Harold
Cynthia
Your definition of heresy and mine are different, I'm not happy having
my words yanked out of context, and used for an attack against me. You
know I have wished I could post things from private emails before, but
couldn't because I didn't believe that was honest, you agreed and told
me we were bound to rules that unscrupulous people weren't. So you knew
how I felt, and you did not have my permission to post my emails, nor
did you ask, and you did it anyway.
I stand by my words, but I value my privacy and you have violated it,
along with my trust.
"Do I need Cindy's permission to publish what she taught
me she believes and wanted me to believe? I don't think so..."
But you misrepresent what I believe.
If I am to be presented before others to be judged by them and be
accused of lying. It is easier to present the whole conversation rather
than watch you present it snipped and cut with your interpretation of
what you think I was saying. I'm sure you can understand that.
Since you want to post what I was teaching then I will just post the
whole discussion for your convenience. This will make it easier for you,
as you can just refer people to this thread in the future ,and I will no
longer have to explain anything as my words can stand by themselves,
unless anyone else has a question.
Many Christians disagree on many doctrines but there are certain things
they agree on; A Creator who loves them and gave his Son who he also
loves to die for them so that they can live eternally with him is one of
them.The God Edwards described, and who you are promoting is NOT the God
in the bible, I know of no one who would claim that he is except you.
For most Christians the God described in your quoted excerpt from
Edwards sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" is abhorrent and a
demon, and not the Father they know love, and have faith in. Certainly
no one could see this God in the example of Jesus' life, or hear Jesus
words in Edwards sermon. It is out of the norm, it contradicts
established
Christian beliefs to teach the unorthodox view of a God who hates and
only
loves a select few conditionally based on their obedience.
I do not agree with the doctrine of eternal hell, and I believe it has
pagan origins, however many who believe in a God of love, and not a
Pagan god have that belief, because there are verses which could lead
one to believe that without studying into the subject fully. Being
deceived, or not being led to that truth yet, which is how I see it, is
not heresy. You have just assumed that. Looking at the words again I
can see how you may have took it that way, but that is not what I meant
and it was not even the main point of our conversation. It is one
statement out of all the rest which are talking about the true Gods
Character, I do not understand how you could misunderstand, however if
due to my wording I have given the wrong impression than I apologize.
The subject only came up once in the emails, because of your insistence
on the fact that Edwards said the same thing as Jesus. For some reason
this whole subject of Edwards has triggered something in you I don't
understand. Just as the 1st commandment was only brought up because I
said the God he described was a Demon, and you turned it into an issue
of me judging my brother, and said he never broke any commandments...
The discussion was about God's Character.You are attempting to turn it
into something else...
The heresy I was talking about, the unorthodox Christian belief, is the
God who you claim hates and abhors us and who we must obey to earn his
conditional love or he will kill us, and if you read the quote you
supplied yourself you will see it is the false God, the pagan God that I
called heresy:
"I do believe the man taught heresy.
- I believe he taught worship of a false God"
Not because of false doctrines as you assume, but because of the
Character of the God he described. It is as I said, his depiction of
Hell just expands on the God he already described as abhorring and
hating
us and holding us over the pits of hell like a loathsome insect.
A few Examples:
"I believe God is love incarnate and does not
act out of Character, if he did so he would be violating his own law,and
Satan would win. You believe God is love is a disinterested benevolence,
and describe his hatred as a active force. That is two different God's
Harold."
"Warnings and threats are different things to me. What he described is a
Demon not God."
"The man describes a God of evil"
" A God who uses fear to make people obey is not concerned with love,
he is forcing the will, and that is not what Our Creator does."
The false doctrines were only an example when you tried to portray
Edwards as teaching the same thing Jesus did.
False doctrines are Not a false God. They are error. The first
commandment is "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" Just like I
quoted to you. Saying those in error will not be in heaven would be
presumptuous. Worshipping the true God, and having a desire to serve
only him will lead them to his truth. Worshipping a false God will only
lead people away and to damnation as Satan intends.
All of our emails on the subject to follow~
~ Cindy
Cynthia
and after me waiting three days and then posting the following on the
NG's "A challenge for Harold" and "a reply on the " Adventists with
backbone" thread:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com>
To: "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com>; <dk...@harborside.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Your posts
: Hi Cindy,
:
: We read your posts and I thought it would be a good idea to
: let you know that Donna is crying and very upset at what she
: feels is betrayal of friendship.
I have been crying for three days now, this hurts me and I feel more
sorrowful knowing that Donna is hurt as well. I am very sorry I do not
want to hurt anyone, but I feel truth needs to come first.
:
: I am sure you had your reasons for making a public challange
: rather than discussing your objections in private first. It
: does seem like a friend would try to prove it to me and
: then allow me to admit I was wrong publically.
I did discuss my objections with you first. To be brief, I told Donna
originally that my objections were not with the texts on wrath of God,
but with the way the character of God was presented. I told her I was
deeply disturbed. She advised me to pray and she would. She asked if I
would like to talk to you and I said I felt I needed to pray first. I
then had a lengthy discussion with you.
But in the meantime you were still posting on the NG what I believe is a
misrepresentation of God's Character. Nothing I said to you caused you
to stop until we finished discussing it, so why should I not respond
until we finished discussing it? My loyalty has to be to God first. By
not saying something because of friendship I would be the same as all
the others who are respectors of people and can never say anything to
each other or post in opposition to a position even when they know the
other is wrong because they do not, and cannot correct a friend. They
put friendship before God. I won't, it doesn't mean I love you any less,
it means I love God more, and because of that I cannot condone what I
know to be error about him. I believe God is love incarnate and does not
act out of Character, if he did so he would be violating his own law,and
Satan would win. You believe God is love is a disinterested benevolence,
and describe his hatred as a active force. That is two different God's
Harold. That is about as big a difference as you can get. Is that what
we are called to do? To reflect his character and be in his image by
having disinterested benevolence?
You say God so loved the world.. Agapao~ past tense
It isn't logical to me. I understand the concept of past tense but
Jesus was speaking past tense the father had already "gave" his son...
We know when Israel came out of Egypt they were far from righteous, they
worshipped false God's, etc yet God did not hate them.
Hsa 11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son
out of Egypt.
Hsa 11:2 [As] they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed
unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.
Hsa 11:3 I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but
they knew not that I healed them.
Hsa 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was
to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat
unto them.
Hsa 11:5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian
shall be his king, because they refused to return.
Hsa 11:6 And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his
branches, and devour [them], because of their own counsels.
Hsa 11:7 And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they
called them to the most High, none at all would exalt [him].
Hsa 11:8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? [how] shall I deliver thee,
Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? [how] shall I set thee as
Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled
together.
Hsa 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not
return to destroy Ephraim: for I [am] God, and not man; the Holy One in
the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.
Hsa 11:10 They shall walk after the LORD: he shall roar like a lion:
when he shall roar, then the children shall tremble from the west.
Hsa 11:11 They shall tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out
of the land of Assyria: and I will place them in their houses, saith the
LORD.
Hsa 11:12 Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel
with deceit: but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the
saints.
If you do a study about hate and wrath, you will find there are certain
rules about about both.
His wrath is when he withdraws his mercy, his hate is for those who
hated him first. You take two verses and build a case against God, in
opposition to the message and revelation his Son brought.
All verses having to do with the unrestrained wrath of God and the
Vengence of the Lord are future, after the judgment,when he says he can
have no pity, and no mercy. The reason for that is that if he did then
sin would be immortalized and that cannot be. He is Just.
Thoughts?
Harold:
: There have been many things you have said which I did
: not always agree with and you can be certain that if I
: felt it was worth arguing about I would have talked to
: you privately.
:
: We would be interested in knowing why you chose to
: not give us that same courtesy first.
I thought I had Harold. I'm still praying.
Love,
Cindy
:
: God bless,
:
:
: Harold
Cynthia
[words in brackets supplied by me for clarification purposes only]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com>
To: "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Your posts
[harold:]
: > : I am sure you had your reasons for making a public challange
: > : rather than discussing your objections in private first. It
: > : does seem like a friend would try to prove it to me and
: > : then allow me to admit I was wrong publically.
