how
                many other things are there which touched Jesus Christ, and which he
                made according to the flesh? Did not he continue nine months in the
                womb of the Virgin? Why do not they then on the same score worship
                all that are virgins, because a virgin brought forth Jesus Christ?
                Why do not they adore mangers and old clouts, because he was laid in
                a manger, and wrapped in swaddling clothes? Why do not they adore
                fisher-boats, because he slept in one of them, and preached to the
                multitudes, and caused a net to be cast out, wherewith was caught a
                miraculous quantity of fish? Let them adore asses, because he
                entered into Jerusalem upon the foal of an ass; and lambs, because
                it is written of him, Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the
                sins of the world. But these sort of men would rather eat live lambs
                than worship their images. Why do not they worship lions, because he
                is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah? Or rocks, because it is
                said, And the Rock was Christ? or thorns, because he was crowned
                with them? or lances, because one of them pierced his side?" (Claude
                of Turin - 9th century witness against the Papacy, cited by Peter
                Allix in The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the
                Piedmont and the Albigenses, chap. 9)
                >
                >
                > Keith
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: 5/5/2005 4:50:13 PM
                > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types
                >
                >
                > Keith,
                >
                >    You wrote:
                > > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
                > translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
                > and wreaks of Popery.
                > >
                > >   
                > >
                > > Keith
                >
                > Now, if you are so dogmatic and emphatic to make this judgment on
                > this issue, then why are you not more emphatic to condemn will-
                > worship, i.e. singing man-made hymns, use of instruments in public
                > worship, celebrating holy-days (xmas & easter), and etc.?
                >
                >   I understand that you and I rightly understand & agree that the
                > Papacy is the Anit-Christ and for the right reasons, but you are
                yet
                > to give up the very foundation that makes all people follow after
                > the Beast, which is WILL-WORSHIP, that is truly from the very
                depths
                > of the pit of hell (to use your imagery).  It's funny and ironic
                > that Lutherans and Baptists rail against the Church of Rome and
                that
                > whore named the Pope, yet follow her steps when it comes to
                worship.
                >
                >   It is easy to bash the Pope, but it is very hard to get off the
                > Appian Way, when you don't realize that you are walking the same
                > path that Rome would have all people on, namely the road that
                leads
                > to worshipping the Beast.  Will-Worship leads to that.
                >
                > Keith and Dr, Letis, when will you really begin to lay the ax to
                the
                > root of the Anti-Christ to make true and deep cuts into her?  In
                > other words, when will you give up your will-worship and truly
                > worship God as He has commanded, i.e. singing using the 150 Psalms
                > alone without the use of instruments, observing the Lord's Day
                alone
                > & not other "holy"-days, not having pictures of hippies anywhere
                and
                > call those pictures of hippies, "Jesus", and other religious
                symbols
                > that cause veneration, abandoning the false notions of
                > Consusbtantation (which is Rome in disguise), and etc.
                >
                >   The LORD God of Hosts MUST be first, then comes our desires, as
                > long as they do not clash with God's will and Law towards us.
                >
                >   You MUST die to self...mortify your flesh...you are not yours,
                but
                > have been BOUGHT with a price and are now a SLAVE to righteousness
                > and will-worship is NOT righteousness...be faithful to your Master
                > and Friend.
                >
                >
                > Let God be true though every man a liar.
                >
                >
                > For His Crown & Glory,
                >
                > Edgar
                >
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
                > <kdotz@e...> wrote:
                > > One thing I would like to say is that I agree with you that no
                > translation of the original languages is at all pure....
                > >
                > > Careful, Dan.  What about Joseph's conversation with his
                brethren,
                > prior to their recognizing him as their long-lost brother?  He
                spoke
                > to them in Egyptian, using an interpreter (Gen. 42:23), yet the
                > whole account appears in the "original language" of Hebrew.  Does
                > that constitute a "pure" translation, or not? 
                > >
                > > It never ceases to amaze me how a translation from Greek and
                > Hebrew into English can't possibly be pure, yet a translation from
                > Egyptian (Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses) and Chaldean (Nebuchadnezzar,
                > Daniel) into Hebrew CAN.
                > >
                > > The notion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can't be purely
                > translated into the English tongue is a lie from the pit of hell,
                > and wreaks of Popery.
                > >
                > >   
                > >
                > > Keith
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
                >  
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >  
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.


