News-Record.com

I never cease to be amazed that Temple Emanuel and its leaderhsip have no reservations promoting that which the Torah screams out against. Do they learn nothing in reading the OT record of God's judgments on sin. It seems that once sin clouds the spiritual nature with darkness, there is no limit to the depths to which it will fall, and no end to flying in the face of God.

Compassion yes, but acceptance of this corrupt practice: absolutely contrary to Scripture and a gross transgression of God's intended purpose. As usual, Guttman leads the charge in any far left, radical debacle the temple allows. Apparently the Torah scrolls are no more than window dressing, a cover for espousing sin and debauchery. May God have mercy on his ancient people.

Why am I in this basket, and why is it so hot in here?

Nikos, the only "window dressing" is the mirror in which thee is looking!

Shalom

darryl,
wouldn't that be a good venue for you to participate in?

I stand in awe at the substantive nature of these responses!!! Is ad hominem the only argumentation you know - Shows that you have no real defense against the very clear mandate of Scripture against GLBT nonsense. Guttman and T.E. are denying the very Law that gave them birth as a people and were given by a holy God to guide them in all things moral. Just for the transcient porridge of humanist acceptance and identity. Perhaps they would like to elaborate on the wretched things these folks do to each other at the meeting, and the diseases that ensue.

*YAWN*

Pearls before swine.

Contrary to Nikos (big surprise), I think that Temple Emanuel has only made a good start in ignoring the laws of the Torah. There is a long list of further laws which they should join the vast majority of allegedly Bible-believing Christians (including Nikos) in ignoring, including the ban on pork and shellfish, stoning children for badmouthing their parents (even, presumably, the drunken and abusive ones), stoning people for doing yardwork on Saturday, and so on. A long list, 613 in all. They should keep the "love thy neighbor" part (Lev. 19:18) but that's about all.
No doubt, Nikos will favor us with a learned discourse explaining why working on the Sabbath no longer applies as a stoning offense, but homosexual sex does. That should be good for a laugh.

No - actually capital punishment of adultery and perversion should still be in force, (lethal injection will do) but we have neither the appreciation of sin's deadly nature, nor the gonads to do carry it out.

This is the central problem. We have so denied and diminished the horror of sin, together with its short-term and long-term repurcussions, that we are now calling "good evil and evil good." Free sex (fornication), so widely touted in the 60s, has now brought us to the brink of collapse as a nation. It undermines marriage, which undermines the family, which creates bratty kids who undermine the schools, many of whom become criminals, which demands more prisons, more money, more suffering, ad nauseam!

Those who deny and lack understanding of biblical Law CANNOT connect the dots and end up jumping willy-nilly on the rollicking bandwagon of moral decay. Folks like Guttman and his followers seem more concerned about getting their liberal goodsebumps doing radical, ungodly things than teaching and upholding biblical moral Law.

As a Messianic (Christian) I embrace Jesus' emphasis on the higher concerns of biblical Law. Actaully, Kuranes, Reform Judaism has indeed abandoned most of the strictures
orthodoxy. But since they still reject Messiah Yeshua, they must carve out a new Jewish identity. And like their apostate Christian counterparts, that ends up being far-left do-goodism and moral corruption (abortion, gay "marriage," Marxist economics, etc.)

"They should keep the 'love thy neighbor' part (Lev. 19:18) but that's about all." Kuranes

What about the Decalogue prohibitions agaisnt theft, murder, adultery, false witness in court, greed. Are these to be abondoned? Or the OT injunctions to provide for the poor? Many of the laws you guys like to mention are clearly connected to the OT cultus of the Temple. Others have either been misinterpreted, or are valuable social parameters geared to keeping sin from undermining the community.

Jesus intentionally sought to leave behind the "added" legalisms as he taught the law of love and forgiveness - but within the parameters of biblical law. He never abandoned the moral Law, nor the principles of worship and sacrifice - but simply fulfilled them in his atoning death on the cross.