: >
[Cindy]
: > I did discuss my objections with you first. To be brief,
: > I told Donna originally that my objections were not with
: > the texts on wrath of God, but with the way the
: > character of God was presented. I told her I was deeply
: > disturbed. She advised me to pray and she would.
: > She asked if I would like to talk to you and I said I felt
: > I needed to pray first.
: > I then had a lengthy discussion with you.
[Harold]
: Yes you had a lengthy discussion which did NOT include any
: discussion of the difference between loves and loved. Let me
: offer another explanation for your actions....
: For three hours you tried to prove your
: theories about the character of God (a term not found in the Bible)
: without success.
[Cindy] [the conversation referred to is a IM conversation]
Nor did you Harold, what is your point? And if you think you are not
trying to teach about the character of God then you are mistaken. It is
the Character that you are teaching about that instills the fear you
believe is necessary. It seems you kept the whole conversation, so go
back and refer to what I said at the end about it seems we agree on most
but disagree on our view of God.
[Harold]
:
: Each time you tried to prove something which Ellen White teaches about
: God I responded from the Bible which contradicted her "truth".
[Cindy]
I am going to combine such comments in one place rather than respond
repeatedly:
Harold said:
: You did not judge him by the law of God
: but by the teaching of Ellen White.
: You spoke evil of a man - not because he disobeyed
: any commandment - but because you thought he contradicted Mrs.
: White's teaching about the character of God.
: Again your theory is not based upon the Bible but
: Ellen White.
: Again you prefer Mrs. White's speculation to the
: facts of the Bible.
: I hope that you see the how you
: choose to ignore the Bible in order to cling to the
: teaching of Mrs. White.
: Or could it
: be that you were just frustrated in not being able to "win" by
: relying on the speculations of Mrs. White, so rather than continue
: to discuss you said to yourself - Oh yeah? take this... and
: fired off a couple of posts.
: Your loyalty is to Ellen White first. I am glad that you have come
: to the knowledge of the truth about salvation. However, if you want
: to continue to grow you will have to learn to filter Mrs. White
: through
: the Bible instead of filtering the Bible through Mrs. White.
: Your logic stops at Mrs. Whites door. The rules of language apply
: whether or not you agree. Logic does not depend on your approval
: something is either logical or it is not. To you, something
: is not logical if it does not agree with EGW.
: With friends like you one does not need any enemies. You have
: done an awful thing in order to defend the teachings of Mrs. White.
: She says "God loves man" and you will fight to hold on to that
: as your truth though it is never stated in the Bible.
[Cindy]
This is unworthy of you. Never once did I discuss Ellen White in our
conversation, nor did I quote her, nor defend her. I have previously
told you the very first truth I discovered was the truth of God's
character, and I was still in error on other issues. That truth is what
led me to others, including the fact that I needed to cease sinning, not
out of fear but from love. I did not believe or read Ellen Whites
writings until the past year, and then I found out she wrote what I
already believed and had learned through the bible alone.
[Harold] [the examples he gives are ones he copied and saved from our IM
conversation]
:
: Here are some examples:
:
: 1. ~Cindy says:
: Edwards strikes me as a man who does not know God, and
: the impression I believe you gave by quoting him was
: that you did not either.
[Cindy]
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in
him.
You believe Edwards was loving, I don't. Warnings and threats are
different things to me. What he described is a Demon not God.
[Harold] [IM quote]
:
: Harold says:
: The images of Edwards are not so different from those of Jesus:
: Matt 10:28
: 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
: kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
: soul and body in hell. Just more graphic and theatrical.
[Cindy]
Jesus was putting Fear in perspective.
[Harold]
:
: You were willing to say a man did not know God who said the
: same thing Jesus said.
[cindy]
He did not teach the same thing as Jesus Harold. The man believed in
eternal hellfire and torture and torment, a doctrine straight from
Babylon and adopted within the Catholic Church after Dante's inferno was
written, that doctrine was carried away with the reformers. It is a
pagan doctrine with a Pagan God, and is Fear based religion. One of the
so called wines of babylon. So yes, I say that man did not know God, and
yes I believe that also addresses violation of the first commandment.
People who believe heresies will not be in heaven, those heresies
prevent them from knowing God, and worshipping him in spirit and truth.
There are many people who will not be in heaven which do things and
believe things that are not explicitly expressed in the ten
commandments. The faith of Jesus includes all of his truth, and those
who keep God's commandments, the faith of Jesus and the Holy spirit
leads to the spirit of that law.
The unrighteous do not inherit a eternal life in Hell. They die!
destroyed body and soul. We will walk on their ashes and Satan will be
brought down and consumed from the inside out in front of us.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is
the second death.
Satan's traits:
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these];
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of
the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past,
that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
God's traits:
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Surely you can see this is Jesus' character, and he said if you had seen
him you had seen the Father. They are one and have the same character.
If you believe that God has the characteristics of the flesh than
something is wrong here.
[Harold]
: James 4:11
: 11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh
: evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the
: law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not
: a doer of the law, but a judge.
:
: You probably cannot see it but you did exactly what James warned
: against. You spoke evil of a man - not because he disobeyed
: any commandment - but because you thought he contradicted Mrs.
: White's teaching about the character of God.
[Cindy]
Harold I am not writing to you and didn't write to you quoting Ellen
White, I am not defending Ellen White. You are defending Edwards, and I
do believe the man taught heresy. I believe he taught worship of a false
God, certainly that is commandment breaking. He also taught that the
soul is immortal. That is Satans big lie as you know. "ye shall not
surely die" when God said you will die.
The man describes a God of evil, He is not my brother, that is not love,
that is error.
1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if
the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest
matters?
1Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things
that pertain to this life?
[Harold quote from IM]
:
: 2. ~Cindy says:
: I believe you have it backward, he IS love, he IS the
: creator(life) the works of the devil are Sin and death, he
: is the destroyer...
:
:
: Harold says:
: Cindy, you just left the Bible and went to opinion:
: Gen 6:7
: 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have
: created from the face of the earth;
[Harold]
:
: In every case where the word destroyer is used it refers
: to the Lord or an angel sent by the Lord.
[Cindy]
Just as he sent Satan an angel to Job?? and all concerned in the story
never knew that, but thought it was God? Even Job who never cursed God
and was blessed because of it never realized the truth, that it was
Satan at work.
Just as The lord tempted David to sin and then punished him although we
know from James that the Lord tests but cannot be tempted with evil and
does not tempt, and never should a man say I am tempted of the Lord?
Note:
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and
he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
And then the scriptures reveal that lord was Satan.
1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number
Israel.
Same story, and who did God stop? The destroying angel of the Lord.
Again: which Lord? Lord is only a title, it is never the name of God.
Jehovah witnesses have that right, the translators removed the Name
Jehovah hundreds of times and replaced it with Lord, or God. They did it
in other places as well, Why? I don't know, but when you use Strong's
concordance you can see how many times it was done. And the new
testament reveals Satan as the God of this earth, I have no doubt he was
not sitting around on his thumbs during 4000 years of history, only to
suddenly arrive in New testament times. There are different names for
God in the old testament and some are defined as the names of Pagan
Gods,
[ I should have said some are used in reference to pagan gods as well]
one must understand all in order to figure it out.
Just as The father was revealed by Jesus, he also revealed and exposed
Satan, which also leads to the revelation of the truth of the Father.
There are very few texts in the old testament about Satan or the devil,
there are *many* in the new testament:
For example:
Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through
death he might destroy HIM THAT HAD THE POWER OF DEATH,
THAT IS THE DEVIL.
1Cr 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth
from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that
he might destroy the works of the devil.
[Harold IM quote]
: 3. ~Cindy says:
: Gods destruction is *always* as a result of mans choice.
[Cindy]
Hsa 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.
Psa 5:10 Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels;
cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have
rebelled against thee
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me;
for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will
destroy them with the earth.
Deu 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them:
he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his
face.
[Harold, IM quote]
:
: ~Cindy says:
: well if you can find a verse where God ever killed or
: destroyed without man first making a choice to do evil,
: then I would be interested in hearing it.
:
: Harold says:
: The babies in the womb when he destroyed the earth by flood.
:
: You could not deny to this nor were you "interested in
: hearing it" as you claimed. I do not think you were interested
: in hearing it at all. I think you said it thinking that I
: would not be able to contradict your truth with the
: Bible.