              • Ben Hart
                3 questions for you Keith: 1 - Do you know any other languages well enough to have grappled with the issue of translation? 2 - What exactly would a pure
                Message 7 of 24 , May 6, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  3 questions for you Keith:

                  1 - Do you know any other languages well enough to have grappled with
                  the issue of translation?

                  2 - What exactly would a 'pure' translation be?

                  3 - How does Dan's statement commit him to Popery?

                  > Careful, Dan. What about Joseph's conversation with his brethren,
                  prior to their recognizing him as their long-lost brother? He spoke
                  to them in Egyptian, using an interpreter (Gen. 42:23), yet the whole
                  account appears in the "original language" of Hebrew. Does that
                  constitute a "pure" translation, or not?
                  >
                • keith dotzler
                  1 - Do you know any other languages well enough to have grappled with the issue of translation? What does that have to do with anything, other than being a red
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    1 - Do you know any other languages well enough to have grappled with the issue of translation? 
                     
                     
                    What does that have to do with anything, other than being a red herring?  Are you here to tell us that we must all speak Greek and Hebrew to have the pure word of God? 
                     
                    What I have seen, as I've been studying Church history these last 3 years, is innumerable multitudes of witnesses like the Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Arnoldistae, Paulicians, Lollards - along with the Reformers and Puritans - ALL believing that what they had in their day, and in their language.....be it the Romaunt translations of the ancient Christians, or the English translations, beginning with Wycliffe's,  was inspired and pure Scripture
                     
                    You won't find them questioning the purity of the Scriptures they had in their hands, and with which they refuted the blasphemous teachings of the Church of Rome, at all!  They never "grappled" with the mistaken notion that Hebrew and Greek words couldn't be translated into their language, without those inspired words losing their purity.
                     
                    I don't see any "grappling" on Moses' part, when he translated and wrote all of Joseph's Egyptian words to his brethren in HEBREW. 
                     
                    I also don't see any "grappling" on Daniel's part, when he translated Nebuchadnezzar's Chaldean words into HEBREW. 
                     
                    In fact, I don't see Moses or Daniel (or any other prophet or Apostle in the word of God) asking the Lord about the issue at all.  Unlike the intellectual elite of today, Moses and Daniel weren't indoctrinated with the silly notion that inspired Scripture loses its purity and inspiration when translated into another tongue.  Such is a Popish notion, because it was the Papacy that kept the Bible hidden from the people for centuries, as well as restricting the Scriptures to the Latin tongue alone.  William Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake by the Papal beast, not only for his anti-papal stance, but for daring to translate the Scriptures into the English tongue.  Tyndale is one more, in a long line of witnesses, who never "grappled" with the purity, or lack thereof, of the Scriptures he had just translated from Hebrew and Greek into the English tongue. 
                     
                    Are you of the mind that English speakers can never know PRECISELY what God originally said to Moses at the top of Mt. Sinai, and must settle, instead, for the "impure" English translation of the Hebrew account?  
                     
                     
                    2 - What exactly would a 'pure' translation be?
                     
                    I provided one in the very post you are responding to
                     
                    Why is it that Joseph and Nebuchadnezzar's "ORIGINAL" words (Egyptian and Chaldean), translated into Hebrew, are considered pure.....but translating those pure Hebrew words into English IS NOT? 
                     
                    Furthermore, did their words lose some of their purity, as they were translated from their original tongue into Hebrew? 
                     
                     
                    3 - How does Dan's statement commit him to Popery?
                     
                     
                    I didn't commit Dan to Popery.  I should have noted that the first paragraph ALONE was directed at him.
                     
                    I then redirected my attention to the ridiculous arguments made by the proponents of the modern perversions, which I've encountered countless times over the last 5 years, having previously been heavily involved in the Bible version debate. 
                     
                     
                    Here's a question for you:  Is the following inspired and pure, as it stands in the English of the KJV?
                     
                    John 11:35  Jesus wept.
                     
                     
                    Keith 
                     
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Ben Hart
                    Sent: 5/6/2005 7:18:40 AM
                    Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types

                    3 questions for you Keith:

                    1 - Do you know any other languages well enough to have grappled with
                    the issue of translation? 

                    2 - What exactly would a 'pure' translation be?