In the end, there is simply no biblical way to either justify or glorify perverse sex - in any form. It is contrary to God's Law and creation model. One fact is certain and unavoidable: God's judgment will fall on those who teach and approve perverse practices. And as the nation and states officially endorse them, His judgments will extend to the whole cutlure - as they already are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we do not repentantly reverse our policy in this area we will surely end up a broken and collapsed country, as the Russion pundit has recently warned.

Until then, far-left libs, atheists and humanists will continue to delight in their depravity, blind to the clouds of judgment gathering just over the horizon.

Nikos wrote:"What about the Decalogue prohibitions agaisnt theft, murder, adultery, false witness in court, greed. Are these to be abondoned? Or the OT injunctions to provide for the poor? "

These are pretty much covered in the NT. However, as I see it, stoning someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is no more part of the Temple cultus than a "man sleeping with a man as with a woman." So what makes you keep the one as part of God's unchangeable Law, but not the other? Even if "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," that doesn't abrogate the obligation, so as far as I can see, it's still a part of the law that Jesus claimed would never pass away. But it doesn't strike Nikos as sinful, so it goes into the dustheap of history along with all the others he doesn't see as a threat.
Would it surprise you to know, Nikos, that I largely agree with you on the damaging social effects of promiscuity and so-called sexual liberation? Not because "God's law" forbids them (though it somehow failed to forbid Solomon to have 700 wives and 300 concubines), but because observations and scientific studies have confirmed them. However, I don't see why gays and lesbians who want to commit to stable relationships and who love their children shouldn't have the same respect as straight couples who do the same, since they would provide the same social benefits. At any rate, "us guys" aren't necessarily as lockstep as you like to think.
Nikos concludes:
"Until then, far-left libs, atheists and humanists will continue to delight in their depravity, blind to the clouds of judgment gathering just over the horizon."

And I can hear you salivating over the prospect from here. You can't wait for the fire and briomstone to rain down and prove you right at last, can you?

"So what makes you keep the one as part of God's unchangeable Law, but not the other?" Kuranes

One is a civil penalty for breeching the holiness of the Sabbath strictures in doing a chore that no longer is relevant thanks to electric stoves. More importantly, Jesus puts the Sabbath in persepctive in many places, arguing for application of the principle rather than the man-made traditions of the Jews of his day.

Paul also deals with it in Hebrews 4 in regard to the Sabbath rest. In the OT these spiritual principles were stringently applied to drive home the holiness of God's Law: "Ye shall keep holy the Sabbath." It was more than just a day, it was a time of great awe and holiness that spoke of the very honor and glory of Jehovah; thus the strict penalties.

The death penalty regarding homosexuality was based on an even more central truth of God's created order: marriage between a man and a woman. This glorious dynamic ONLY works between male and female; not otherwise. St. Paul connects marriage directly to Christ and His Church and God's glory. Infraction of this divine institution is directly connected to the Decalogue under adultery (subsumes all sexaul immorality).

Anytime a culture takes a permissive attitude toward a sexual sin it inevitably corrupts that nation, as it undermines the very foundation of all civil order and meaning. But one has to SEE the truth of God's Law as well as have a long-term view of social development to appreciate the need to discourage and suppress sexual perversion and immorality. It's central importance demands the most stringent sanctions.

hey darryl,
i wasn't being cute when i said the "GLBT Shabbat" might be a good venue for you. it's an opportunity for you to meet like minded people. just sayin'.......................

Guttman's sermon -- "Rick Warren: Evolving or Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?"

An opposing sermon might read --"Fred Guttman: Devolving and Most Surely A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing"

Felt I had the freedom to say this since Guttman himself had taken the liberty of questionaing the integrity of a Christian minister.

My statement is based on the OT judgments that God exacted against those kings and priests who welcomed and facilitated the incursion of the wretched practices of the Canaanites into the life and worship of Israel. Knowing this, I would fall on my face and repent of this evil lest I too come under the same judgments. God's rabbis and ministers are to lead God's flock into the green pastures of righteousness, not decieve them into the slime pits of sin.

Guttman's sermon -- "Rick Warren: Evolving or Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?"

An opposing sermon might read --"Fred Guttman: Devolving and Most Surely A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing"

Felt I had the freedom to say this since Guttman himself had taken the liberty of questionaing the integrity of a Christian minister.