[Cindy]
Harold Nor did you prove your point, what I said is that we are not told
about babies in the womb, we have no idea of what God plans for them, I
said he is just and what ever he did, or decides we will understand
during the 1000 years in heaven, when we can go over the books, which
are kept for that purpose, not because God needs them.
To that I will add we have to believe and have faith that he is loving
and just because he says he is and he does not lie. He wants us to
understand, no doubts can remain, that is why we too will judge. Because
those doubts could be the seed of rebellion and sin, and sin will be no
more.
You can not say they won't be resurrected either, it DOESN"T SAY. You
supplied your opinion not a bible verse, you brought up something never
addressed in the bible. And if that is the only biblical reason you can
come up with, then leave it, it isn't enough.
God always takes responsibility, but we know he did not create evil nor
does he do evil because in Genesis it says everything he made was good,
and even with Satan it says:
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast
created, till iniquity was found in thee.
So why does God take responsibility and say he created evil?
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
Because he gives us free choice and as his created beings he takes the
responsibility for our choices, just as Jesus took responsibility and
bore our sins, although they were none of his.
His truth is there we just have to see it because he is giving us a
chance to make informed choices so there can be no excuse or ignorance,
and then those who cry and beg and plead will be destroyed with no
mercy.
[Harold and IM quote]
:
: 4.~Cindy says:
: No where did Jesus ever say to teach fear.
:
: Harold says:
: Fear is the beginning of wisdom -
: by the fear of God men depart from evil.
:
: If you think Jesus is not teaching to fear God in this verse
: you are being deliberately obtuse.
[Cindy]
By Fear they depart from evil, No where will you find by fear they learn
to love. The word fear is (sorry to agree with Ronald but he is right
here) not always about terror and dread. Fear can never inspire love,
and no one trusts what they are afraid of. Obey yes, but only on the
outside, the heart is full of resentfullness and rebellion. A God who
uses fear to make people obey is not concerned with love,
he is forcing the will, and that is not what Our Creator does. The ends
justify the means is an apostate belief, and God does not operate that
way, there are too many places where he says "choose" for anyone to
believe that.
[Harold]
:
: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
: kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
: soul and body in hell. "
:
:
[Cindy]
: > But in the meantime you were still posting on the NG what I believe
: > is a misrepresentation of God's Character. Nothing I said to you
: >caused you to stop until we finished discussing it, so why should
: >I not respond until we finished discussing it?
[Harold]
: O, I see, I am not to post until we finish discussing it? I guess
: you decided that we had finished...
[Cindy] [asking him to explain is a reference to my Challenge for Harold
post]
This is not worthy of you, I did not come to you and say how dare you
post this without discussing it with me first. I am simply saying you
did not stop yourself from posting, nor did you discuss it with me
first, nor did I expect you to. Yet you feel I am treacherous for asking
you to explain, and yet you didn't really answer, you supplied your own
arguments and answered them. If you would have answered mine you would
have already answered your own question of where does it say God loves
all men.
:
[Cindy]
: > My loyalty has to be to God first. By not saying something
because of friendship I would be the same as others who are
respectors of people and can never say anything to each
other or post in opposition to a position even when they
know the other is wrong because they do not, and
cannot correct a friend. They put friendship before God.
I won't, it doesn't mean I love you any
less, it means I love God more, and because of that
I cannot condone what I know to be error about him.
I believe God is love incarnate and does not act out
of Character, if he did so he would be violating his
own law,and Satan would win.
:
:
: > You believe God is love is a disinterested benevolence,
: > and describe his hatred as a active force. That is two different
: > God's Harold. That is about as big a difference as you can get.
: > Is that what we are called to do? To reflect his character and
: > be in his image by having disinterested benevolence?
:
[Harold:]
: Cindy I would be surprised if you knew what disinterested benevolence
: means or who taught the concept. Disinterested benevolence means
: that we love those who do not love us - without expectation of gain
: or even appreciation. God acts in love towards those whom he was
: sorry he had made and sent his Son to die for them.
: The ultimate example of disinterested benevolence.
[Cindy]
Benevolence I can understand, that is biblical. God demonstating love
to his enemies (sinners) is benevolence.
Disinterested is no where in the bible. That part you got somewhere
else.
That did not answer my question of what does "God is love" mean to you.
God is Agape, disinterested is not the definition of Agape, and I cor 13
which describes Agape does not include that, the fruits of the spirit
which are God's characteristics given through His Holy spirit do not
include that. His law is his character isn't that right?
:
[Cindy]
: >
: > You say God so loved the world.. Agapao~ past tense
: > It isn't logical to me. I understand the concept of past tense but
: > jesus was speaking past tense the father had already "gave" his
: > son...
: >
[Cindy]
Here you just said I was arguing Ellen White which I was not.
Why I believe you are denying a truth here is because your definition of
how loved is defined in John 3;16 does not hold up when you examine all
the other texts using the word Loved.
[Harold]
: > : We would be interested in knowing why you chose to
: > : not give us that same courtesy first.
: >
[Cindy]
: > I thought I had Harold. I'm still praying.
: >
[Harold]
: You are just kidding yourself...You could not wait to make a
: public response knowing that it would cause a problem. ("I
: hope you recover...) If you had wanted to be a friend you would
: not have been so quick to do what made you feel good.
[Cindy]
This is also not worthy of you Harold. My words to you were not meant
that way, Nor did I feel that way. Doing what you feel is right does not
always
make you feel good, nor did I believe you would greet my posts with
cheer, but I tried to do it in the gentlest way I could.
I did not realize till now that you will not tolerate a sister or
brother disagreeing with you. I have the impression that Donna is
emotionally hurt and you are just suffering from hurt pride.
[Harold]
:
: When you realize your self-serving treachery let us know. Until
: then we do not want to be your friends.
:
: May God loveth you (Heb 12:6)
: Harold and Donna
Cynthia
Hate in Hosea" :
: Hi Cindy,
:
: Just a few thoughts... If a person only tries to prove what
: they already believe they can do so easily. That is the method
: of .........., etc.
Is that what you see me as doing? Do you really consider that they prove
their point? I don't, as I can always prove their errors wrong with the
word of God.
I am not quoting bible verse here, or at least not many, these are also
just my thoughts (alot of them) and not a debate. :-)
:
: A truly honest heart is not afraid to take the other side and
: earnestly test what they believe against the Bible. When I do
: that, if I find a single verse which I cannot reconcile to what
: I believe I must submit myself to the word of God. Doing so
: has kept me from making many errors.
That is as it should be, by the same token if you have many verses
saying one thing and a single verse which seems to say something
different then you can not take the one verse over the majority, because
any truth must have at least 3 witnesses as Jesus explained. And if by
taking one or two verses as truth, it raises more questions and
inconsistancies which cannot be answered, than the interpretation of the
verse is at fault.
:
: You believe that God loves man - test it - start with Hos
: 9:15 examine every word - try to prove that there are
: some men that God does not love just as hard as you
: are trying to prove that God loves all men. Hate in
: the Hebrew often means unloved.
Examine the scripture without bias and seek the truth through prayer and
the guidence of the Holy Spirit, I can do. And is actually what I did do
before I wrote my post, but to try to prove God hates? No, I cannot do
that, I would be seeking to accuse God. God is love and it is love that
fulfills his law, as Jesus explained this love is what all of the law
and the prophets hang on. We both know this to be true, there are too
many verses proving this for anyone to deny it. What the antinomials try
to prove is that Gods mercy and love excuses their sin, but love never
excuses error.
If God does not love someone, or if God hates someone than he has broken
his own law, and is unrighteous and a sinner. If God does not love his
enemies the same way he commands us to do, then he is not only a
hypocrite, but Satan wins. Because if God can't keep his own law, then
no one can. If He can't do it, he cannot empower us to do it. Those
three texts are the only ones which seem to say God hates individuals,
but as I have shown in Hosea he himself explained what that meant.
Satan uses scripture to teach false doctrines and accuse God in the
process, so it is possible to do this but I have no desire to mimic him.