                    3 - How does Dan's statement commit him to Popery?

                    > Careful, Dan.  What about Joseph's conversation with his brethren,
                    prior to their recognizing him as their long-lost brother?  He spoke
                    to them in Egyptian, using an interpreter (Gen. 42:23), yet the whole
                    account appears in the "original language" of Hebrew.  Does that
                    constitute a "pure" translation, or not? 
                    >



                  • Ben Hart
                    ... with the issue of translation? ... herring? Are you here to tell us that we must all speak Greek and Hebrew to have the pure word of God? Don t assume
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 7, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > 1 - Do you know any other languages well enough to have grappled
                      with the issue of translation?
                      >
                      >
                      > What does that have to do with anything, other than being a red
                      herring? Are you here to tell us that we must all speak Greek and
                      Hebrew to have the pure word of God?

                      Don't assume more in my question than what's in there. I'm not
                      saying we don't have a good translation. My question was if you
                      know any language - doesn't matter what one. I ask only because you
                      might have some appreciation for the fact that it's not always a 1
                      to 1 relationship between languages. At times (though not usually)
                      there is a bit lost, but of course the overall meaning is preserved,
                      although an emphasis may be lost. In that way I don't think it was
                      a red herring; it was ad hominem though, and you may take issue with
                      that if you'd like. I was questioning your credentials and
                      experience to make such a claim, because if you knew any other
                      language, you might be quick to at least qualify your statements.


                      >
                      > Are you of the mind that English speakers can never know PRECISELY
                      what God originally said to Moses at the top of Mt. Sinai, and must
                      settle, instead, for the "impure" English translation of the Hebrew
                      account?

                      Umm...yes and no; see below.

                      >
                      > 2 - What exactly would a 'pure' translation be?
                      >
                      >
                      > I provided one in the very post you are responding to!
                      >
                      > Why is it that Joseph and Nebuchadnezzar's "ORIGINAL" words
                      (Egyptian and Chaldean), translated into Hebrew, are considered
                      pure.....but translating those pure Hebrew words into English IS
                      NOT?
                      >
                      > Furthermore, did their words lose some of their purity, as they
                      were translated from their original tongue into Hebrew?

                      Where does it say the translation was 'pure' and just what do you
                      mean by pure? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to
                      understnad what you mean. Do you mean idiomatically pure? Pure
                      with respect to sense? Pure with respect to the verbal tokens? Or
                      maybe something else? You didn't answer my question which is why I
                      asked it.

                      > Here's a question for you: Is the following inspired and pure, as
                      it stands in the English of the KJV?
                      >
                      > John 11:35 Jesus wept.

                      As I see it - it's probably pure (I haven't looked up the Greek),
                      but I'll implicitly believe the translators and textual critics
                      along with the compilers of the canon that it's in the Bible and
                      correctly translated. Anyone who knows Greek please comment here,
                      but as I looked it up, the verb is in the aorist tense, which if I
                      remember correctly is difficult to get exactly the perfect sense
                      into English because we only have the imperfect and the perfect
                      tense, but not something corresponding to a tenseless completed
                      action.

                      Inspired? Well, sort of. In the strictest sense, no. It's neither
                      Greek nor is it one of the autographs; in a slightly looser sense,
                      it is inspired in that it correctly reflects the autographs
                      faithfully translated into English and maintains the original sense
                      and therefore weight.

                      A caveat - please don't jump on me and start telling me I'm
                      committing myself to some Popish position or something like that.
                      I've just begun thinking about this, so allow a man a degree of
                      ignorance you obviously lack. IOW, if I don't come to the perfect
                      position right away, have patience with your brother; Rome wasn't
                      built in a day, nor are great theologians.