My statement is based on the OT judgments that God exacted against those kings and priests who welcomed and facilitated the incursion of the wretched practices of the Canaanites into the life and worship of Israel. Knowing this, I would fall on my face and repent of this evil lest I too come under the same judgments. God's rabbis and ministers are to lead God's flock into the green pastures of righteousness, not decieve them into the slime pits of sin.

Ah, the LAW, what a wonderful story of grace, unmerited favor, and forgiveness!

Shalom

Yes, indeed it IS, Darryl; despite the FACT that we are all under the curse of sin and death and constantly transgress and dishonor God's holy Law, God sent Messiah to die the perfect atoning death, through which, we, admitting we are rebel sinners, can receive his full pardon, grace and Holy Spirit. I'd say that's a truly wonderful story.

Believing simply means trusting in this glorious atonement to asuage God's judgment. Only Yeshua's blood stands between us that judgment. To suggest to people that they can transgress God's Law/Word, and bypass the consequences, is not grace, but disgrace! To

Yeshua preached the full righteousness of the Law so that people would be convicted of their sin, and so cast themselves on God's mercy. To say that we should try to make sinners (GLBT and Guttman) feel "good" about their sins is the very worst thing we could possibly do for them, as they will remain in their sinful state, ripe for judgment. It is not kind or benevolent to confirm people in their transgressions, but the quintescence of biblical ignorance and care-less-ness.

And the blind shall lead the blind.

Shalom

nikos,
i commend you for trying.......................

Meanwhile, Nikos is congratulating himself that although he is a sinner, he is not as wicked as those sinful homosexuals; he goes to church twice on Sundays and tithes his mint and cumin, while condemning people he doesn't know to the eternal torture created by his God of love and mercy. I'm glad that there are no logs in Nikos' eye, since he feels so free to point out the specks in the eyes of others.
Meanwhile, I doubt that God hates gay people as much as Nikos thinks, because if He followed the OT tradition, San Francisco would have been destroyed by fire and brimstone by now, or invaded by ferocious Babylonians who slaughtered and enslaved the population. I have the feeling that if that happenned, Nikos would be among those dancing around the fire and glorifying God.
People can always find reasons for ignoring the commands of God which they don't like or consider unimportant. The fact is that Bible believers have always picked the commandments they thought most important and ignored the rest, just as they have disagreed about every important Biblical doctrine for thousands of years. What good does it do to have an infallible book if flawed and fallible people have to determine what it means? And which Bible do you use, Nikos -- the one used by the vast majority of Christians today, or the Protestant one, with seven fewer infallible books in it? And how were these determined anyway? You can say the Holy Spirit guided the process, as the Roman Catholics do, but where is that written in your ultimate authority, the Bible? Yes, the Bible claims to be infallible (or at least, parts of it do), but so do other books. Since the Bible contains no list of contents in its inerrant text, you are ultimately relying on mere human tradition.

Succinctly, Kuranes: The Bible condemns ALL sexual distortions of the heterosexual relationship, by the overarching standard of the created order of male and female (anatomy and mintality), as well as specific prohibitions against each sexual abomination. The Scriptures are fully inspired and give us the true picture of God's position on sexual sin. He hates it, because it strikes at the very foundation of his divine order for humanity and offends His glory and holy nature.

I am not, and never do, take a postion against sin because I am sin-free and wholly righteous. No human being other than Jesus could have addressed these issues if that were the case. But since we are discussing a particular sin, I merely point out GOD'S enscripturated sanctions against it. But even without the divine injunctions human reason and observation can deduct that the human body is constructed for hetero sex, and that using it otherwise causes all kinds of physical problems, as well as psychological ones - despite denials by GLBT advocates. Try as they may human beings will NEVER change the clear hetero make-up of the human body and psyche, and certainly will never change the divine sanctions against perverted sexual usage. God's created way is holy, glorious and exclusive, and will remain so forever.

Gay activists simply want to build a social array of permissiveness so that they can indulge their perverse desires with impugnity. It is called self-justification. They might deceive society for a time, but ultimately they wilol face the sure judgments of God.