To me the evidence has to start on the basic facts the words that say "I
am the Lord I change not." "It is impossible for God to lie" "God can
not be tempted with evil, nor does he tempt" "God is love" etc. These
are all texts no one argues, they can't. They are simple statements of
fact. The things that God does have to fit these statements of fact, if
they don't. then I have to study until they do.
As For the new testament, where Jesus came to reveal God and make him
known and to explain and fulfill the law and the prophets; No where do
you find the word hate except for an explanation of the unrighteous, and
those who do not know God, except in two instances. Once in the example
I gave where Jesus said no one who did not hate... could be his
disciple, and In Revelation Jesus talks about the Nicolaitans to two of
the different churches. The Nicolaitans took their name from one of the
Deacons of the early Church: Nicholas, he went into apostacy and these
are the people and doctrines warned about "turning the grace of God into
Laviciousness" Strong words and destruction for those who do the same in
the judgment, but even so Jesus did not hate them:
Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
and
Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight
against them with the sword of my mouth.
Jesus does not hate the Nicolaitans who commit abominations he hates
their works and their doctrines.
Over and over the same theme is brought out that God keeps covenant and
mercy with those who love him. Those who do not love God or keep his
commandments do not have his mercy , and it is they who make void his
covenant with them.
Wrath and Mercy are two actions of a Just God. I have done extensive
studies on both wrath and mercy. Those who truly love God have his
mercy, those who don't face his wrath. The condition is our Faith and
love, not his. Without understanding this it is impossible to truly know
God. Without the same love and faith as Jesus we cannot fulfill the law,
we have to learn it from him, and he has the same faith and love as his
Father. There are not two God's, one in the old testament and one in the
new, He is the same. Understanding his Character resolves the seeming
inconsistancies between the two. Which is what Jesus' work was that he
completed and prayed about in John 17.
: Loved:
: The aorist tense (loved) indicates the TYPE of action
: not the time. It represents punctilliar action - something
: that occurs at a point in time.
:
: The time could be past, present or future - though almost
: always past.
No. That is not what it says Harold it says it is rendered most often in
the past tense but this has no bearing on time past, present or future.
Did you consider all the other verse with loved in that same aorist
tense?
:
: The context of John 3:16 leaves no doubt that the action
: occurred in the past - God sent...
Exactly Jesus is saying For God so loved the World he gave his only
begotten Son,
Why you think this means he doesn't still love is something you will
have to figure out for yourself.
:
: At a certain point in time God so (in this manner) loved
: the world (in) that He sent...
:
: He acted in love (loved) towards the world (mankind) which
: he was sorry He had made and demonstrated the God kind
: of love which astounds men.
And then stopped astounding men because that God kind of love stopped?
Why do you love God Harold ? It couldn't be because He loved you first,
you believe that stopped almost 2000 years or more before you were born.
Perhaps this is something you need to think about.. My questions are
rhetoric questions only, they are the same questions I have asked
myself. What motivates you to obey him? How can you be Godlike and Holy
and have his Character when we are forbidden to hate as you think he
does or he will kill us? How can his conditional love empower us to love
unconditionally? And we are required to do that. There is no one we are
not required to love, it can not be an act only, it has to be in our
heart as well as our mind or we do not have any part in the new
covenant.
:
: The point is that His (punctilliar) one time action (loved) is not
: evidenceof continuing action (loveth)
I don't know what to say Harold, no where does it say that this happened
in the past and is no more, I have showed you the same exact prase in
another verse which says Herein is love.
"1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us,
and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one
another.
If you still choose to believe that God does not love present tense, or
that love is conditional I don't know what else to say. His Mercy is
conditional, blessings are conditional, love is not, or it isn't really
love. We are told to love unconditionally. Yet God who is perfect and
who is love, turns it on and off like a faucet? If that is the case then
He is not love as the bible proclaims. *Is* Is a state of being, it is
not an action. Someone who has hate in his heart and acts in love is
condemmed in the bible, it states they don't know God. How can that be
possible if God does the same thing? To me your arguments raise way more
inconsistancies and questions than the other view that God loves
regardless because he is love.
:
: God bless,
Thank you Harold. Don't leave me buddy.
God Bless,
Cindy
Cynthia
From: "Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com
To: "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com>; <dk...@harborside.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: Evidence:
[Harold]
: For example your response to the passage in Hebrews
: which says that the Lord disciplines those whom
: he loveth - but not the bastards.
[Cindy]
You and I obviously read this different Harold, thus my previous
response which was to these statements:
does not "loveth". Unless you want to resort to the
conclusion that the Lord chastens all men,and that all are sons.."
Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth - if he does not chasteneth
all men then he does not loveth all men."
These people who you say God Hates and loves no more are chastened by
the Lord.
Note the following words in hosea 10:
"It is in my desire that I should chastise them"
workers of iniquity boast themselves?
Psa 94:5 They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine
heritage.
Psa 94:6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the
fatherless.
Psa 94:7 Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, neither shall the God of
Jacob regard [it].
Psa 94:8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and [ye] fools, when
will ye be wise?
Psa 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the
eye, shall he not see?
Psa 94:10 HE THAT CHASTISETH THE HEATHEN, shall not he correct? he that
teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
Psa 94:11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.
Psa 94:12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest
him out of thy law;
Isa 64:9 Be not wroth very sore, O LORD, neither remember iniquity for ever: behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people.
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And HATH MADE OF ONE BLOOD ALL NATIONS OF MEN for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though HE BE NOT FAR FROM EVERYONE OF US:
Act 17:28 FOR IN HIM WE LIVE, AND MOVE AND BREATHE, AND HAVE OUR BEING; as certain also of your own poets have said, FOR WE ARE ALSO HIS OFFSPRING
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as WE ARE THE OFFSPRING OF GOD, WE OUGHT NOT TO THINK THAT THE GODHEAD IS LIKE unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and MANS DEVICE. (enthumesis- thinking consideration, thoughts)
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto ALL MEN in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Harold:
and therefore none are "bastards". (If there are no "bastards"
then why would the author say that some are bastards? )
None of this says God does not love them.
I read it :
He Chastens those he loves.
He chastens All
(Therefore he loves all.)
Those who accept chastening are treated as sons
those who he receives as sons of faith he scourges
Those who refuse to be chastened are bastards, and they will die. Their
choice.
This is based on Leviticus:
Hbr 12:6 (1)For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, (2) and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Hbr 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not
obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that],
when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Deu 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and
bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his
place;
Deu 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son
[is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a
glutton, and a drunkard.
Deu 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones,
that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel
shall hear, and fear.
[Harold]
:
: You said:
:
: "None of this says God does not love them."
:
: Yes, Cindy it does not *say* that but it does
: infer that without question.
:
: There are many things those passages do not say,
: but that is not evidence about what it does say.
:
: If I said:
:
: "John kisses those whom he loves but there are
: some whom he does not kiss" - it is clear there are
: some that he does not love.
:
: You could say - but none of this says that
: he does not love them - but that proves nothing.
:
: If your evidence is: this verse does not say ................
: you can prove anything you want. Deal with what the
: verse says - not what it does not say.
:
: It says there are some who do not receive discipline
: and that The Lord disciplines those whom He loves.
: God LOVES man. However there are many verses
: which tell us whom God LOVES and each and every
: one applies only to the righteous and/or those who love God.
Cynthia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com>
To: "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com>; <dk...@harborside.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts...
[Cindy]
:
: > If God does not love someone, or if God hates someone than he has
: > broken his own law, and is unrighteous and a sinner.
:
[Harold]
: Did God kill?
:
: Did God command others to kill without mercy?
:
: If God can kill without breaking His law He can hate
: without breaking his law.
[Cindy]
Harold there are a couple things you believe but do not apply here.
Breaking the law is the only definition we have of sin.
the wages of sin are death.
Thus God kills, he is the Judge. He is Just, his law is unchanging and
can not be altered, if it could have been Jesus did not need to come
here.
Under the old covenant they had judgments which meant killing.
1. because they were a nation, not just a church.
2. to help them and us understand God's unchanging law, and the future
judgment.
Israel was a Nation who had to fight wars, It was not God's original
plan to have men do this, and as Jesus explained things were done
because of the hardness of mens hearts, but from the beginning it was
not so. From the beginning God 's perfect will was that Adam and Eve and
all their decendants never die and never sin, thus he would not kill
either, but as other nations were not walking according to God's perfect
will Israel had to be able to deal with the hardness and ungodliness of
the world around them.