                      -Ben
                    • Cheryl
                      Ben said, en francais:
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 7, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ben said, en francais:
                         
                        <<N'assumez pas plus en ma question que ce qui est dedans là.  Je suis ne disant pas nous n'ai pas une bonne traduction.  Ma question était si vous savez n'importe quelle langue - n'importe pas ce qui une.  Je demande seulement parce que vous pourriez avoir une certaine appréciation pour le fait que ce n'est pas toujours un rapport 1 à 1 entre les langues.  Parfois (cependant pas habituellement) il y a un peu perdu, mais naturellement la signification globale est préservée, bien qu'une emphase puisse être perdue.  De cette façon je ne pense pas que c'était un hareng rouge;  c'était hominem d'annonce cependant, et vous pouvez contester cela si vous voudriez.  J'interrogeais vos qualifications et expérience pour faire une telle réclamation, parce que si vous saviez n'importe quelle autre langue, vous pourriez être rapide pour qualifier au moins vos rapports.>>
                         
                        Which being translated back to English says:
                         
                        <<Do not assume more in my question that what is inside there.  I am not saying do not have us a good translation.  My question was if you know any language - does not import what one.  I ask only because you could have a certain appreciation for the fact that it is not always a relationship 1 to 1 between the languages.  Sometimes (however not usually) it lost a little there, but naturally the total significance is preserved, although a emphase can be lost.  In this way I do not think that it was a red herring;  it was hominem of advertisement however, and you can dispute that if you would like.  I questioned your qualifications and experiment to make such a complaint, because if you knew any other language, you could be fast to qualify at least your reports/ratios.>>
                         
                        Original quote:
                         
                        <<Don't assume more in my question than what's in there.  I'm not
                        saying we don't have a good translation.  My question was if you
                        know any language - doesn't matter what one.  I ask only because you
                        might have some appreciation for the fact that it's not always a 1
                        to 1 relationship between languages.  At times (though not usually)
                        there is a bit lost, but of course the overall meaning is preserved,
                        although an emphasis may be lost.  In that way I don't think it was
                        a red herring; it was ad hominem though, and you may take issue with
                        that if you'd like.  I was questioning your credentials and
                        experience to make such a claim, because if you knew any other
                        language, you might be quick to at least qualify your statements.>>
                         
                        Just having a bit of fun translating things back and forth on Google...
                         
                        Cheryl
                      • bsuden@juno.com
                        12823From: Jim Pellegrini Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22pm Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types falcon5064 What about the
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 14, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          12823From: Jim Pellegrini <falcon5064@...>
                          Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22pm
                          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types
                          falcon5064


                          What about the doctrine of providential preservation?
                          Has not God preserved His word for the church
                          throughout all generations? In reading this debate, I
                          have not heard someone mention this doctrine, which is
                          a key piece of the puzzle in this debate.

                          While we are a day late and a dollar or two short on this, Mr. Pellegrini and Dr. Letis are entirely
                          too correct.
                          The discussion from message 12814 has entirely neglected the doctrine of providential
                          preservation. Or at least a proper exposition of it, which is the same thing.
                          The whole argument that nothing is lost whatever family of manuscripts is used is bogus.
                          If we buy into the modern eclectic text critical opinion here, the one doctrine lost, the one
                          doctrine sacrificed, is that of God's providential preservation of faithful and infallible copies of
                          the autographa in the common usage of the Greek speaking church.
                          And when that happens, the Reformation doctrine of the Word of God as set forth in Chapt. 1 of
                          the WCF starts to unravel. And as WCF 1 goes, so goes the rest of the WCF and the other
                          subordinate standards built upon it.
                          If we do not have, if the church of Jesus Christ has not always had, since the close of canon, a
                          pure text providentially preserved in Greek and Hebrew, faithful infallible copies of the original
                          manuscripts, it makes no difference if the Bible is inspired, perspicuous, infallible etc. because
                          we can't be sure we have a faithful copy of the Bible to begin with. Every paragraph in the WCF is an integral and irreplaceable
                          part of the whole; a facet in the diamond, a rung in Jacob's ladder.
                          You cannot pick and choose. You cannot put the Alexandrian or "Neutral" or Western text along
                          side of the Byzantine and say they all represent the same essential text, that nothing is lost etc.
                          etc. because prov. preservation/WCF 1:8 IS lost and we are then at the mercy of the textual
                          scholars, eclectism and the latest discovery of a new manuscript.
                          You might as well go the whole route and allow for the Book of Mormon to be added to the
                          canon because Joe Smith just found it and yes, the Lord must have let his church limp along on
                          five or six cylinders for 18 centuries, even the great Reformation church, until modern times and
                          modern scholars like Westcott, Hort, Joseph Smith and who else, Fred Flintstone?
                          In other words, providential preservation is an integral part of WCF Chapt. 1 and WCF Chapt. 1
                          is all or nothing affair. Take out any paragraph you like, whether 1:8 or not and it all crumbles.
                          Even further, it is embarassing when Dr. Letis has to come on and clean up people's abc's on this forum when the WCF is not even a subordinate standard in his church.