So where does the Bible condemn polygamy (except for bishops and deacons)? And
if God hates homosexuality, why is it so pervasive in the animal kingdom, including many instances of lifelong homosexual mating? See a book called Biological Exuberance, which gives hundreds of examples in many different species. Evidently, God is too busy watching the sparrows fall to the ground to monitor what they do in their nests.

Here's a fun exercise for you inerrantists (and anyone else who is interested): compare the following sets of verses and see whether the Bible contains no contradictions:
At what time in his ministry did Jesus cleanse the Temple? The beginning (John 2) or the end (Mark 11)?
In Jesus' long discourse in John, Peter asks him, "Lord, where are you going"? (13:36), then Thomas says they do not know where he is going (14:5); then Jesus says, "none of you asks me where I am going", 16:5. Was he not paying attention?
Compare Gen. 1:1-2:3 with Gen. 2:4-24. Are animals and plants created before, or after, man? Is Eve created at the same time as Adam, or later?
Compare Gen. 7:2 with 7:9-10; how many animals does Noah take on the ark?
The fifth Egyptian plague kills "all the livestock of Egypt" in Ex. 9:5; then, a few days later, the 7th plague kills every beast left in the field (9:20-22). How could any be left after the pestilence killed them all? Those cattle grew up fast in Egypt, I guess.
Ex. 6:3 God says he did not make his name "Yahweh" known to Abraham; Gen. 15:7 says he had.
Mark says that after Jesus was baptized, he went "immediately" into the wilderness to be tempted. John says that "the next day" after John the Baptist saw the dove descend on Jesus at His baptism, the Baptist called Jesus the lamb of God, and Jesus starts gathering his disciples. No mention of an intervening temptation or 40 days in the desert.They can't both be right, unless "immediately" means something like "behold, I am coming quickly" yet he still hasn't shown up after 2,000 years.
Mark 14:12 indicates that the last supper took place on the day of the Passover, which started at sunset. The following morning, Jesus is crucified, on the day of the Passover. John, however, explicitly says that Pilate pronounces the sentence of death on the day of the preparation for the Passover, about noon (19:14). Different day and time. Even if John changed the day to emphasize Jesus' connection with the lambs slaughtered on the day of preparation, that still means there is a contradiction.
In his birth narrative, Luke says there was a census when Quirinus was governor of Syria. But Quirinus was not governor until 6 CE, after Herod was dead. Therre is no way to reconcile this with Matthew. Not to mention the vast improbability that such a census was ever ordered, or that if it had been, no record whatever of the huge resulting empire-wide disruption of commerce and daily life would have survived. Suppose you had to go to the city where an ancestor of yours was born a thousand years ago, in order to pay your taxes; Where would you go? Now suppose everybody else had to do the same thing at the same time. And suppose the news media made no mention of it. Right. The whole thing is an obvious fabrication to reconcile the prophecy that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem with the well-known fact that Jesus came from Nazareth.
(e.g. Mat. 21:11)
Nearly every detail of Matthew's birth narrative ignores or conflicts with Luke's, and vice versa.

But why go on? People can always come up with a reason that seems plausible (at least to them) for believing what they want. But the intellectual blindfold you have to wear to blot out the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible darkens your vision in too many other areas, and makes real learning impossible in many fields. That may be an acceptable tradeoff to you, but not for me any more. Been there, done that, denied the obvious; no more, thanks. Truth is truth, however much it hurts.

where did the other posts disappear to ? nancy?

my bad....wrong thread..disregard nancy

Kuranes, biblical detractors look at the biblical evidences and inconsistencies as a glass half empty; its advocates as half full. Many supposed contradictions have historically been proven erroneous; others have remained. We studied many of these Gospel incongruities in seminary: some were reasonably solved, others were not. The view of inspiration and inerrancy that I adhere to is that the Gospels, since there are four of them, were written by different persons or schools, drawn from varying sources (Q et al.) and were partly dependent on one another. The discrepancies, seen as half empty are fodder for general rejection of all biblical authority. If seen as half full, as proof of the absence of an expected attempt by the Church to force all the Gospel narratives to fit together perfectly. Their differing time frames and factual variations simply have to be lived with, as it were, showing the differing human sources. Their vast congruency, however, shows that they are fully worthy of attesting to the life and death of Yeshua the Messiah, his teachings, and his witness to history.