The word Kill in the commandment refers to Murder. God never murdered,
if he did he is unrighteous and not perfect.
In the new covenant. Christians are not a nation and those laws about
going to war do not apply. We also do not carry out the judgments
because God has given all Judgment to Jesus as he fulfills those
ceremonial laws as prophesied. Thus we have no reason to kill. Jesus
will come and destroy sin and all who are servants of it because THE
WAGES OF SIN ARE DEATH. Then he will desroy death. God is JUST~ that
means he keeps his own unchanging law.
Will you next tell me the Holy spirit fornicated with Mary and she
committed adultery because she was espoused to Joseph?
I am done with your accusations of the true God, in order to justify
your opinions and beliefs. The only thing worse than accusing the
brethren is accusing God. The accuser is Satan.
All sin is abhorant, your God who you believe transgresses his own law
is Abhorant to me. He is a sinner and is not Just, he hates, kills,
tortures, demands perfection and Is far from that himself, he is a
hypocrite and a liar. And he was a murderer from the beginning.
Please do not email me again unless you give up your worship of hate and
death.
I will keep you in my prayers.
~ Cindy
And this concludes all that I tried to teach you about God's character
of Love Harold,
I give these emails to you freely here on the NG's to do with as you
will, and as you have been doing since I sent this. Your words were kept
in my emails only for context. If you feel they portray you unfairly
then you are free to post your own emails.
My words elsewhere were not a threat, I don't threaten, they were a
simple statement about how I felt. I do not want to engage in the spirit
of debate you are promoting and I do not want to be tempted to respond
in anger.
I am sorry Harold.
~ Cindy
Harold Kupp
> Your definition of heresy and mine are different, I'm not happy having
> my words yanked out of context, and used for an attack against me. You
> know I have wished I could post things from private emails before, but
> me we were bound to rules that unscrupulous people weren't. So you knew
> how I felt, and you did not have my permission to post my emails, nor
> did you ask, and you did it anyway.
> I stand by my words, but I value my privacy and you have violated it,
> along with my trust.
Since I have no objection to someone posting anything
I have written them privately about what I believe is the truth I
did not act contray to my own rules. The same cannot be said
for you... ("I didn't believe that was honest")
Please feel free to post whatever you like - I have nothing
to hide about what *I* believe.
Yet I must ask -Does your hypocrisy have no limits? If you
do not believe it is honest why do you act contrary to what
you believe? Your morality appears to be quite flexible.
You say you value your privacy - How can someone violate
your privacy by quoting two sentences about what you taught
me concerning those who believe heresy?
I think it is obvious that if I had quoted you in a
positive sense you would have had no objection concerning
your "privacy". One can only wonder at the logic of
saying that quoting what you taught me is an attack.
No Cindy, you do not value your privacy - you value your
ego - and your ego was crushed when I pointed out that your
teaching that "people who believe heresies will not be in
heaven" was religious fanaticism because it excluded the
hundereds of millions of Catholics and Protestants who
died believing in the Trinity or Eternal Torment from salvation.
Cindy:
-People who believe heresies will not be in heaven,
-those heresies prevent them from knowing God, and
-worshipping him in spirit and truth.
Nothing you can say and nothing you can do will
ever change the facts.
HK
"Hell hath no fury..."
Harold Kupp
Cindy one cannot misquote someone by quoting them. Let's examine
what you believe logically...
1. You believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is heresy.
2. You believe (and I quote) "People who believe heresies
will not be in heaven..."
Now lets form a syllogism:
Major Premise:
"People who believe heresies will not be in heaven"
Minor Premise:
The doctrine of the Trinity is heresy.
Conclusion:
People who believe the doctrine of the Trinity will not
be in heaven.
If the both the Major and Minor premise are true then
the conclusion MUST be true. You may choose to ignore
the rules of logic but you cannot change them.
As you can see, I did not put words in your mouth, I merely
related the words that came from your mouth by asking if
the following conclusion is true.
>That would mean that every one of the hundreds of millions of souls
>both Catholic and Protestant) that ever lived who believed that
>heresy will not be in heaven. Is that true?
As long as you continue to believe the Major and Minor premise
stated above, the answer to that question must be Yes. If you
say that the conclusion above is not true then you must reject
one of your premises.
HK
Cynthia
"Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com> wrote in message
news:e537bda4.02110...@posting.google.com...
:
: No Cindy, you do not value your privacy - you value your
: ego - and your ego was crushed when I pointed out that your
: teaching that "people who believe heresies will not be in
: heaven" was religious fanaticism because it excluded the
: hundereds of millions of Catholics and Protestants who
: died believing in the Trinity or Eternal Torment from salvation.
I do not believe those who believe in an eternal hell or the trinity are
guilty of heresies.
: Cindy:
: -People who believe heresies will not be in heaven,
: -those heresies prevent them from knowing God, and
: -worshipping him in spirit and truth.
look up the meaning of the word heresies both in an encyclopedia, and in
your Strong's from the following reference, which I included in the very
email you are getting this quote from.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these];
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, HERESIES,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of
the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past,
that they which do such things SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
:
: Nothing you can say and nothing you can do will
: ever change the facts.
:
: HK
:
: "Hell hath no fury..."
Goodbye Harold
Plonk
Cynthia
Please try to listen;
This is the same exact thing you
posted on another thread which
I responded to over 5 hrs ago.
here is what I posted:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cynthia" <synthian@)localline.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Adventist Trinitarians will not be in heaven (logic)
: "Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com> wrote in message
: news:e537bda4.02110...@posting.google.com...
: "Cynthia":
: > You have misquoted me here, and the words about heresy are yours
: > that you put in my mouth with your question
: >
:
: Cindy one cannot misquote someone by quoting them. Let's examine
: what you believe logically...
:
: 1. You believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is heresy.
This is not a quote, nor do I believe this.
It is faulty logic to start with a false premise.
~ Cindy
Alan M
What if a church declared syllogism to be a heresy ?
Seriously, I reject both premises. Both treat heresy as absolute, whereas
heresy is a relative term anchored to a particular church or religious
system. A heresy in one church could be the accepted doctrine of another.
The first premise is the easiest to take out as it contradicts itself. A
doctrine of a church can't be heresy by definition as heresy is a doctrine
contrary to the doctrine of a church.
Of course, two false premises don't falsify the conclusion, but they don't
confirm it either and they do wreak havoc with the syllogism.
"Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com> wrote in message
news:e537bda4.02110...@posting.google.com...
Teresita
>The first premise is the easiest to take out as it contradicts itself. A
>doctrine of a church can't be heresy by definition as heresy is a doctrine
>contrary to the doctrine of a church.
Heresy is relative. A doctrine of church A can be contrary to the doctrine of
church B, making church A in heresy relative to church B. And since the Holy
Spirit leads to all truth, and since the Holy Spirit is not divided against
Himself, there must be one church (A, B, Z) that is the absolute standard
against which all heresy is known.
Alan M
"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:aq3lb...@drn.newsguy.com...
There isn't necessarily a single church that is the absolute standard. There
could be such a church but it's also possible that different churches
contain part of the standard.
>
> --
> http://web.newsguy.com/teresita/
>
Teresita
>> Heresy is relative. A doctrine of church A can be contrary to the
>> doctrine of church B, making church A in heresy relative to church B. And
>> since the Holy Spirit leads to all truth, and since the Holy Spirit is not
>> divided against Himself, there must be one church (A, B, Z) that is the
>> absolute standard against which all heresy is known.
>
>There isn't necessarily a single church that is the absolute standard. There
>could be such a church but it's also possible that different churches
>contain part of the standard.
In the second case you've got a God who authors confusion, requiring membership
in Church A to get part of the apostolic doctrine handed "once for all to the
saints" and then membership in Church B to get the other part, with no clear
guidelines on where to set the dividing line.
Andrew
"Teresita" wrote:
> >
> >There isn't necessarily a single church that is the absolute standard. There
> >could be such a church but it's also possible that different churches
> >contain part of the standard.