                          cordially in Christ
                          Bob Suden
                          Lynden, Wa.
                          RPNA,GM
                        • Theodore Letis
                          The following was received by me this morning. Keep you eyes on Warren...but at a distance! TPL Lighthouse Trails Publishing Responds to Rick Warren June 17,
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jun 20, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The following was received by me this morning. Keep you eyes on Warren...but at a distance!
                             
                            TPL
                             
                            Lighthouse Trails Publishing Responds to Rick Warren
                             
                             
                            June 17, 2005
                             
                            On May 31st, 2005 we received an email from Rick Warren. Within hours of receiving this email, we learned that the email had been posted on the Internet. After prayerful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that we will not provide a personal response to Rick Warren regarding the email we received. However, we are compelled to address this situation publicly.

                            While in the process of preparing a response, we soon realized that the contents of the email sent to us by Rick Warren were misleading and contained much misinformation. And having now witnessed the mocking tone by those involved with Rick Warren, we have decided we cannot, in good conscience, engage with people who go to such great lengths to hide the truth.

                            On April 20th, 2005 Lighthouse Trails Publishing issued a press release, showing the connections between Rick Warren and New Age sympathizer Ken Blanchard. In our release we used a line from George Mair's book A Life With Purpose (a biography of Rick Warren). While the press release was not at all contingent on the quote by Mair (it being used only as a qualifier), Rick Warren's email to us focused primarily on George Mair. The assumption was that if Mair could be discredited then our press release would be invalid. However, the evidence we provided is solid, and we therefore stand behind our press release.

                            The real issue addressed in the press release was concerning Ken Blanchard—a man who, according to Rick Warren, has "signed on" to help implement Warren's global Peace Plan. Both in the press release and on our research web site, we have provided numerous instances where Blanchard has shown his endorsement and promotion of the New Age such as in the Foreword of the 2001 book, What Would Buddha Do At Work?, in which Ken Blanchard states:

                            Buddha points to the path and invites us to begin our journey to enlightenment. I point to this little jewel of a book and invite you to begin (or continue) your journey to enlightened work.  

                            Blanchard's latest endorsement of the New Age centers around Vijay Eswaran's book, In the Sphere of SILENCE, a June 2005 release that promotes the inner silence through mystical prayer practices, i.e. contemplative prayer. Of the book, Ken Blanchard states:

                            This book is a wonderful guide on how to enter the realm of silence and draw closer to God.

                            Such comments speak for themselves. And yet, this same Ken Blanchard will, later this summer, share a speaking platform with Rick Warren in the Leadership Summit 2005, which will be broadcast to 100 cities and over 50,000 leaders throughout North America!

                            What has baffled us most is that Rick Warren and those affiliated with him would spend more time contending with a small Christian publishing company than they do contending for the faith. With New Age doctrines influencing millions of people worldwide and within the Christian church, Rick Warren seems more intent on discrediting his critics than in exposing spiritual deception.

                            As for Lighthouse Trails Publishing, we will continue researching pertinent issues, while publishing books that minister to and assist the body of Christ and reach out to the lost with the true message of salvation, which is through Jesus Christ alone.  

                            We want to thank the faithful ministries, churches, and brothers and sisters who have committed themselves to defending the precious faith and say to you:

                            In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ (I Peter 1:6-7) .

                            May God bless each of you who is truly contending for the faith. We appreciate you and feel privileged to stand with you.

                            David and Deborah Dombrowski
                            Lighthouse Trails Publishing
                            Lighthouse Trails Research Project
                            email: editor@...
                            phone: (503) 873-9092
                             
                            P.S. Because the private email we received from Rick Warren was made public on the Internet and because there is so much misinformation in that email we have provided some additional documentation and resources that may be helpful to you.

                            Click Here for Additional Information
                            Including:
                            Email from Rick Warren
                            A Closer Look at the Email
                            and much more.
                             
                            [Reformatted & Reprinted by Permission of Lighthouse Trails Publishing]  
                             
                            Theodore P. Letis


                            Yahoo! Mail Mobile
                            Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
                          • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                            Who is Rick Warren? ... Warren...but at a distance! ... hours of receiving this email, we learned that the email had been posted on the Internet. After
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jun 20, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Who is Rick Warren?