Some inconsistencies are transmission errors, common to ms. scriptoriums, cuased by fatigue, poor lighting or eyesight, and the addition of glosses by well-meaning "interpreters." Despite all these human-side badger skins, the purity and efficacy of the divine revelation remains intact. And many prejudicial judgments of the Scriptures are the result of modern inability to understand and appreciate the writing techniques and styles of the ancient world. The Revelation is a case in point of a scripture that is mangled by modern hyper-literalists.

The Gospels themselves were a unique genre of literature of the ancient world, and were often re-ordered for theological reasons (John). This evidences how they differ from modern newspaper reports. The content and force of many of these incongruities remains clear, despite the disputed order. The withering of the fig tree is another classic discrepancy passage. The Gospels, because of their number, are ripe for nit-picky deconstruction. They nevertheless remain potent testimonies to the historical Jesus and his actual teachings and atoning work.

Regardless of the imperfections of the human side of the Scriptures, the divine and spiritual force and content will ever remain true and authoritative. Distorted and perverted sexual practices and mindsets will forever be revealed as abnormal uses of the CLEARLY hetero nature of the male-female anatomy (with or without the Bible) and psycho-emotional makeup. Who on earth says our conduct should be animalistic anyway: macroevolutionists I suppose. No amount of dissing of the Bible or smoke and morrors advocacy can hide the glaring truth of God's intended model - a model that is HOLY to Him and which He will not allow to be abused and trampled upon forever. Judgment for ALL sin, will always happen, because it is contrary to the moral and physical universe. Any brief time of acceptance will eventually be divinely brought to an end, regardless of the best efforts of gay activists and their cronies.

Nikos says that the Gospels "remain potent testimonies to the historical Jesus and his actual teachings and atoning work." That might be true if they had actually been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, people who knew Jesus or the apostles and experienced his "actual teachings and atoning work" firsthand; but it is not likely that they were. Bart Ehrman's new book, "Jesus...Interrupted" gives a good summary of the reasons why, accessible to non-scholars like myself. At least Nikos admits that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Good for you, Nick! One thing Ehrman pointed out is that the "books" of the NT (and the old) need to be read as discrete units, to understand the perspective of the authors. When Paul wrote his letters, he didn't know he was writing part of the New Testament; he was just addressing particular problems and theological issues in his churches. Nor did the other Gospel writers think they were writing Inspired Scripture, as can be seen by the way both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, changing his words and meaning whenever it suited them. But if you import, say, John's theological understanding of Christ as the pre-existent Logos and Son of God into Mark's gospel, then you lose all sense of the human Jesus of Mark, dying alone and despairing, deserted by God and man. This is a moving portrayal which adds to the depth and richness of the Gospel accounts, but if you level it with John's supernatural Christos and Luke's calm, self-aware savior, you lose the very picture Mark was trying to present. Such is Ehrman's contention (and that of the majority of critical scholars and professors in seminaries and universities, according to him), and it makes sense to me. Reading The Bible as a single unified book with an overarching theme guarantees many misunderstandings of individual books and passages, especially when you try to explain away the difficulties.

In admitting "discrepancies" I noted that these stylistic editings were not uncommon in the ancient world and the whole idea of picture perfect recounting of events was not the issue it is today - or supposed to be.

The idea that the Scriptures are some kind of "automatic writing" of news reports from God is not what inspiration and inerrancy are all about. Certainly there are varying perceptions about these concepts, even among more conservative scholars; but to be orthodox and conservative must mean a high level of reliability and inspiration. That I think the Bible purports to be, and is.

The turths conveyed in the Gospels are consistent and true to Jesus' general approach and message. The peculiar variations and disjunctures generated by the genre neither degrade nor detract from the authority and potency of the Word. I was once a wooden literalist, and freaked whenever any variant was proposed in the Gospels or elsewhere. I have since studied the subject rather extensively and feel comfortable with them. They do not bother me because I recognize both the stylistic distance between us and the ancient writers, as well as the problems with transmission. Any textual problems today are greatly exagerated and unduly exploited to generate unbelief.