>
> In the second case you've got a God who authors confusion, requiring membership
> in Church A to get part of the apostolic doctrine handed "once for all to the
> saints" and then membership in Church B to get the other part, with no clear
> guidelines on where to set the dividing line.
>
Teresita, one's supreme allegiance must be to Jesus Christ,
and not the Church, even if it's the true Church. Otherwise
we will reject truth, and thus Christ who is the Truth when-
ever the ecclesiastical authorities trample truth in the dust.
If you had membership in the true Church at the time when
Jesus walked among us, would you accept the Savior or
would you report Him to the authorities who had plans to
destroy Him? What would you do??
".. the leading priests and Pharisees had publicly announced
that anyone seeing Jesus must report Him immediately so
they could arrest him." John 11:57
..and would you acknowledge and confess your faith it Jesus,
or would you deny Him?
"..the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that
He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue." Jn 9:32
..but Jesus said..
"..whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess
before My Father who is in heaven. "But whoever denies
Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who
is in heaven." Mt 10:32,33
Harold Kupp
> :
> : No Cindy, you do not value your privacy - you value your
> : ego - and your ego was crushed when I pointed out that your
> : teaching that "people who believe heresies will not be in
> : heaven" was religious fanaticism because it excluded the
> : hundereds of millions of Catholics and Protestants who
Cindy replies:
>
> I do not believe those who believe in an eternal hell or the trinity are
> guilty of heresies.
>
Cindy you are beginning to sound like Paul Tooley...
Nobody asked you if people who believe in eternal
hell are "guilty of heresies".
The question is will those who *died* believing in eternal
torment "not be in heaven" as you clearly stated...
> : Cindy:
> : -People who believe heresies will not be in heaven,
> : -those heresies prevent them from knowing God, and
> : -worshipping him in spirit and truth.
>
You said that Johnathan Edwards believed in the doctrine
of eternal torment and therefore did not know God and would
not be in heaven nor would other "People who believe heresies...".
(See quote below)
Please Cindy, no more Tooleyisms...
HK
Tooleyism: Replies designed to protect one's ego at any cost.
***************************************************
Cindy:
-He did not teach the same thing as Jesus Harold. The man believed in
-eternal hellfire and torture and torment, a doctrine straight from
-Babylon and adopted within the Catholic Church after Dante's inferno was
-written, that doctrine was carried away with the reformers. It is a
-pagan doctrine with a Pagan God, and is Fear based religion. One of the
-so called wines of babylon. So yes, I say that man did not know God, and
-yes I believe that also addresses ** violation of the first commandment**.
-People who believe heresies will not be in heaven, those heresies
-prevent them from knowing God, and worshipping him in spirit and truth.
Harold Kupp
(contrary to the doctrine of her church) and she teaches that
people who believe heresies will not be in heaven.
Cindy on the Trinity
a "cruel heathen monstrosity..."
a "heathen conception of a three-headed monstrosity, "
a "monstrous doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman
Papal Church "
** If you hold the Trinity doctrine, in reality, Christ is no longer
your mediator. **...
The syllogism was relevant only to her beliefs which
are religious fanaticism.
HK
"Alan M" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:<Jjax9.68581$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
Paul
shouldn't have, but it was nice of you to think of me. Just think, now we
each have our very own -ism. Mine is newer than yours, but yours is very
uncomplicated. That is nice.
Your Pal,
Paul
"Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com> wrote in message
news:e537bda4.02110...@posting.google.com...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Cynthia
"Alan M" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:Jjax9.68581$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
:
: What if a church declared syllogism to be a heresy ?
:
: Seriously, I reject both premises. Both treat heresy as absolute,
whereas
: heresy is a relative term anchored to a particular church or religious
: system. A heresy in one church could be the accepted doctrine of
another.
:
: The first premise is the easiest to take out as it contradicts itself.
A
: doctrine of a church can't be heresy by definition as heresy is a
doctrine
: contrary to the doctrine of a church.
:
: Of course, two false premises don't falsify the conclusion, but they
don't
: confirm it either and they do wreak havoc with the syllogism.
Alan,
The problem with this whole subject is that Jesus did not come to bring
us religions. He came to reveal his Father and to save us, to reunite us
with our God who we have been separated from by sin. He did not give us
a Church, His people are his Church.
As I see it Heresy means division,(the same word is also translated as
sect) in order to have a man made system or church declare something as
heresy,or another church as a sect, that would mean the church which
does so is the authority, and others have divided from them. The current
dictionaries give this definition because of worldly understanding,
but the bible teaches that the only authority is Christ, he is the
rock.The authority given to the apostles was to do as Jesus commanded
them to do only.
Mar 13:34 [For the Son of man is] as a man taking a far journey, who
left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his
work, and commanded the porter to watch.
The only head of the true Church is Christ, and truth and error are
revealed through the law and the prophets. His true church are those of
the faith who follow him only, those who hear the word of God and do
it, because God leads them and convicts them through study and the Holy
spirit. We are all accountable, we cannot blindly follow leaders and
teachers into error and not be accountable. This is a plain principle
that runs through the scripture which is stated in one prophecy of the
endtimes like this like this:
Zec 10:1-3 Ask ye of the LORD rain in the time of the latter rain; so
the LORD shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to
every one grass in the field.
For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, and
have told false dreams; they comfort in vain: therefore they went their
way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd. Mine
anger was kindled against the shepherds, and I punished the goats...
This is the same principle in revelation 14 where babylon is identified
as fallen, and Jesus says: " Come out of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Those
who refuse to listen are the headstrong goats who cannot submit to God's
will, but Jesus' revelation to his church also identifies the elect as
the sheep who follow the lamb of God where ever he leads, and as those
who have overcome by the blood of the lamb and who are without fault
with no guile in their mouth...
When you look at the early christian church their unity was one of being
of one accord, they all agreed, and taught the same things. Today's
world teaches a unity of diverse beliefs and a worldly peace because of
it, but this is not what Jesus said:
Jhn 14:27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the
world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither
let it be afraid.
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but
rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three
against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the
father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the
mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter
in law against her mother in law.
And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the
west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
And when [ye see] the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and
it cometh to pass.
[Ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth;
but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? Luk
12:51-57
True unity is found in Christ in God's truth, not by worldly standards,
nor with the world;
The Holy spirit during the early rain only descended on them, once they
gathered together and prayed and came to this one accord, and they
continued this way;
Act 1:11- 14 [the Angel]Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand
ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into
heaven.
Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is
from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode
both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas,
Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon
Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James.
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the
women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with
one accord in one place.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things
common;
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and
breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and
singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the
Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Act 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God
with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven,
and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
Act 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in
Solomon's porch.
Act 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which
Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to
send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Phl 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love,
being of one accord, of one mind.
This one mind which leads us to be of one accord is Jesus Christ, who
our Father in heaven has sent the Holy spirit to represent here on
earth:
Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
1Cr 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions
among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and
in the same judgment.
From all this we can see that Jesus did not come to bring unity or peace
to the world but there is a unity between his followers as they are one,
just as Jesus prayed about in John 17 and within them they have his
peace, not the worlds.
It is very important I believe to understand this distinction and who is
the authority, those who don't are going to fall for Satans deception,
where all the world will wonder after the beast in a false unity, and
promise of peace. he will have authority, but revelation reveals it is
false, and identifies satan as the ruler of the worldly system:
Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet
were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and
the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Paul was accused of heresy by the Jewish leaders who had the same idea
that many churches today have, (this is also apparently Harold's
definition ) that they were the authority and that they defined truth
and error and what is a correct doctrine. They saw his teachings as a
division from the true church, theirs. His answer was:
Act 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse
me.
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after THE WAY WHICH THEY
CALL HERESY, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things
which are written in the law and in the prophets.
The new testament reveals that there would be a departure from the
truth, heresies (or division) in the church during the latter days:
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as
there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in
damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring
upon themselves swift destruction.
You find this prophecy in Revelation 12 where the Woman is God's Church
and the devil as the dragon spits out water (which is people and nations
and tongues) at her in order to cause division. This results in
confusion and this is the definition of Babylon, but Jesus as the true
head of his church calls his people out and they hear him, satan then
goes to war with the remnant of the womans seed or those in the
churches, which have the testimony of Jesus and keep the commandments of
God. We know the victory already belongs to God, and just as he poured
the early rain out on those who were in one accord and followed him only
so too will the latter rain be poured out.