                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Theodore Letis
                              <bucerian@y...> wrote:
                              > The following was received by me this morning. Keep you eyes on
                              Warren...but at a distance!
                              >
                              > TPL
                              >
                              > Lighthouse Trails Publishing Responds to Rick Warren
                              >
                              >
                              > June 17, 2005
                              >
                              > On May 31st, 2005 we received an email from Rick Warren. Within
                              hours of receiving this email, we learned that the email had been
                              posted on the Internet. After prayerful consideration, we have come
                              to the conclusion that we will not provide a personal response to
                              Rick Warren regarding the email we received. However, we are
                              compelled to address this situation publicly.
                              >
                              > While in the process of preparing a response, we soon realized
                              that the contents of the email sent to us by Rick Warren were
                              misleading and contained much misinformation. And having now
                              witnessed the mocking tone by those involved with Rick Warren, we
                              have decided we cannot, in good conscience, engage with people who
                              go to such great lengths to hide the truth.
                              >
                              > On April 20th, 2005 Lighthouse Trails Publishing issued a press
                              release, showing the connections between Rick Warren and New Age
                              sympathizer Ken Blanchard. In our release we used a line from George
                              Mair's book A Life With Purpose (a biography of Rick Warren). While
                              the press release was not at all contingent on the quote by Mair (it
                              being used only as a qualifier), Rick Warren's email to us focused
                              primarily on George Mair. The assumption was that if Mair could be
                              discredited then our press release would be invalid. However, the
                              evidence we provided is solid, and we therefore stand behind our
                              press release.
                              >
                              > The real issue addressed in the press release was concerning Ken
                              Blanchard—a man who, according to Rick Warren, has "signed on" to
                              help implement Warren's global Peace Plan. Both in the press release
                              and on our research web site, we have provided numerous instances
                              where Blanchard has shown his endorsement and promotion of the New
                              Age such as in the Foreword of the 2001 book, What Would Buddha Do
                              At Work?, in which Ken Blanchard states:
                              >
                              > Buddha points to the path and invites us to begin our journey to
                              enlightenment. I point to this little jewel of a book and invite you
                              to begin (or continue) your journey to enlightened work.
                              >
                              > Blanchard's latest endorsement of the New Age centers around Vijay
                              Eswaran's book, In the Sphere of SILENCE, a June 2005 release that
                              promotes the inner silence through mystical prayer practices, i.e.
                              contemplative prayer. Of the book, Ken Blanchard states:
                              >
                              >
                              > This book is a wonderful guide on how to enter the realm of
                              silence and draw closer to God.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Such comments speak for themselves. And yet, this same Ken
                              Blanchard will, later this summer, share a speaking platform with
                              Rick Warren in the Leadership Summit 2005, which will be broadcast
                              to 100 cities and over 50,000 leaders throughout North America!
                              >
                              > What has baffled us most is that Rick Warren and those affiliated
                              with him would spend more time contending with a small Christian
                              publishing company than they do contending for the faith. With New
                              Age doctrines influencing millions of people worldwide and within
                              the Christian church, Rick Warren seems more intent on discrediting
                              his critics than in exposing spiritual deception.
                              >
                              > As for Lighthouse Trails Publishing, we will continue researching
                              pertinent issues, while publishing books that minister to and assist
                              the body of Christ and reach out to the lost with the true message
                              of salvation, which is through Jesus Christ alone.
                              >
                              > We want to thank the faithful ministries, churches, and brothers
                              and sisters who have committed themselves to defending the precious
                              faith and say to you:
                              >
                              >
                              > In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if
                              need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the
                              genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that
                              perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise,
                              honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ (I Peter 1:6-7) .
                              >
                              >
                              > May God bless each of you who is truly contending for the faith.
                              We appreciate you and feel privileged to stand with you.
                              > David and Deborah Dombrowski
                              > Lighthouse Trails Publishing
                              > Lighthouse Trails Research Project
                              > email: editor@l...
                              > phone: (503) 873-9092
                              >
                              > P.S. Because the private email we received from Rick Warren was
                              made public on the Internet and because there is so much
                              misinformation in that email we have provided some additional
                              documentation and resources that may be helpful to you.
                              >
                              > Click Here for Additional Information
                              > Including:
                              > Email from Rick Warren
                              > A Closer Look at the Email and much more.
                              >
                              > [Reformatted & Reprinted by Permission of Lighthouse Trails
                              Publishing]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Theodore P. Letis
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ---------------------------------
                              > Yahoo! Mail Mobile
                              > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
                            • Kevin Guillory
                              On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:57:06 -0400, Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. ... That you have to ask indicates that you are indeed blessed. Seriously! Rick Warren is a pastor
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jun 20, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:57:06 -0400, Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:

                                > Who is Rick Warren?