There is no sufficient number of copyist errors or variant readings that disbturb a central tenent of biblical orthodoxy, or even contingent ones for that matter. I find my Bible consistent and marvelously accurate, spiritually vital and fully reliable in matters pertaining to doctrine, life and godliness; and when properly understood and accurately exegeted reveal a profound unity.

The concepts and passages that glorify pure, natural hetero sexuality are clear, ubiquitous and forceful. Homosexuality is NOWHERE allowed or promoted, and everywhere utterly eclipsed by the created norm of heterosexuality. The fractured theology of gay "theologians" is mere smoke-and-mirrors desperation.

Your responses attacking and undermining the Scriptures are typical of any number of antibiblical elements in today's humanist culture. In order to kill babies in the womb, elect Marxist politicians and have perverted sex one MUST remove the Word of God as the standard of right and wrong. Unfortuantely you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and produce general moral chaos, and have NO ground to say that anything is truly wrong or immoral. A practice may not be conveninet, or to your taste, but it cannot be termed wrong, because it is based on no solid moral authority. One homosexual confided to me that he had had sex with a dog (bestiatliy). So what, in your moral environment - if it feels good, do it.

In fact, ANY departure from God's pure norms of love and sexuality always puts one in danger of committing ever more perverse practices. The sad truth behind the glitzy gay world of the media is a world of emotional trauma, psychological issues and degraded practice. This is the nature of sin - it always tends toward the moral sewer. This includes hetero and homo sins; as well as the greed of corporate and political criminals. It's always and everywhere the same: "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people;" and the "ends thereof are the ways of death." Neither you, Guttman or the GLBT crowd can change this fact. You seem to have no fear of God, and foolishly continue to flaunt God's holy Law. I would strongly advise repentance before the ax falls.

Nikos writes: "I find my Bible consistent and marvelously accurate, spiritually vital and fully reliable in matters pertaining to doctrine, life and godliness; and when properly understood and accurately exegeted reveal a profound unity."
"When properly understood and accurately exegeted" means, of course, when interpreted in ways Nikos agrees with. But anyone who studies Christian history finds that proper understanding and accurate exegesis are not that easily come by. There is not a single sentence in the Nicene Creed which a significant number of Christians have not disagreed about, each side quoting the Bible as their support and claiming that their view is the proper understanding and accurate exegesis. In fact, there is a whole series of books issued by Christian publisher Zondervan called "Counterpoints." Each volume contains three to five views on a theological subject; each view is written by a scholar or Christian authority claiming that his view is the Biblical one and opposing the others. They cover important subjects like salvation in a pluralistic world, sanctification, the relation of law to Gospel, Hell, the Rapture, Church government, and so on. How are these people to resolve their differences when each side involes the supreme and ultimate authority for itself?
Some Christian groups like the Quakers hold that the Bible mandates pacifism; others believe that war is a legitimate Christian calling. Some groups emphasize the love and mercy side of the Gospel, others the law and judgment side. What usually happens in all this confusion is that everyone picks whatever parts of the Bible support the moral stance they have already chosen for other reasons, and uses Scripture to claim divine authority for their own view. I have been in classes that taught that the Bible, "properly understood and accuratelt exegeted," does not condemn loving, monogamous homosexual relationships as such, but only abuses such as rape, temple prostitution and so forth. I have no intention of arguing that issue here because I don't care what the Bible says about it; my point is, what's Nikos going to say in response? Essentially, that his interpretation is right and the other is wrong, which is exactly what the other side says about theirs. Since each side invokes the Bible in its favor, how is the Bible going to resolve the issue? It isn't. All it's going to do is harden each side in its opposition and close-minded self-righteousness, making a resolution impossible. Nikos pretends that his view has God's personal seal of approval, but it really comes from his own opinion, like everybody else's. All the Bible does is let him hide behind God's petticoats. But however much you squeak and squeal, Nikos, can you really thunder with a voice like His?

"Nikos pretends that his view has God's personal seal of approval, but it really comes from his own opinion, like everybody else's. All the Bible does is let him hide behind God's petticoats."