Hsa 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going
forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain,
as the latter and former rain unto the earth.
Jam 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.
Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and
hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
This is where we are today. the divisions or heresies have occured. Many
people are in ignorance of these things that happened way before they
were even born, to call them heretics is not right,they had no part in
it and did not cause it. Our God winks at times of ignorance and leads
those who love him to the truth, we can do no less. We can only share
what we have learned and leave the convicting to the Holy spirit who
leads to all truth. those who take part in this early rain and submit to
God's will for them will be given the latter rain when needed.
Certain things christians as a whole reject as heresy, a couple of
examples would be, that Jesus is not the Son of God, that His law is not
the law of love, that we can be saved by anything else but Jesus. etc.
Things like the trinity? Well first everyone would have to agree on what
the trinity is and means, No one does. I reject the term trinity because
it is not biblical, Godhead is, but I know many who use the term trinity
who believe exactly as I do. Or the law of love being the commandments
of God? I believe that, others believe the law of love abolished the
commandments, these are all issues of truth and error which must be
determined by a thus saith the lord from the scriptures and the Holy
Spirit. Apostacy is present in our world today, but apostacy is turning
away from a established truth you previously were convicted on, or
rejecting God. Again, who can tell what is in someones heart, except
God? someone may be in an apostate church and not be an apostate
themselves because they are being led to God's truth, and not departing
from it.
That is why most of us post here, because we are looking for God's truth
and wanting to share and lead others to the truth we have learned, but
none of us are the authority, and should usurp Jesus' role as judge of
who is saved and who is damned, we can only judge truth and error by the
scriptures and know others by their fruits... and we must all depend on
Jesus to protect us from deception, and to lead us. A church who is part
of Jesus true church (spiritual Israel) will only acknowlede Jesus as
the authority, and the scripture as the definition of truth and error,
those within the church will do the same.
God bless,
Cindy
Alan M
misrepresents her beliefs.
Cynthia
"Alan M" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
: I just analysed the argument the way I saw it. Cindy has stated the
argument
: misrepresents her beliefs.
Also misleading is the fact that the words quoted as mine are actually
J.S. Washburns.
~ Cindy
:
:
: "Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com> wrote in message
:
:
Harold Kupp
> and wanting to share and lead others to the truth we have learned, but
> none of us are the authority, and should usurp Jesus' role as judge of
> who is saved and who is damned, we can only judge truth and error by the
> scriptures and know others by their fruits... and we must all depend on
> Jesus to protect us from deception, and to lead us.
Well, how your tune has changed. My objection was that you
were judging Johnathan Edwards as a man who did not know God
and was in violation of the First commandment BECAUSE he
believed in the doctrine of Eternal Torment.
Here is what I said:
Harold says:
In any event why would you say
Edwards does not know God if it means Edwards
did not have salvation according to the Bible?
How can you judge...
~Cindy says:
because we are told that if we will judge angels we can
judge these things. Edwards describes a God of Hate,
that is error.
Cindy, for you to deny that you believe that Johnathan
Edwards did not know God and did not have salvation is
absurd in the light of your own testimony as follows:
Cindy:
-The man [Edwards] believed in
-eternal hellfire and torture and torment, a doctrine straight from
-Babylon and adopted within the Catholic Church after Dante's inferno was
-written, that doctrine was carried away with the reformers. It is a
-pagan doctrine with a Pagan God, and is Fear based religion. One of the
-so called wines of babylon. So yes, I say that man did not know God, and
-yes I believe that also addresses violation of the first commandment.
-People who believe heresies will not be in heaven, those heresies
-prevent them from knowing God, and worshipping him in spirit and truth.
It is just as wrong to add to the law of God as it is to take
away from it. By doing so you judge the law and make yourself
the judge. By judging Edwards as a violator of the first
commandment because he believed in Eternal Torment you have
added to the law.
James 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil
of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law,
and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not
a doer of the law, but a judge.
HK
Harold Kupp
: I just analysed the argument the way I saw it. Cindy has stated the
: argument misrepresents her beliefs.
Cindy:
>Also misleading is the fact that the words quoted as
>mine are actually J.S. Washburns.
Check the original post below Cindy. I included your original
comment:
Cindy to John:
> You may find the following quote and letter of interest:
Washburns comments are in quotation marks. Are you now
going to deny that you do not believe what Washburn taught?
If so why did you quote him?
HK
"Curiouser and curiouser"
hk...@harborside.com (Harold Kupp) wrote in message
news:<e537bda4.02110...@posting.google.com>...
> Kupp
> > :
> > : Cindy one cannot misquote someone by quoting them. Let's examine
> > : what you believe logically...
> > :
> > : 1. You believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is heresy.
> >
> Cindy:
> > This is not a quote, nor do I believe this.
> >
>
> Heresy: "an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma."
> Webster's
>
> Is the doctrine of the Trinity contrary to the dogma of your church?
> Dare you stand before God and say "No"?
>
> Cindy in the post below you say the doctrine of the Trinity is:
>
> a "cruel heathen monstrosity..."
>
> a "heathen conception of a three-headed monstrosity, "
>
> a "monstrous doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman
> Papal
> Church "
>
> ** If you hold the Trinity doctrine, in reality, Christ is no longer
> your mediator. **...
>
> And then you claim that you do not believe that the Doctrine of the
> Trinity
> is a heresy? Really Cindy, you are making a fool of yourself...
>
> HK
>
> From: Cindy (synt...@localline.com)
> Subject: Re: The Cindy Equations
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
> Date: 2002-05-30 21:16:30 PST
>
> (snipped for brevity)
>
> "John Martin"
>
> > Thanks Cindy for your reply.
> > On the "Trinity" issue I'm not sure what
> > the difference is between your belief and the trinity doctrine currently
> > taught in the SDA church.
>
> Cindy:
> You may find the following quote and letter of interest:
>
> "Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able
> to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the
> denomination's
> Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to
> agree to
> belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the trinity." ~
> Ministry,
> October 1993, p. 10.
>
> "The doctrine of the Trinity is a **cruel heathen monstrosity,**
> removing Jesus
> from his true position of Divine Savior and Mediator. It is true we
> can not
> measure or define divinity. It is beyond our finite understanding, yet
> on
> this subject of the personality of God the Bible is very simple and
> plain.
> The Father, the Ancient of Days, is from eternity. Jesus was begotten
> of the
> Father.... Satan has taken some heathen conception of a
> three-headed monstrosity, and with deliberate intention to cast
> contempt
> upon divinity, has woven it into Romanism as our glorious God, an
> impossible, absurd invention. This monstrous doctrine transplanted
> from
> heathenism into the Roman Papal Church is seeking to intrude its evil
> presence into the teachings of the Third Angel's Message.
> .
> And the fact that Christ is not the mediator in the Roman Church
> demonstrates that the Trinity destroys the truth that Christ is the
> one, the
> only mediator. The so-called Christian Church, the Papacy, that
> originated
> the doctrine of the Trinity, does not recognize him as the only
> mediator but
> substitutes a multitude of ghosts of dead men and women as mediators.
>
> ** If you hold the Trinity doctrine, in reality, Christ is no longer
> your mediator. **...
>
> ... If, however, we leap over all these minor, secondary
> doctrines and accept and teach the very central root, doctrine of
> Romanism,
> the Trinity, and teach that the son of God did not die, even though
> our
> words seem to be spiritual, is this anything else or anything less
> than
> apostasy, and the very Omega of apostasy?.
>
> **********************************************************
>
> Here are some additional comments about the Omega heresy...
>
> You say that the Trinity is the "Omega" of apostasy
>
> Cindy:
> " If we accept and teach the very central root, doctrine of Romanism,
> **the Trinity,** and teach that the son of God did not die, even
> though our words seem
> to be spiritual, is this anything else or anything less than apostasy,
> and the very Omega of
> apostasy?."
>
> According to your comments below, Mrs White refers to the Omega as
> heresy...
>
> 1. "...but Ellen White clearly said that it contained within obvious
> truths,
> the Alpha heresy, which would lead to the **Omega heresy** of the end
> times."