                                That you have to ask indicates that you are indeed blessed. Seriously!
                                Rick Warren is a "pastor" of a megachurch (Saddleback). He's also the
                                author of a "how to grow a megachurch" book ("The Purpose Driven Church")
                                that describes in detail how one is to cater to the whims, fancies,
                                trends, fads, and perceived needs of a local population in order to found
                                a "church" that will attract them.
                                He also authored the tremendously popular book "The Purpose Driven Life"
                                wherein he has made himself the godlet of many pastors who worship him.
                                The book has also spawned the inevitable market for purpose-driven-kitch.
                                Now we know he is deeply involved with the new age movement.
                                IMO the man is an obvious wolf in sheep's clothing. Someone to be
                                avoided, but prayed for.

                                Kevin Guilory
                              • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                Kevin, Thank you for explaining who he is. Now I remember, I have heard of his church and seen his books, but his name just didn t click with me. He must be
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jun 20, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Kevin,

                                  Thank you for explaining who he is. Now I remember, I have heard
                                  of his church and seen his books, but his name just didn't click
                                  with me. He must be on par with the Willow Creek guy (who's name
                                  also now slips my memory). Yeah, said day when we ask fallen
                                  wretched & sinful man who is in enmity against our God, how to best
                                  worship God so that they will come to church, so that they can get
                                  their ticket to paradise...

                                  Now Tetsel I do remember...


                                  Thanks again Kevin!

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  Edgar


                                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Guillory"
                                  <staphlobob@v...> wrote:
                                  > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:57:06 -0400, Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                  > <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Who is Rick Warren?
                                  >
                                  > That you have to ask indicates that you are indeed blessed.
                                  Seriously!
                                  > Rick Warren is a "pastor" of a megachurch (Saddleback).
                                  He's also the
                                  > author of a "how to grow a megachurch" book ("The Purpose Driven
                                  Church")
                                  > that describes in detail how one is to cater to the whims,
                                  fancies,
                                  > trends, fads, and perceived needs of a local population in order
                                  to found
                                  > a "church" that will attract them.
                                  > He also authored the tremendously popular book "The Purpose
                                  Driven Life"
                                  > wherein he has made himself the godlet of many pastors who worship
                                  him.
                                  > The book has also spawned the inevitable market for purpose-driven-
                                  kitch.
                                  > Now we know he is deeply involved with the new age movement.
                                  > IMO the man is an obvious wolf in sheep's clothing. Someone
                                  to be
                                  > avoided, but prayed for.
                                  >
                                  > Kevin Guilory
                                • Theodore Letis
                                  Very well put, Kevin Ted Kevin Guillory wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:57:06 -0400, Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. ... That you have to ask
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jun 23, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Very well put, Kevin
                                     
                                    Ted

                                    Kevin Guillory <staphlobob@...> wrote:
                                    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:57:06 -0400, Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                    wrote:

                                    > Who is Rick Warren?

                                    That you have to ask indicates that you are indeed blessed. Seriously!
                                    Rick Warren is a "pastor" of a megachurch (Saddleback). He's also the
                                    author of a "how to grow a megachurch" book ("The Purpose Driven Church")
                                    that describes in detail how one is to cater to the whims, fancies,
                                    trends, fads, and perceived needs of a local population in order to found
                                    a "church" that will attract them.
                                    He also authored the tremendously popular book "The Purpose Driven Life"
                                    wherein he has made himself the godlet of many pastors who worship him.
                                    The book has also spawned the inevitable market for purpose-driven-kitch.
                                    Now we know he is deeply involved with the new age movement.
                                    IMO the man is an obvious wolf in sheep's clothing. Someone to be
                                    avoided, but prayed for.

                                    Kevin Guilory




                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/

                                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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





                                    Do you Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.