Not so - God has no petticoats since HE is not feminine, but masculine. Sorry feminists, but that's the biblical truth.

Anyway, I concede, as I have before, that there are varying views on CERTAIN subjects, but there is general unity and harmony on the major issues of salvation among truly responsible and intelligent exegetes. These major issues have to do with the central principles of daily life and salvation. One would expect that there would be considerable eccentric interpretation regarding such a large and doctrine-packed volume as the Scriptures. To me, the key principles are very clear and consistent, and the tangential issues just that. The experimental truth of biblical life-principles that I have employed, and millions of others over the centuries, proves the veracity and authority of the Scriptures. If you hate God and His Law/Word, of course you will find any and every excuse to disbelief it and nix it. Such is the very nature of unbelief and apostasy.

Once again, Nikos argues in a circle. There is general agreement on major issues, he says, among "truly responsible and intelligent exegetes." But when you ask who these are, and how we know which exegetes are "truly intelligent and responsible," we are no doubt told that they are the ones who agree with him on the major issues. Each term defines the other.
However, anyone who has read Christian history in any depth knows that there has been widespread and significant disagreement on what the Bible teaches about such minor issues as the nature of Christ (the Arians nearly won that one in the fourth century), the means of salvation (does the name of an eccentric and marginal theologian named Martin Luther ring a bell?), whether we are saved by faith and works, or faith alone (contrast Mat. 25:31-46 with Galatians ch. 3), whether God is a Trinity or a Monad, the nature and purpose of the Church, the existence and nature of Hell, and other peripheral squabbles. These are not minor, sideshow issues in some backwater peorpled by cranks and eccentrics, as Nikos implies; these are central to the faith. There is not nearly so much consensus as Nikos thinks, and even if there were, so what? The Bible would not be any more consistent or humane if its teachings were less ambiguous.

And how does he know what God wears in the privacy of the Divine Boudoir?

I think the Reformed thinking on the major theological issues is generally unified. These are the intelligent and responsible exegetes that I refer to. Roman Catholicism is really an historical compendium of theological currents and eddies, even though it maintains is basic orthodoxy primarily through the Creeds. Otherwise it's a confused mishmash of error and supersition. As, unforutnately, is modern Protestant evangelicalism and neo-Pentecostalism.

Only those who hold to a vital Refromed orthodoxy possess the dynamics of grace and Word. It is not what I think that is my standard, it is the Scriptures and the Refromed Confessions. As I have said before Biblical truth is propositional, not debatable. In other words, it is fully sufficient unto itself and is the end of all searching and controversy. Man must submit himself to its authority or be cast back upon his own vain thoughts and propositions.

Howevern there are some good othrodox thinkers within Catholic ranks, now and historically. They nevertheless tend to more or less accept its errors and excesses regarding Mary, pergatory, transubstantiation, saint idolatry, et al. Luther rediscovered the Gospel and Calvin refined the principles of grace and election. As long as the Scriptures (sola scriptura) remain the benchmark of theology, orthodoxy remains viable. Controversies and disagreemtns on tangential issues inevitably emerge in the folds of human weakness and fallibility. It is the Word of God which is infallible, not its human interpreters. There are key interpretive pinciples, which if adhered to, enable the Gospel and moral Law to properly guide the reborn child of God. That sorry exegesis, pop theology, and TV zaniness abound today is to be much regretted by sound interpreters.

I would rather be fallible and faithful than bitter, unbelieving and under the judgment of the Living God. Dissing God and his Word neither makes it go away or PROVES its untrustworthiness. We are living in a day of wanton hatred of God and His truth. The human arrogance it takes to judge almighty God and His Word is unfathomable to me.

The Gospel and the Word have proven themselves to be saving, life-transforming and enduring rgardless of the biased twisting of its noble truths by its detracters. That some things are considered harsh and unjust in the Scriptures is simply evidence of the spineless relativism of modern humanism. If one has NO perception of what divine moral holiness entails it is easy to accept just about anything today's amoralists propose; from homosexual practice to slaughtering babies in the womb. Forsake God's moral Law and you end up in total hostility to it and the God who gave it, denegating the Scriptures and assailing those who love God and seek to keep His Law in grace.