>
> 2. "...NIV removes "Alpha and Omega" this should interest those SDA's
> who
> have read Ellen White's prophecy about the Alpha and **Omega heresy**
> of the last days.
>
> 3."Ellen White talked about the Alpha heresy of her day, and said the
> **omega heresy** would come in the last days."
>
> Cindy, are we now to believe that you do not think the Trinity
> doctrine - which you call the "very Omega of apostasy" is NOT a
> heresy?"
Harold Kupp
: I just analysed the argument the way I saw it. Cindy has stated the
: argument misrepresents her beliefs.
Cindy:
>Also misleading is the fact that the words quoted as mine are
>actually J.S. Washburns.
Yes Cindy I did assume that the words I quoted were what you
said. Which of these statements I quoted concerning
the Trinity doctrine are you not in agreement with?
>
> a "cruel heathen monstrosity..."
>
> a "heathen conception of a three-headed monstrosity, "
>
> a "monstrous doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman
> Papal Church "
>
> ** If you hold the Trinity doctrine, in reality, Christ is no longer
> your mediator. **...
>
In what way am I misleading anyone about your beliefs concerning
the Trinity doctrine?
HK
HK
Paul
"Harold Kupp" <hk...@harborside.com> wrote in message
news:e537bda4.0211...@posting.google.com...
Cynthia
"Paul" <pa...@tooley.com> wrote in message
news:3dcec042$1...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
: Does HK stand for Hippo Krit?
: > Well, how your tune has changed. My objection was that you
: > were judging Johnathan Edwards as a man who did not know God
: > and was in violation of the First commandment BECAUSE he
: > believed in the doctrine of Eternal Torment.
This is ridiculous Harold. It is your choice to believe that, and then
object to your own false assumption, nothing I say causes you to listen.
You seem to think you know what I mean and believe better than I do. Do
you realize that when I wrote *plonk* it meant I killfiled you?
Alan M
"Cynthia" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
news:3dcf1736$1...@news.teranews.com...
What's missing from this picture Cindy is that the *plonk* hasn't been put
through the rigours of a syllogism ... but, if it were to be, and the major
*plonk* premise is true, then it would follow that you've killfiled Harold.
Henceforth, the tactic has earnt its wings.
Harold Kupp
> : > were judging Johnathan Edwards as a man who did not know God
> : > and was in violation of the First commandment BECAUSE he
> : > believed in the doctrine of Eternal Torment.
>
Cindy
> This is ridiculous Harold. It is your choice to believe that, and then
> object to your own false assumption, nothing I say causes you to listen.
> You seem to think you know what I mean and believe better than I do.
Ridiculous is the correct word Cindy. It is ridiculous for you to
continue to deny that you said Edwards did not know God.
Here is another comment you have coveniently forgotten...
Harold says:
In your opinion! "fear him who can cast into hell and destroy
body and soul" is threating in the sense you are using the word.
You just don't like the way Edwards put it - fine! But to say
that he does not know God is wrong.
~Cindy says:
well I can not help it Harold, ***I believe he doesn't** we
know God by his commanmdment and those commandments are
based on love, if someone does not teach that they are a
liar and the truth is not in them.
(plonk)
"I BELIEVE HE DOESN'T..." You believe Edwards doesn't know
God. Your direct reference to 1 John
2:4 proves that you were saying that Edwards did not know
God and was a liar...
> Do you realize that when I wrote *plonk* it meant
>I killfiled you?
No, I thought it was the sound of you falling in the ditch
you dug with your own mouth.
HK
Perhaps these quotes will help jog your memory about
saying Edwards did not know God...
Harold:
Ok then by what standard are you judging Edwards?
Cindy:
Where he made up scenarios without quoting the
scripture, that was based on how he viewed God and not
on anything he read in the bible
(plonk)
Harold
How does that mean he does not know God. To say that a
man does not know God is to say he is lost...
***
Harold
It was Jesus who destroyed man in the flood. If Edwards
had said: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks
upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into
the **flood** it would be true and don't forget that
Jesus is going to destroy the earth and all men with fire.
In any event why would you say Edwards does not know God
if it means Edwards did not have salvation according to the
Bible. How can you judge...
Cindy:
because we are told that if we will judge angels we can
judge these things. Edwards describes a God of Hate,
that is error.
(plonk)
Harold [1 Jo 2:3-4]
You can't judge them yet. The only standard the Bible offers
to judge whether a man knows God is keeping the commandments -
where is your standard written?
***
Harold
In your opinion! "fear him who can cast into hell and destroy
body and soul" is threating in the sense you are using the word.
You just don't like the way Edwards put it - fine!
But to say that he does not know God is wrong.
Cindy
well I can not help it Harold, I believe he doesn't we
know God by his commanmdment and those commandments are
based on love, if someone does not teach that they are a
liar and the truth is not in them.
(plonk)
Harold Kupp
> >
>
> What's missing from this picture Cindy is that the *plonk* hasn't been put
> through the rigours of a syllogism ... but, if it were to be, and the major
> *plonk* premise is true, then it would follow that you've killfiled Harold.
> Henceforth, the tactic has earnt its wings.
Well, syllogisms are not for everybody. They are only useful
for people who prefer reason to rhetoric. There are some on
this group who do not know the difference between a Major Premise
and a drum major (and do not want to know)
Since a fool is "one who does not use reason" the *conclusion*
is obvious...even without a syllogism.
HK
Cynthia
"Alan M" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
:
: "Cynthia" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
:-o
I accidentally sent this which is why I never signed it, I meant to save
it in my drafts folder. I had some questions regarding Harold's quotes
and where they came from as I didn't recall ever discussing salvation. I
wanted them answered first.
Killfiling does not prevent posts from appearing on google or newzbot
apparently, and seeing some false doctrinal assumptions on Harolds part
in other posts I am thinking I should not have killfiled him. I am
therefore unblocking him and will just try to not respond to personal
comments or repetative arguements. :-)
Thanks for responding or I wouldn't have known I had even posted, my
posts never appear on newzbot for some reason.
~ Cindy
:
:
:
Cynthia
: Kupp
: > : > Well, how your tune has changed. My objection was that you
: > : > were judging Johnathan Edwards as a man who did not know God
: > : > and was in violation of the First commandment BECAUSE he
: > : > believed in the doctrine of Eternal Torment.
Hmmm... Do you need to remove your fingers from your ears?
Harold:
: You spoke evil of a man - not because he disobeyed
: any commandment - but because you thought he contradicted Mrs.
: White's teaching about **the character of God.**
Cindy answered:
"I do believe the man taught heresy. I believe he taught worship of a
false
God, certainly that is commandment breaking."
There is nothing wrong with your quotes, it is your qualifying
statements, assumptions and conclusions about them which are false.
I do believe that the doctrine of eternal hellfire is false, and a
afterlife with an immortal soul has always been part of pagan religions.
I also believe it portrays God's character incorrectly, but I would
never say that Christians who believe in eternal hellfire will not be in
heaven because the bible does not say that, and we have a God of love
who reads the intents of our heart, and leads to knowledge of himself.
The bible does say those who worship false God's will not be in heaven,
and the Creator says" I am the Lord your God, thou shalt have no other
God's before me."
You disagree with what I believe is the definition of a false God, fine.
We will all stand before the judgement seat of Christ and give an
account of ourselves, so disagree, but strife, wrath and false witness
have no place in a born again Christians life, so please stop your
specious arguments they are hurting you, not me.
It would be more productive to actually discuss God's character, which
is how this conversation started out. Remember?
Harold:
It is ridiculous for you to
: continue to deny that you said Edwards did not know God.
It is plain I have never done so, this is another false statement.
I did not even deny this one time, much less continue to do so.
Your opinions aren't facts.
Just as those who do not know God will not be in heaven also whosoever
maketh and loveth a lie will not be in heaven.
...if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto
him, Which? Jesus said...Thou shalt not bear false witness...Mat
19:17-18
Does this mean I am judging your salvation? Certainly not! nor was I
judging Edwards salvation, that is what *you keep adding in*.
'Thou shalt not judge' is an evasive argument and accusation that those
who can not deal with reproof, correction, instruction, or disagreement
with their beliefs, make instead of sticking to the topic and answering
with a thus saith the lord.
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works.
In Christian love,
Cindy