So Nikos says that reformed interpreters are the only intelligent and responsible interpreters of God's Word. Catholics are mired in superstition, evangelicals and charismatics in excess and compromise, Only he and his remnant have not bowed the knee to the Baal of modernism and a "confused mishmash of error and superstition." But this only proves my point, that all those other Christian groups believe that they, not the Reformed, have the true Biblical teaching in those areas where they differ. They would no doubt be surprised to learn that they lack the "dynamics of grace and Word." Speaking of arrogance, how much is required to condemn nine-tenths of the christian world (at least) for lacking the dynamics of grace and word, and being unintelligebt and irresponsible exegetes? As usual, the smaller the group, the greater its pretensions.
Nikos informs us that "There are key interpretive pinciples, which if adhered to, enable the Gospel and moral Law to properly guide the reborn child of God. " Too bad the Catholics, Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox,and Charismatice lack these principles, which only the paltry few "Reformed Orthodox" are fortunate enough to possess. No wonder all those multitudes wander in the outer darkness, bereft of Nikos and his wisdom, ensnared in the Godless relativism of our culture, which impiously thinks that slavery is despicable, that homosexuals should not be killed because of their orientation, that murdering all the adults and male children of a town but giving its virgin girls to their captives as sexual playthings is horrible abuse and degeneracy, that killing the innocent for the crime of the guilty is a gross miscarriage of justice. Shame on the spineless relativists and atheists of our corrupt and compromised age who frown on such noble teachings of the Word of God, which commanded all these things.

I'm saying that other Christian traditions "lakc these things" - just that I find the best all-around interpretive system to be the Reformed one. I said that there were some Catholic exegetes that have done some marvelous work in biblical studies, etc. But the general grassroots Catholic system is indeed laden with the errors and superstitions of the past. It is said to be a "big tent." It is more like a cirus at times to me; but the fractured Protestant groups are little better, and sometimes worse. I was speaking strictly of interpretive MOs, not the sincerity of other systems. Although believe and theology are key, they are not really the measure of faith God looks at. Although I would greatly disagree wiht Mother Theresa theologically, I must admire her faith and sacrifice. In the end, and taken as a whole, key theological tenets conform the Church to the Word of God, and give her the world view and MO to preach the true Gospel and teach the Law/Word of God to the nations. It's simply a matter of sound exegesis and theolgoical orthodxy.

I'm saying that other Christian traditions "lakc these things" - just that I find the best all-around interpretive system to be the Reformed one. I said that there were some Catholic exegetes that have done some marvelous work in biblical studies, etc. But the general grassroots Catholic system is indeed laden with the errors and superstitions of the past. It is said to be a "big tent." It is more like a cirus at times to me; but the fractured Protestant groups are little better, and sometimes worse. I was speaking strictly of interpretive MOs, not the sincerity of other systems. Although believe and theology are key, they are not really the measure of faith God looks at. Although I would greatly disagree wiht Mother Theresa theologically, I must admire her faith and sacrifice. In the end, and taken as a whole, key theological tenets conform the Church to the Word of God, and give her the world view and MO to preach the true Gospel and teach the Law/Word of God to the nations. It's simply a matter of sound exegesis and theolgoical orthodxy.

Seems to me that "Reformed" groups are just as splintered as any other. When I studied the history of doctrinal development, I was amazed at how much politics influenced the process. Once Constantine started favoring Christianity, the churches began getting favors, handouts, government patronage, and other worldly goodies. Since there were rewards to be had, rather than persecutions, it suddenly became vital to decide which groups were the "real" Christians (who got to control the real estate) and which were the "heretics" shut out from govt. largess and social prestige. The first councils were presided over by those theological experts, the emperors, and decided that God favored whatever the emperor believed. Read about it in Charles Freeman's book, "The Closing of the Western Mind" (Vintage). Christian orthodoxy developed haphazardly and was never unanimous, even when the state enforced it. We are told that doctrines like the Trinity are "orthodox" and carved in stone in Heaven, but they were cobbled together by ingenious theologians trying to make coherent sense out of the contradictory mishmash of Scripture.